JUDGMENT 1. - This batch of 22 writ petitions is being disposed of by common order since the controversy involved in these cases is common and the facts of Writ Petition No. 8830/2011 (Meenakshi Metacast (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & ors.) are illustratively taken for the said purpose. 2. The petitioners came to this Court challenging the impugned order issued by the Deputy Secretary, Mining Department, Govt. of Rajasthan on 10/3/2010 (Ann Ex. 6) reserving the notified Scheduled Tribe areas for mining of major minerals for which Reconnaissance Permits/Prospecting License/ Mining Lease in the specified areas of the State of Rajasthan are to be notified in which the backward class people of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and other Tribal people live and to allow the mining of minerals reserved in the said notified area only to the Govt. of Rajasthan Undertaking, namely; Rajasthan State Mines & Mineral Limited ('RSMM' for short). 3. The petitioners, the private miners or applicants, applied for the mining lease and prospecting licenses in the said reserved area prior to this impugned order dated 10/3/2010 in the year 2008 itself along with the prescribed fee of Rs. of Rajasthan Undertaking, namely; Rajasthan State Mines & Mineral Limited ('RSMM' for short). 3. The petitioners, the private miners or applicants, applied for the mining lease and prospecting licenses in the said reserved area prior to this impugned order dated 10/3/2010 in the year 2008 itself along with the prescribed fee of Rs. 5,000/- but before its applications could be decided, the said Policy decision of the State Government was notified on 10/3/2010 imposing a ban on private operators to undertake any mining work in these reserved areas and in the same order in para 3 it was stated that the applications of the private operators, except in cases where the Courts have passed the stay orders, will be liable to be rejected under the said Policy decision dated 10/3/2010, which is quoted below for ready reference:- " jktLFkku ljdkj [kku ( xzqi&2 ) foHkkx dzekad% i0 ( 10 ) [kku@xzqi&2@99 t;iqj] fnukad 10 ekpZ 2010 vkns'k bl foHkkx ds lela[;d vkns'k fnukad 03-07-2009 ds dze esa fuEu vkns'k tkjh fd;s tkrs gS%& 1- jktLFkku jkT; dh vf/klwfpr vuqlwfpr tutkfr {ks=ksa esa iz/kku [kfutksa ds u;s fjdksuslsUl ijfeV@iwoZs{k.k vuqKki=@[kuu iV~Vs dsoy jkT; ljdkj ds midze jktLFkku jkT; [kku ,oa [kfut fy0 RSMML dks fn;s tk;saxsA RSMML ;fn pkgs rks futh fuos'kdksa ds lkFk la;qDr midze (Joint Venture) Hkh dj ldsxh] ij mlls RSMML dh de ls de 51 izfr'kr fgLlsnkjh gksxhA vf/klwfpr vuqlwfpr tutkfr {ks=ksa esa Lohd`r [kuu iV~Vksa esa [kuu ls gksus okys ykHk dk de ls de 20 izfr'kr LFkkuh; vkfnokfl;ksa ds dY;k.k ij [kpZ fd;k tk;sxk rFkk ;g jkf'k MsV jsaV vkSj jk;YVh ds vfrfjDr gksxh vf/klwfpr vuqlwfpr tutkfr {ks=ksa esa Lohd`r [kuu iV~Vksa esa [kuu dk;Z gsrq lacaf/kr iV~Vk/kkjh de ls de 50 izfr'kr LFkkuh; vkfnokfl;ksa dks fu;ksftr djsxkA 2- iz/kku [kfut ds tks [kuu iV~Vs flrEcj] 2000 ls iwoZ ls izHkko esa gS] os [kuu iV~Vs ;Fkkor jgsaxs rFkk mudk uohuhdj.k Hkh fu;ekuqlkj gks ldsxkA uohuhdj.k ds laca/k esa U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu vkns'kksa dh ikyuk Hkh lqfuf'pr dh tk,A 3- vf/klwfpr vuqlwfpr tutkfr {ks= esa iz/kku [kfut ds lHkh yafcr vkosnu i= ( U;k;ky; LFkxu vkns'kksa dks NksM+dj ) fujLrh ;ksX; gksaxsA vf/klwfpr vuqlwfpr tutkfr {ks= esa viz/kku [kfutksa ds vuqnku ckcr i`Fkd ls vkns'k tkjh fd;s tk;saxsA vkKk ls mi 'kklu lfpo " 4. In pursuance of the said order dated 10/3/2010, the applications of the petitioners came to be straightaway rejected after about one year vide Ann Ex. 10 dated 15/3/2011, admittedly, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-applicants and also forfeiting their application fees of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by the petitioners. Aggrieved of the same, the present petitioners approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by present set of writ petitions. 5. The respondent Mining Department as well as RSMM have filed separate replies to the writ petition and a detailed rejoinder thereto has also been filed by the petitioners. 6. By the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions were heard finally at the admission stage, since the pleadings are complete. