LAWS(KAR)-2001-7-13

SHEIF MUJEEB Vs. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES

Decided On July 12, 2001
SHEIF MUJEEB Appellant
V/S
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, BANGALORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ). PURSUANT to notification dated 26-10-2000 issued by the director of mines and geology inviting applications for grant of quarrying lease of building stone, the petitioners submitted their applications on the same day in respect of land bearing sy. No. 39 of gollahalli village in Bangalore south taluk. By the impugned notification at Annexure-C , dated 22-12-2000 the quarrying lease was granted in favour of the 4th respondent in W. P. No. 12157 of 2001 (who will be referred to as such hereinafter ). Aggrieved by the same the petitioners have filed these writ petition complaining that their applications have not been considered properly along with the other applications as required under Rule 23 (2) (v) of the rules.

(2.) THE learned counsels who are appearing for the petitioners submit that the applications of the petitioners were in time but the competent authority did not give priority on the basis of first-come-first but 4th respondent has been granted the quarrying lease in contravention of Rule 23 of the Karnataka minor mineral concession rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules' ). The counsel contended that the proceedings being quasi-judicial in nature, no reasons are assigned in respect of the unsuccessful applicants/petitioners and this aspect was not taken into consideration by the revisional authority. Reliance has been placed upon the decision in mohinder singh gill and another v the chief election commissioner, New Delhi and others, wherein it is stated that orders passed by the statutory authorities must be judged by reasons mentioned. According to the learned counsel, in the instant case no reasons are assigned and hence the grant of quarrying lease in favour of 4th respondent is bad in law.

(3.) MR. H. n. nagamohandas, learned counsel for the 4th respondent argued supporting the grant of quarrying lease in favour of his client. Referring to Rule 23 (2) of the rules, the counsel made submission, which will be dealt with in due course. The counsel sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.