Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 258 (MP)

Ganesh Mines Private Limited v. State of M. P.

2010-03-04

AJIT SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT : Thispetition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the orderdated 9-4-2007, Annexure P-1, passed by the State Government (respondent No. 1)whereby it has rejected the petitioner's application for grant of mining leaseand allowed the application of respondent No. 2. 2.Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that on 22-1-1999,respondent No. 2, which is a partnership firm applied for the grant of mininglease in respect of forest land bearing Compartment No. 808 area 5 hectaresVillage Chatera , District Balaghat .The application was filed under Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960(in short "the Rules") in prescribed Form I for the mining manganeseore. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under theprovisions of Indian Companies Act. It came into existence on 10-7-2006 . On 17-10-2006 the petitioner also in Form I,applied for the grant of mining lease in respect of the same land and ore. Boththe applications were put up for consideration before respondent No. 1. Sincethe application of respondent No. 2 was prior in time it was placed above thepetitioner's application. On 13-3-2007 petitioner and respondent No. 2 submitted written arguments in support of theirclaim for grant of mining lease. Respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 9-4-2007 , Annexure P-1, allowed theapplication of respondent No. 2 and dismissed the application of petitioner.Respondent No. 1 in the order also accorded permission for the diversion offorest land (Compartment No. 808) in favour of respondentNo. 2 with a condition that proceedings relating to grant of mining lease shallbe initiated only after obtaining approval from the Government of India fordiversion of that forest land. The order reveals that respondent No. 1 gavepreference to the application of respondent No. 2 because it was placed firstin the priority list and the offer was made by respondent No. 2 to provide landfor planting trees in lieu of the forest land. 3.The petitioner has challenged the impugned order principally on the ground that its objection about the application of respondent No.2 being incomplete and invalid has not been considered at all by respondent No.1. 3.The petitioner has challenged the impugned order principally on the ground that its objection about the application of respondent No.2 being incomplete and invalid has not been considered at all by respondent No.1. According to petitioner in its written arguments a specific objection wastaken that since the application of respondent No. 2 was not supported by avalid clearance certificate of payment of mining dues by the partners it becameinvalid in view of fourth proviso to sub-rule (3) (1) (d) of Rule 22 and hencethe same should not have been allowed. 4.Respondent No. 1 in its return has justified the passing of impugned order bystating that the application of respondent No. 2 did not become invalid becausean affidavit was filed by one of the partners ( Prafulla Chandra J. Trivedi ) to the effect that firm Pradumankumar J. Trivedi was notholding any mining lease or prospecting licence inMadhya Pradesh. Similar stand has been taken by respondent No. 2 also in itsreturn. Respondent No. 2 has even stated that it has vast experience of miningwith a well developed infrastructure whereas the petitioner which recently cameinto existence virtually had no experience of mining. 5.The main question which calls for consideration in this petition is whether theapplication for grant of mining lease respondent No. 2 was invalid andrespondent No. 1 committed an illegality in allowing the same. 6.The applications for grant of mining leases are made to the State Governmentunder Rule 22 of the Rules and its relevant extract reads as under:- 22.Applications for grant of mining leases:- (1)An application for the grant of mining lease in respect of land in which theminerals vest in the Government shall be made to the State Government in Form Ithrough such officer or authority as the State Government may specify in thisbehalf. (3) ( i ) Everyapplication for the grant or renewal of a mining lease shall be accompanied by- (a) a non-refundable fee of two thousand and five hundredrupees; (d)a valid clearance certificate, in the form prescribed by the State Governmentof payment of mining dues, such as royalty, or dead rent or surface rentpayable under the Act or rules made thereunder , fromthat Government or any officer or authority authorised by that Government in this behalf: Providedthat in case the applicant is a partnership firm or a private limited company,such certificate shall be furnished by all partners of the partnership firm oras the case may be, all members of the private limited company: Providedthat where any injunction has been issued by a Court of law or any otherCompetent Authority staying the recovery of any such mining dues or income tax,non-payment thereof shall not be treated as a disqualification for the purposeof granting or renewing the said mining lease: Provided that where a person hasfurnished an affidavit to the satisfaction of the State Government stating thathe does not hold and has not held a mining lease, it shall not he necessary forhim to produce the said valid clearance certificate : Providedthat a properly sworn affidavit stating that no dues are outstanding shallsuffice subject to the condition that the certificate required as above shallbe furnished within ninety days of the date of application and the applicationshall become invalid if the party fails to file the certificate within the saidninety days : Providedfurther that the grant of clearance certificate under sub-clause (d) shall notdischarge the holder of such certificate from the liability to pay the miningdues which may subsequently be found to be payable by him under the Act orrules made thereunder ." 7.Rule 26 of the Rules which is also relevant for theconsideration of this case reads as under:- "Refusalof application for grant and renewal of mining lease:- (1)The State Government may, after giving an opportunity of being heard and forreasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse togrant or renew a mining lease over the whole or part of the area applied for. (2)An application for the grant or renewal of a mining lease made under Rule 22 orRule 24-A, as the case may be, shall not be refused by the State Governmentonly on the ground that Form I or Form J, as the case may be, is nor completein all materials particulars, or is not accompanied by the documents referredto in sub-clauses (d), (e), (f) (g) and (h) of clause ( i )of sub-rule (22). (3)Where it appears that the application is not complete in all materialparticulars or is not accompanied by the required documents, the StateGovernment shall, by notice, require the applicant to supply the omission or,as the case may be, furnish the document, without delay and in any case notlater than thirty days from the date of receipt of the said notice by theapplicant." 8.Rule 22 (3) ( i ) and the provisos have to be readtogether to understand what documents must be accompanied with the applicationfor grant or renewal of a mining lease. A valid clearance certificate inrespect of no dues which is referred to in sub-clause (d) and the first provisoand the affidavit that no dues are outstanding referred to in the fourthproviso are relevant only in cases where the person applying had earlier held amining lease. In cases where the person held no mining lease the only relevantproviso is third proviso to Rule 22 (3) ( i ) whichclearly states that where a person has furnished an affidavit to thesatisfaction of the State Government stating that he does not hold and has notheld a mining lease, it shall not be necessary for him to produce a validclearance certificate of no dues. An affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2was filed to that effect as required by this proviso with which respondent No.1 (State Government) was satisfied. Had respondent No. 1 not been satisfied itwould have issued a notice to produce any other material which it requiredunder Rule 26 (3). As in this case no such notice was issued it has to be heldthat respondent No. 1 was fully satisfied with the affidavit filed on behalf ofrespondent No. 2 and, therefore, respondent No. 1 was justified in allowing theapplication. 9.For these reasons, I find no merit in the petition. The petition fails and isdismissed with a cost of Rs . 1000/- payable torespondent No. 2.