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D.D. Thanvi, Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Mr. Arvind Shrimali, Mr. Vishal Sharma and Mr. Amit Vyas urged that the State Government is not entitled to reserve the area for mining for only a Government Undertaking like RSMM without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 17A(2) of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short MMDR Act, 1957). Learned counsels for the petitioners also urged that the State Government has not sought any approval of the Central Government in the matter before reserving the said area as required under Section 17A(2) of the Act and that it has not even issued any notification in the official gazette so far specifying the boundaries of the said area and mineral or minerals in respect of which the said areas are allowed to be reserved under the provisions of MMDR Act, 1957. Thus, in the absence of any compliance with the mandatory provisions, learned counsels urged that the impugned order Ann Ex. 6 dated 10/3/2010 could not have been issued. Thus, in the absence of any compliance with the mandatory provisions, learned counsels urged that the impugned order Ann Ex. 6 dated 10/3/2010 could not have been issued. They have also argued that the apparent purpose for reserving such area for mining through RSMM is to ensure the development of the area in a regulated manner for the benefit of backward classes like SC, ST and Tribal people and that is why there has been incorporation of conditions of 20% of the profit over and above the dead rent and royalty amount on account of said mining to be spent for the welfare of the Tribal people and employment of 50% of the local tribal people in such mining work to be undertaken by the RSMM and it is not justified for the State Government to reserve or give preference to the Government of Rajasthan Undertaking like RSMM and even the private mining operators could be permitted to operate mines in the said area with similar kind of conditions imposed upon them. 8. Learned counsels for the petitioners also submitted that in any case, in the absence of area being specifically notified and without obtaining any prior approval from the Central Government under Section 17A(2) of the Act, the State Government cannot give any prospecting license or mining lease even to the RSMM and assailing the impugned rejection orders of their applications without complying with the basic principles of natural justice, learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order dated 15/3/11 rejecting their applications & forfeiting even the application fees could not be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed. 9. They relied on the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of their contentions. (i) Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Limited v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 1 : AIR 2011 SC (Civil) 1206 ; (ii) Samatha v. State of A.P. & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 191 : AIR 1997 SC 3297 ; (iii) Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333 : AIR 2002 SC 350 10. On the other hand, Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. R.K. Soni and Mr. On the other hand, Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. R.K. Soni and Mr. M.R. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, appearing for the RSMM supported the impugned Policy decision dated 10/3/2010 and submitted that the purpose of the Policy decision was obvious and in the interest of backward class people, there is nothing wrong in State Government taking a decision for exploring and exploiting the minerals through the Government of Rajasthan Undertaking - RSMM subject to condition of spending 20% of the profit over and above the dead rent and royalty for the welfare of the tribal people and employing at least 50% of the local tribal people in the mining operation. They submitted that the similar conditions cannot be regulated & monitored in the hands of private operators, therefore, it is a reasonable classification and preference given to the Govt. of Rajasthan Undertaking cannot be validly challenged by the petitioners. 11. On the question of compliance with the provisions of Section 17A(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mr. G.R. Punia urged that the approval of the Central Government as required in sub-section (2) of Section 17A of the Act is not a condition precedent and such approval can be sought even ex-post facto, once the State Government notifies specifically the boundaries of such areas and the minerals in respect of which such reservation is made. 12. However, learned Addl. Advocate General was not in a position to state categorically as to whether any such application seeking approval of the State Government has already been moved by the State Government or not, even after lapse of about three years from the said Policy decision dated 10/3/2010. He also could not point out whether any notification specifying the boundaries and the minerals to be exploited and explored has been issued by the State Government as envisaged under Section 17A(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957. He, however, submitted that the applications of RSMM also are yet to be considered, though he did not have the exact details of the applications filed by RSMM in pursuance of the impugned Policy decision dated 10/3/2010. 