Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 185 (MP)

Ramko Bai Adiwasi v. State of M. P.

2007-02-14

SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2007
ORDER 1. Heard. This order shall govern the disposal of Writ Petitions No. 310/07 and 311/07 as they arise out of common order Annexure P-l passed by the State Government dated 23.12.2006 whereby the application filed by the present petitioners for grant of quarry lease is rejected and lease is granted in favour of respondent No.3 Sanjay Yadav. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner in WP No. 310/07 has applied for quarry lease on a part of survey numbers 445 and 446 situated in Village Majra, District Morena while petitioner in WP No. 311/07 has applied for quarry lease on a part of survey numbers 445, 446,447,449 situated in the same village. Petitioners in both the petitions have applied for 15.06 hectares of land out of the said survey numbers. Respondent No.3 Sanjay Yadav applied for grant of lease in respect of the same survey numbers for which petitioner Gulab Singh in WP No. 311/07 has applied. However, he had prayed for lease of an area 13.206 hectares. 3. As per Rule 6 of the M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") the sanctioning authority for the quarry lease of more than 4 hectares is the State Government, therefore, applications were submitted before the State Government. The State Government by the impugned order, rejected the applications of the petitioners but granted lease in favour of respondent No.3. 4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the applications for quarry lease filed by the present petitioners were rejected by the State on the ground that the petitioners have not produced no objection certificate from the forest authorities. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no objection certificate from the forest authorities is required only in respect of the forest land and once no objection certificate in respect of the same land is granted in case of respondent No.3, it was not necessary for the petitioner to produce no objection certificate because even if that land is in forest area then respondent No.3 is not eligible for grant of quarry lease on the said land and in case it is found that the land is not the forest area then the applications of the petitioners could not have been rejected on that ground alone. Counsel for the petitioners invited attention to Rule 19 (2) of the Rules which provides that the application for quarry lease will not be rejected only on the ground that the applicant is not complete or some more documents are required for allowing the application. He submits that as per Rule 19 (2) if the sanctioning authority finds that the application is not complete then the authority shall serve a notice by registered A/d post to the applicant for correcting the defects or making the application complete and after service of notice shall decide the application on merits. But in the present case, this Rule is not complied with and the applications of the petitioners are dismissed without issuing notice as required by Rule 19 (2) of the Rules. 5. In reply to this argument, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is that the land for which respondent No. 3 had applied was less than the land for which the petitioners had applied. Respondent No.3 had applied for grant of quarry lease in respect of 13.206 hectares of the same survey number. Even if the respondent No.3 applied for a part of the same survey number, the area is different and as the petitioners had claimed lease in respect of large area and as their area is within the prohibited area, their application was rejected. 6. As regards non-compliance of sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 is concerned, it is contented that no prejudice is caused to the petitioners by not issuing them any notice for production of the no objection certificate. Till today, the petitioners are not in a position to show that they possess the no objection certificate from the forest department about the land for which they have filed applications. Thus, issuance of notice and to afford opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners will not serve any purpose and will be nothing but an empty formality. Petitioners could not produce the no objection certificate even before this Court. As they have not produced no objection certificate, it is clear that they do not possess the said certificate. 7. Next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order in the present case was passed after 22 months from the date of hearing. Petitioners could not produce the no objection certificate even before this Court. As they have not produced no objection certificate, it is clear that they do not possess the said certificate. 7. Next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order in the present case was passed after 22 months from the date of hearing. For this purpose, he relied on the judgments of the apex Court in the cases of Bhagwan Das Fatechand Daswani and others v. HPA International and others [ (2000) 2 SCC 13 ] and R.C. Sharma v.Union of India [ AIR 1976 SC 2037 ] wherein the apex Court has deprecated the practice of the Courts to pass orders after a long lapse. of time and remanded the matter on that ground. 8. In the present case, it is contended by the counsel for the State that orders could not be passed earlier because of interim orders passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamal Kishore v. State of M.P. and others [WP NO. 1413/02]. Moreover, present petitioners are not in a position to satisfy this Court that orders are passed against them on erroneous facts. In such circumstances, even if order is passed after 22 months that will not be a ground for setting aside the impugned order as the grounds on which the order is passed cannot be demonstrated to be incorrect. 9. Counsel for the petitioners also tried to urge that although the arguments were heard by the Minister, but order was passed by the Additional Secretary. However, he could not point out any material in support of his argument. . 10. Thus, after hearing counsel for the parties, I find that the State Government has not committed any mistake to call for interference in the impugned order in exercise of the powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, whereby granting quarry lease in favour of respondent No. 3 and rejecting the applications filed by the present petitioners. Both the petitions are devoid of any merit and are dismissed.