P. VENKATESHWARA RAO Vs. IQBAL BEIG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has come up for hearing for the second time after being allowed by order dated 30 -7 -2009, on account of the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside that judgment and remit the matter back to this Court by order dated 13 -7 -2011 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5495 and 5496 of 2011. It was pointed out at the out set that, by virtue of the recent decision of the Apex Court in Geomin Minerals and Marketing (Private) Limited and Others v. State of Orissa and Others (2013) 7 SCC 571: 2013 AIR SCW 3084, the original petition itself was not maintainable. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant herein was respondent 4 in the original petition of respondent 1 herein, wherein the impugned order dated 1 -9 -2005 at Annexure -K was quashed mainly on the ground that the application of the petitioner therein was rejected without assigning any reasons, in an arbitrary and capricious manner. That impugned order dated 1 -9 -2005 was in fact a communication by the Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department of the State Government, addressed to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Coal and Mines, recommending the name of original respondent 4 to grant him mining lease over an area of 15.38 Hectares in Navalatti Village of Sandur Taluk, Bellary District, for manganese and iron ore for a period of 20 years.

(2.) IN view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in Geomin Minerals and Marketing Private Limited's case, until the Central Government has passed an order either granting or refusing approval under Section 5(1) and Section 11(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, it would not be permissible for any person to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and any such petition, if filed, would be premature. It was seen from the judgment of learned Single Judge, which is impugned herein, that learned High Court Government Pleader had specifically raised the issue of maintainability of the petition and submitted that the petition was premature. However, that plea was not favourably considered and the order impugned in the petition was made. Now, the law has been clarified and declared by the Apex Court in Geomin Minerals and Marketing Private Limited's case and following that decision, the original petition of respondent 1 herein was liable to be summarily dismissed. Under the circumstances, the impugned order has to be set aside only on the ground that the original petition of respondent 1 herein was premature and not maintainable.