13. Learned Addl. Advocate General, Mr. G.R. Punia, however, fairly submitted that the State Government is bound to comply with the provisions of Section 17A(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957 in letter and spirit and the State Govt. 13. Learned Addl. Advocate General, Mr. G.R. Punia, however, fairly submitted that the State Government is bound to comply with the provisions of Section 17A(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957 in letter and spirit and the State Govt. will take necessary steps seeking approval of the Central Government within the time frame, as may be fixed by this Court. 14. In rejoinder, learned counsels for the petitioners also brought to the notice of the Court the communication of the Ministry of Mines issued to one Sajjan Singh Ghokru under Right to Information Act signed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India in File No. 16/3/2012-M. VI dated 12/1/2012, which is quoted below for ready reference:- New Delhi, Dated 12th Jan. 2012 "To Shri Sajjay Singh Ghokru, A-32, Shyam Vihar, Harni Mahadev Road, Bhilwara, Rajasthan Subject: Application dated 04.01.2012 seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005 received from Shri Sajjan Singh Gokhru, Bhilwara regarding reservation done between December, 2008 and December, 2010 under Section 17 of the MMDR Act, 1957 in the districts of Bhanswara, Dungarpur, Pratapgarh, Chittorgarh, and Udaipur of Rajasthan. Sir, Your application dated 04.01.2012 seeking information under the RTI Act 2005 refers. In this regard it is informed that no reservation has been done under Section 17A, which is the relevant Section of the MMDR Act, 1957 in the districts of Bhanswara, Dungarpur, Pratapgarh, Chittorgarh and Udaipur of Rajasthan between December 2008 and December, 2010. Yours faithfully, sd/- (Anil Subramaniam) Under Secretary to the Government of India" 15. From the above communication it appears that by that time no reservation was approved by the Central Government under Section 17A(2) of the Act in the Districts of Banswara, Dungarpur, Pratapgarh, Chittorgarh and Udaipur of Rajathan between December 2008 and December, 2010. 16. Learned counsels for the petitioners also drew the attention of the Court towards the minutes of the Meeting dated 4/11/2012 under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India regarding reservation of areas by the Government of Rajasthan for exploiting mineral resources. The relevant extract from para 3 to 7 of the said minutes are quoted below for ready reference:- "3. of India regarding reservation of areas by the Government of Rajasthan for exploiting mineral resources. The relevant extract from para 3 to 7 of the said minutes are quoted below for ready reference:- "3. Representatives from State Government of Rajasthan shared concern on the low availability of fertilizer minerals, and stated that the State Government had taken a policy decision to reserve the Rock Phosphate deposits for exclusive use by the M/s. RSMML, and accord preference in grant of mineral concessions for this mineral. Representatives from the M/s. RSSML stated that it was at present focusing on mining of phosphorite deposits discovered in the early 1960's by the GSI in the Udaipur region. However, it was facing restriction in mining due to Supreme Court order restricting mining in Aravallis. It was further pointed out that in terms of SAMATA judgment, it was necessary to impose restrictions on mining in tribal areas. It was also stated that the State Government was agreeable to allow grant of mining lease to M/s. FAGMIL on Birmania deposits. 4. Joint Secretary, Department of fertilizer, stated that the policy restriction of the State Government of Rajasthan to reserve areas for exclusive mining of Fertilizer by M/s. RSMML was seriously impacting the growth plan of M/s. FAGMIL and other fertilizer industries keen to use the resources identified in Rajasthan. M/s. FAGMIL pointed out that mining of fertilizer minerals, limestone and gypsum was its core business. In respect of fertilizer minerals it was proposing to set up a SSP plant in Rajasthan, and that the State Government policy was impeding its plans. 5. Ministry of Mines clarified that the National Mineral Policy, 2008, clearly provided that conservation of minerals is to be taken positive sense of augmentation of mineral resources and zero waste mining, rather than abstaining from use of available minerals. Further it was clarified that while the State policies are respected, considering the fact that there was a need to increase exploration of minerals in which the country is scarce and utilise low grade minerals through beneficiation and the fact that State policies have to be in consonance with the MMDR Act, the State Government policy to reserve mineral bearing areas in favour of M/s. RSMML cannot be agreed to by the Central Government. It was also pointed out that the policy for reservation in favour of M/s. RSMML did not confirm to the provisions of Section 17A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. It was also pointed out that if the State Government sought to accord special preference to M/s. RSMML under section 11 of the MMDR Act, 1957, it could do so accordingly while granting mineral