Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 879 (MP)

Kamal Jain v. State of M. P.

2002-09-19

A.K.MISHRA

body2002
JUDGMENT In these three writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the order dated 21.12.2000, Annexure-P/9 in W.P. No. 651/2001. By this order the State Government considered the applications made by six persons and allowed the application of Kunwar Vikrant Singh Patel, respondent No. 3 with respect to Survey No. 218 and 220 for 17 hectares. Lease for prospecting licence for lime stone was granted. The applications filed by Abhay Kumar Jain, M/s Chunnilal Harishanker Nema, Shri Ajay Jain, Shri Kamal Jain and Shri Sharad Jain were dismissed on the ground that they were not entitled for the priority as per section 11(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as "the MMRD Act"]. The grant was made for a period of one year. That period has come to an end on 22.12.2001. Petitioners assail the grant made in favour of the respondent No.3 Kunwar Vikrant Singh Patel on the ground that firstly when there were rival applicants and there was dispute with respect to availability of the minerals, proper procedure for the State Government was to obtain the applications after ascertaining the availability of the nature of minerals in the mines in question. The second submission raised by the petitioners to assail the impugned order that the provision of section 11 (2) of the MMRD Act is not applicable with respect to minor minerals. Thus, the State Government erred in law in not proceeding in accordance with law while disallowing applications filed by the petitioners and allowing that of respondent No.3 Kunwar Vikrant Singh Patel. In W.P. No. 1990/2001 a return has been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2. It has been contended that the application moved by the respondent No.3 was for lime stone, whareas the petitioners had applied quarry lease of marble. As per section 11 of the MMRD Act preferential rights are given. Lime stone was major mineral. Report from Director, Geology and Mining was received on 19.12.2001 Annexure-R/l but before that the grant of prospecting licence was made in favour of respondent No.3. In the report it was opined that the area contains the minor minerals. Thus, the action of the respondents is proper and calls for no interference. The period of prospecting licence has already expired on 22.12.2001. In the report it was opined that the area contains the minor minerals. Thus, the action of the respondents is proper and calls for no interference. The period of prospecting licence has already expired on 22.12.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the report indicates that low grade dolomite lime stone is available in the quarry in question which is highly siliceous in nature and traversed by fine quartzitic veins. This can be treated as "minor mineral". This may take polish. Thus, section 11 was wrongfully applied by the State Government. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Gorelal Dubey v. State of M.P. 1976 JLJ 547 para 11 to contend that when there are two rival claimants with respect to lease of minor minerals and others minerals it was not open to State Government to merely ignore the applications of other incumbents. The proper course in such situation is to direct the State Government to consider both the applications determine the question as to whether the quality of the limestone contained in the area in question is such that a lease to quarry it as "minor mineral" should be granted or is such that a lease for mining it as a "major mineral" should be granted and then it should proceed to grant the lease. Another decision pressed into service by learned counsel for the petitioners is Shyambabu v. Union of India and Ors. 1983 JLJ 232 in which decision of Gorelal Dubey (supra) has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court. Shri B.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the period for which the lease was granted in favour of the respondent No.3 is already over. As such no interference is called for. Report was obtained from the Director, Geology and Mining but before it could reach State Govt. the decision was taken. The report was not considered by the State Government as it was received subsequently after grant of prospecting licence. Perusal of the order P/9 indicates that mind was not properly applied by the respondents to the report obtained from the Director, Geology and Mining. the decision was taken. The report was not considered by the State Government as it was received subsequently after grant of prospecting licence. Perusal of the order P/9 indicates that mind was not properly applied by the respondents to the report obtained from the Director, Geology and Mining. It should have been decided by the State Government whether the lease has to be granted for a "major mineral" or "minor mineral" in view of the report that has not been done by the State Government before granting lease in favour of the respondent No.3. The report indicates that the availability is of "minor mineral" in the area in question the report should have been obtained first by State Govt. before making grant to respondent No.3, thus, grant made is illegal as provision of section 11 MMRD Act 1957 was applied, in view of report the section 11 was not to be applied to the case and the rejection of application of petitioner is bad in law. First availability of the nature of minerals, has to be ascertained and if it is a major mineral question of applicability of section 11 arises. If it is a case of minor mineral, as mentioned in report of Director Geology and Mining, obviously procedure of section 11 of the MMRD Act is not applicable, as per section 14 of the MMRD Act which makes it unequivocally clear that provision of sections 5 to 13 shall not apply to quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals. Whatever that may be, since the period of lease is over, it was granted for one year, it is directed that the State Government should consider the report in objective manner. In case there are other applications pending, they should be considered in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court. Writ petitions are allowed. The grant of quarry lease in favour of respondent 3 is held to be bad in law so also the rejection of application filed by petitioners. The respondent State to consider all pending applications in terms of this order in accordance with the Rules.