Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 614 (MP)

Shailendra Kumar Tripathi v. State of M. P.

2012-06-26

R.S.JHA

body2012
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 21.06.2010, passed by the Mining Officer, Satna by which the petitioner's application for grant of quarry lease over an area 6.583 hectares of Khasra No. 78/1, 12/5), 12/5 and 12/5 of village Tatiyajhir, district Satna has been rejected on the ground that in view of the amendment in the Rules affected from 09.02.2010, querry lease can be granted only through public auction and not on the basis of individual application. 2. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the application for grant of querry lease was filed by the petitioner on 12.10.09, which was being processed by the authorities in accordance with the prevailing Rules at the time of filing of the application, however, during the pendency of the application, the provisions of 36(1) of the M.P. Minor Mining Rules were amended by notification dated 19.04.2010 making a provision to the effect that minerals specified at SI. No.5 of Schedule I and those specified in Sl. Nos 1,3 and 4 of Schedule II shall be allotted only by auction, and therefore, as flag stone is mentioned at SI. No.5 of Schedule II of M.P. Mining Rules, 1996, the Mining Officer by the impugned order rejected the application filed by the petitioner without processing it further relying upon the amended provisions of the Rules. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. The learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application for grant of querry lease prior to coming into force of the amendment. The application had also been processed to certain extent by the concerned officers, therefore, the application could not have been rejected on the ground taken by the Mining Officer as the amendment in the rules would only operate prospectively and would not affect pending applications. 4. The learned Panel Lawyer per contra submits that the petitioner has no vested right to claim that his application should be decided only on the basis of the un-amended provisions of law, as the application for querry lease can only be decided in accordance with the rules, that are in force on the date of disposal of the application. 4. The learned Panel Lawyer per contra submits that the petitioner has no vested right to claim that his application should be decided only on the basis of the un-amended provisions of law, as the application for querry lease can only be decided in accordance with the rules, that are in force on the date of disposal of the application. The learned Panel Lawyer has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M/s Hind Stone AIR 1981 SC 711 and the Division Bench of this court rendered in the case of Brijendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India and Others 1995 MPLJ 710 . 5. I have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties at length. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu (supra), while considering the nature of the right of an applicant for mining lease has held as under :- "While it is true that such applications should be dealt with within a reasonable time, it cannot on that account be said that the right to have an application disposed of in a reasonable tune clothes an applicant for a lease with a right to have the application disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of the making of the application. No one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In the absence of any vested rights in anyone, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that applications for the grant of renewal of leases made long prior to the date of G.O.Ms. No. 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8C did not exist." A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Brijendra Kumar Agravval (supra) relying upon the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court has held as follows: "8. No. 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8C did not exist." A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Brijendra Kumar Agravval (supra) relying upon the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court has held as follows: "8. The rules under consideration in the case State of T. N. v. M/s Hind Stone, AIR 1981 SC 711 , were Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Rule 8C was introduced by notification issued on 2-12-1977. It prescribed the procedure and the forum. Application of the respondent in the case was pending even before incorporation of Rule 8C. It was contended that the disposal was delayed and the application should be disposed of under the preexisting rule. The Court held as follows : "While it is true that such applications should be dealt with within a reasonable time, it cannot on that account be said that the right to have an application disposed of in a reasonable time clothes an application for a lease with a right to have the application disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of the making of the application. No one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In the absence of any vested rights in any one an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the dale of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application." 9. The decision in M/s Hind Stone is applicable to the facts of the present case. The Act and the Rules enabled the petitioners to apply for mining licence. The Act and the Rules prescribed particular procedure for the application and the disposal. The procedure, has been altered by subsequent amendment during the pendency of the applications. The petitioners certainly have a right to file applications before the appropriate authority but they cannot have a right to have the applications disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of making applications; that is because they have no vested right to the grant of a mining lease. The petitioners certainly have a right to file applications before the appropriate authority but they cannot have a right to have the applications disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of making applications; that is because they have no vested right to the grant of a mining lease. Since there is no such vested right, it must follow that all applications pending on the date on which the amendments came into force, should be disposed of under the amended provisions of the law. The amendments, no doubt, introduced certain additional conditions and restrictions which are intended for public good and due regulation of the mining activity in the light of vital concerns with regard to protection of environment and the like." 6. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, I am of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with the order passed by the Mining Officer in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner as the law prevailing on the date of disposal of the application would apply and as on that date the provisions of rule 36 of MPJR Shri S. Chauksey & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 137 the Rules providing for grant of querry lease for flag stone, only by way of auction were very much in existence. 7. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. 8. There shall be no order as to costs.