concession, but the State Government should not encourage idle holding of a mineral deposit. In this context, it was advised that the State Government should undertake an analysis of the capacity, requirement and plan of action for ore utilisation by M/s. RSMML for a period of 20 years. It was also clarified that restriction flowing out of SAMATA judgment was possible only if the relevant legislation for land in a State allowed such restrictions. Since such specific provisions were not provided in the Land laws enacted in Rajasthan, the State Government of Rajasthan should not interpret the judgment to deny concession rights accruing to a company who after completing exploration with committed expenditure, has sought for next stage concession. It was also felt that M/s. FAGMIL should get into exploration for fertilizer minerals. 6. After discussion, it was decided that: (a) The State Government of Rajasthan should immediately review its Mineral Policy regarding reserving mineral bearing areas in favour of M/s. RSMML since it is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 17A of the MMDR Act, 1957. (b) The State Government of Rajasthan should reconsider its decision to restrict grant of mineral concessions in tribal areas, especially to such persons who have applied for progression to next stage of concession after completing exploration under a licence. (c) State Government of Rajasthan to furnish details of capacity, requirements and plan of action for ore utilisation for a period of 20 years by M/s. RSMML to the Ministry of Mines. (d) GSI to assess whether data generated on fertilizer minerals has been used by the State Government of Rajasthan to convert the identified resources into mining leases, and reassess their Field season programmes. In this exercise, GSI to associate Mining companies in the Sub-Group in GSI for finalising the Field Season programme. (e) State Government of Rajasthan, GSI and M/s. RSMML to consider a tripartite agreement for geo-chemical survey. In this exercise, GSI to associate Mining companies in the Sub-Group in GSI for finalising the Field Season programme. (e) State Government of Rajasthan, GSI and M/s. RSMML to consider a tripartite agreement for geo-chemical survey. (f) Existing Committee on Fertilizer minerals to be revived and operated in a Mission mode. (g) State Government of Rajasthan to consider grant of Birmania deposit to M/s. FAGMIL. (h) Department of Fertilizer to issue directions to M/s. FAGMIL to apply for Reconnaissance Permit/Prospecting Licence/ Mining lease to State Government of Rajasthan and furnish a list to the Ministry of Mines. 7. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks. 17. I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the record of the case, relevant provisions and the judgments cited at the bar. 18. This Court is of the opinion that firstly as far as rejection of the applications of present petitioners are concerned by the impugned order dated 15/3/2011, the said order cannot be sustained simply for the reason that the same having been passed without complying with the basic principle of audi alteram partem or principles of natural justice. It is beyond pale of doubt in a country governed by rule of law that before any adverse order is passed by any Authority, Tribunal or Court, the person concerned is heard in the matter and meeting his objections, a reasoned order is passed by such Authority, Tribunal or Court. The respondents have simply nothing to show that the impugned order dated 15/3/2011 was passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners nor the body and tenor of the order itself shows that such opportunity was given to the petitioners. The said order was passed by the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur in pursuance of impugned Policy decision dated 10/3/2010 after about one year of the same, forfeiting the application fees of the present petitioners. The impugned order dated 15/3/2011, therefore, is liable to be quashed and fresh orders are required to be passed by the competent authority to whom the applications were filed by the petitioners for mining leases or prospecting licenses after providing an opportunity of hearing. 19. The impugned order dated 15/3/2011, therefore, is liable to be quashed and fresh orders are required to be passed by the competent authority to whom the applications were filed by the petitioners for mining leases or prospecting licenses after providing an opportunity of hearing. 19. While this is one relief which can be granted to the petitioners in the present writ petitions for the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to the impugned Policy decision dated 10/3/2010 laid by the petitioners in the present writ petitions does not require any pronouncement of the Court presently at this stage while deciding these writ petitions. 