Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 664 (KAR)

N. SHAIK SAB v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2006-08-17

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2006
D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) WRIT petition by a person who has filed an application for grant of mining lease in respect of an extent of 360 acres of land in Block 13 of Joga Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary, in response to a notification No. CI 33 MMM 1994, Bangalore, dated 15. 3. 2003, copy at Annexure-A to the petition. It is stated that the application is filed under Rule 22 of the Mining Concession Rules, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') ( 2 ) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner is that though this application under Rule 22 in the prescribed form-A was made as on 29. 9. 2004 and more than a year from the date of the application has elapsed the respondents have not considered and passed orders on the application of the petitioner, that the petitioner had made representation in this regard on 28. 6. 2006, copy at annexure-C to the petition, even then there being no response, the present writ petition praying for issue of a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease as is required to be done by the respondents in terms of the provisions of Rule 63a of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. ( 3 ) SUBMISSION of Sr. Chidanandayya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that an application of the nature filed by the petitioner is required to be disposed of within a period of 12 months in terms of the mandatory provisions of Rule 63a (c) of the Rules and even then under the provisio to the Rule particularly the 3rd proviso, State Government if is not able to dispose of the application within a period of 12 months, the reasons for the delay should be given in writing; that the respondents having not either given the reasons or having disposed of the application, a writ of mandamus should be issued. ( 4 ) I have persued the writ averments and considered the submissions at the bar. Rule 63a of the rules reads as under: [63a : The State Government shall dispose of the application for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting license or mining lease in the following period: a) Reconnaissance Permit - within six months from the date of receipt of the application for reconnaissance permit under Rule 4a. Rule 63a of the rules reads as under: [63a : The State Government shall dispose of the application for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting license or mining lease in the following period: a) Reconnaissance Permit - within six months from the date of receipt of the application for reconnaissance permit under Rule 4a. b) Prospecting License - within nine months from the date of receipt of the application for prospecting license under Rule 10. c) Mining Lease - within twelve months from the date of receipt of the application for mining lease under Rule 22; provided that the aforesaid periods shall be applicable only if the application for reconnaissance permit, prospecting license or mining lease, as the case may be, is complete in all respects ; provided further that the disposal by the State Government in case of minerals listed in the First schedule to the Act shall mean either recommendation to the Central Government for grant of the mineral concession or refusal to grant the mineral concession under by the State Government under Rule 5 for reconnaissance permit, Rule 12 for prospecting license and Rule 26 for mining lease and in all other cases, disposal shall mean either intimation regarding grant of precise area or refusal to grant the mineral concession under Rule 5 for reconnaissance permit, Rule 12 for prospecting license and Rule 26 for mining lease; provided also that in case the State Government is not able to dispose of the application for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting license or mining lease within the period as specified above, the reasons for the delay shall be given in writing. ] ( 5 ) RULE 63a is a provision mandating the manner in which an application of the nature filed by the petitioner under Rule 22 is required to be disposed of under these rules occuring in Mineral concession Rules, 1960. Admittedly the land that is sought to be leased belongs to the State government as also the Mineral in the land. It is the prerogative of the State to lease or not to lease its land in favour of any person. However, if the State so chooses to lease the land in favour of any person, the State is bound to act in a fair, non-arbitrary, objective manner. It is the prerogative of the State to lease or not to lease its land in favour of any person. However, if the State so chooses to lease the land in favour of any person, the State is bound to act in a fair, non-arbitrary, objective manner. There are a catena of judgments taking the view that there is no compulsion on the part of the State to grant lease in favour of any person any of the land it owns. The State may lease or may not lease. It is only if the State chooses to so lease, it should follow the procedure as is contemplated under the mines and Mineral Development Regulation Act, 1957 for the administration of which, Mineral concession Rules, 1960, have been made by the Central Government. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, basically no right of the petitioner is involved in a matter of this nature for seeking grant of lease of a land owned by the State in favour of the petitioner. However, as a statutory procedure has been provided for, when the State chooses to lease the State Government is required to follow the Statutory Procedure. The State in the present case has notified that such land is available for grant of lease in terms of the notification at Annexure-A. It is open to the petitioner to insist on the State to follow the procedure contemplated under the Mineral concession Rules, 1960, while granting such lease. ( 7 ) RULE 63a does provide that if the State Government is not in a position to dispose of the applications so received within a period of 12 months, it will have to give the reasons for the delay in writing etc. At this stage even going by the provisions of Section Rule 63a, an applicant like the petitioner is only entitled to know the reasons for which the application has not been disposed of so far,. e. , within in the stipulated period of 12 months. ( 8 ) IN fact the Sate Government may choose to reject all applications and there cannot be any compulsion on the State to grant lease in favour of one or the other applicant. e. , within in the stipulated period of 12 months. ( 8 ) IN fact the Sate Government may choose to reject all applications and there cannot be any compulsion on the State to grant lease in favour of one or the other applicant. e. , there is no right in favour of any applicant to seek for lease, but only a procedural duty on the part of the respondent-State to dispose of such applications within a period of 12 months and if not to give reasons for the delay. ( 9 ) UNLESS the State in fact has entertained any application and granted lease it cannot be said that the State has distributed it's largess and hence the nature of right of the applicant is only a fair and objective treatment at the hands of the State which meets the test of reasonableness under article 14 of the Constitution of India and nothing beyond. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, while I am of the view that there cannot be any compulsion on the State to consider the application of any of the applicants even in pursuance of the notification dated 15. 3. 2003, Annexure-A, if one goes by the statutory procedure imposed, at the best the State government should have indicated the reasons for the delay. In the representation made by the petitioner such being not the request or demand nor such being the prayer in the writ petition, the petitioner having not prepared the ground for seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent - State to disclose the reasons for non-disposal of the applications within 12 months from the date of receipt of the application, I do not find any justification to call upon the respondent / State to consider the application of the petitioner, at this stage. ( 11 ) IT is open to the petitioner to make a demand before the State Government for disclosing the reason for the non-disposal of the application within 12 months and even thereafter there is delay and no response on the part of the respondent in this regard petitioner may seek issue of a writ for such purpose. ( 12 ) AS of now I do not find any justification to issue a writ of mandamus as sought for by the petitioner to compel the State Government to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of lease. ( 12 ) AS of now I do not find any justification to issue a writ of mandamus as sought for by the petitioner to compel the State Government to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of lease. ( 13 ) WRIT petition is therefore rejected.