LAWS(KAR)-1980-2-12

MAHABOOB TRANSPORT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On February 20, 1980
MAHABOOB TRANSPORT Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 26-12-1974 passed by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Rule 54 R/W Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called the Rules). 1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows: - The mining area in question is situate in Karadikolla Forest area in Sandur Taluk, measuring 109 acres. It is not in dispute that the third respondent was granted a mining lease in respect of the aforesaid area in question for a period of 20 years, commencing from the year 17-9-1953. The period of mining lease was to expire on 17-9-1973. Long before the expiry of the period, the third respondent made an application on 19-6-1970 under Rule 22 of the Rules for renewing the mining lease. The State Government sought for prior approval of the Central Government under S. 8 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The application was not disposed of by the State Government within six months as required by Rule 24 of the Rules, therefore, there was a deemed rejection of the said application under sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 thereof. As against the deemed rejection of the application, the third respondent preferred a revision petition to the 1st respondent on 23-8-1971. During the pendency of that revision petition, the State Government which had already sought for prior approval of the Central Government for renewing the lease in favour of the third respondent came to be informed by the Central Government that it was not in favour of renewing the lease as it was of the view that the area in question should be reserved for exploitation through a public undertaking. Accordingly the petitioner came to be informed by the State Government by the communication dated 20-3- 1972 stating that the Central Government was not in favour of renewing the mining lease as the deposits are to be exploited in the public sector. The 3rd respondent preferred a revision petition to the Central Government on 1-4-1972 against the aforesaid communication treating it to be an order rejecting the application for renewal.

(2.) When these two revision petitions were pending, the lease period came to expire. Though the area in question was not thrown open under Rule 58 of the Rules, nevertheless the petitioner and the 4th respondent made separate applications for grant of a mining lea,se in respect of the area in question. Both the applications came to be rejected by the State Government on the ground that the revision petition filed by the 3rd respondent regarding the renewal of the mining lease in respect of the very area in question is pending before the Central Government. Against this order, the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent preferred revision petitions. The Central Government has disposed of all these three revision petitions, one preferred by the 3rd respondent on 1-4-1972 and the two other revisions one each preferred by the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The Central Government haying regard to the fact that the other areas adjoining to the area in question having been covered by the leases granted to private individuals the lease of the area in question granted" to the 3rd respondent be renewed upto 4-9-1983. It is this order that is challenged in this writ petition

(3.) Mr. Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner putforth the following contentions for consideration. (1) The Central Government having clubbed all the three revision petitions and having rejected the revision petition of the petitioner on the ground that the revision petition preferred by the 3rd respondent was allowed, ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner regarding the revision, filed by the 3rd respondent before deciding all the 3 revision petitions together; (2) that the revision petition filed by the 3rd respt. was not maintainable in as much as the revision was filed against the communication issued by the Central Government dated 20-3-1972 conveying the decision of the Central Government and it was not an order passed by the State Government rejecting the application for renewal of the lease filed by the petitioner in as much as, according to the learned counsel, an order rejecting the application came to be passed by the State Government on 21-4-1972. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that since no revision petition was filed by the 3rd respondent against the order dated 21-4-1972 refusing to renew, the Central Government ought not to have entertained the revision petition dated 1-4-1972 filed by the 3rd respondent and allowed the same.