B SHIVAJI MENDON Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner has questioned the order passed by the revising authority (respondent-2) under Section 30 of the mines and minerals (regulation & development) Act, 1957, confirming the order of the state government (respondent-1) rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease for kyanite in devachalla village, sullia taluk, south canara district. Annexure-p is the order passed in revision and Annexure-L is the endorsement served on the petitioner by the state government informing the petitioner of the rejection of the revision petition on the ground that the area applied for falls within the reserved area for state exploitation. The petitioner has asked for quashing of both annexures 'p' and 'l'. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the reservation of the area in question for state exploitation or by its undertaking is not effective on the petitioner's claim.

(2.) the petitioner applied for grant of mining lease for kyanite over an area of 850 acres of land in devachalla village, sullia taluk, south canara district, on 16-12-1976. The application was rejected by the state government by its order passed on 30-11-1979 for the reason that the area applied for falls within the area reserved for state exploitation. Aggrieved by the said Order, a revision was preferred before the revising authority under the mines and minerals (regulation and development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referrd to as 'the act') which came to be rejected, upholding the order of the state government. This has resulted in this writ petition.

(3.) the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are that the petitionher being the earliest applicant has a preferential right to the mining lease and, therefore, the application could not have been rejected. The second contention is that the order passed by the central government on 21-9-1979 under Section 11(4) of the act is void since the petitioner was not notified of the state government's request for reserving the area for its own exploitation without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against accord of approval by the central government. The third contention is that the order of reservation dated 21-3-1979 is not only illegal, but also ultra vires and is violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and lastly that the revising authority has not considered all the contentions urged before it by the petitioner in the revision petition.