20. Admittedly, the provisions of Section 17A of the MMDR Act, 1957 envisages such reservation of the area for the purpose of conservation and Section 17A(2) permits the State Govt., of course with the approval of the Central Government, to reserve any area not already held under any prospecting license or mining lease, for undertaking such operations through Government company or corporation and where it proposes to do so, it shall by notification in official gazette specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such area will be reserved. In view of this statutory power available with the State Government to which no dispute is raised, the only thing which remains to be seen is whether the State Government has complied with the conditions stipulated in the said provision of the Act, mandatory character of which is also not in dispute from the side of the State Government. 21. Thus, the only question which arises is whether the approval from the Central Government is required before reserving the area for prospecting or mining operations through a Government Undertaking or company or it can be sought ex-post facto after reserving such area or even after notifying the specified area and minerals as required in second part of sub-section (2) of Section 17A of the Act. 22. This Court is of the considered opinion that it would be rather premature to pronounce upon the step by step compliance of the provisions of sub-section(2) of Section 17A of the Act at this stage since that process still seems to be either yet to be undertaken or is pending with the State Government itself or with the Central Government. This Court is of the considered opinion that it would be rather premature to pronounce upon the step by step compliance of the provisions of sub-section(2) of Section 17A of the Act at this stage since that process still seems to be either yet to be undertaken or is pending with the State Government itself or with the Central Government. Since the facts in that regard have not been placed on record by the Mining Department of the State Government or State Government itself, it would be premature to decide whether such approval is a condition precedent or could be obtained ex post facto. But this Court cannot lose sight of the fact in hand already on record that after taking a Policy decision on 10/3/2010, even after lapse of approximately three years in February, 2013, the State Government has not yet even approached the Central Government for said approval nor it has decided the pending applications of RSMM for the benefit of backward and poor people of the State in places like Banswara, Dungarpur, Pratapgarh, Chittorgarh and Udaipur. Such a long period has passed admittedly without exploiting the valuable natural resources of the State on account of sheer inaction on the part of the State functionaries. On account of the same, the private operators, who were ousted by the impugned order dated 15/3/2011 have also been deprived of the opportunity and the RSMM for whose benefit the reservation was made has also not undertaken any mining operation, which was purportedly entrusted to it for the benefit of the underprivileged section of the society. This type of callousness and delay can hardly be appreciated by the Court of law and, therefore, while not examining the validity of the impugned Policy decision dated 10/3/2010, this Court considers it expedient to direct the State Government to immediately undertake the necessary steps for complying with the provisions of Section 17A(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957 and for this purpose, this Court also considers it appropriate to set a time frame of six months to avoid any further delay. The process of approval by the Central Government for such reservation and preference for Government Undertaking like RSMM will naturally involve a fresh look into the matter in the light of discussions, which have already taken place between the Central Government and the State Government officials as is reflected in the minutes of the meeting dated 4/11/2011, quoted above. 23. The upshot of the above discussion is that while the State Government is directed to set the process in motion and complete the same in terms of Section 17A(2) of the Act within the time frame of six months from today, the impugned orders rejecting the applications of the petitioners dated 15/3/2011 or of different dates in other connected cases, are quashed and set aside and the applications of the petitioners, accordingly, would stand revived and the concerned authority is directed to re-decide the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within the aforesaid time frame of six months itself. 24. It is needless to say that after the said decision is taken by the respondents with the aforesaid time frame of six months, if the petitioners are still aggrieved of the same, they will have the liberty to take appropriate legal remedy in accordance with law. No costs. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties, including the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India, New Delhi.Order accordingly. *******