KOLAGADA CHENNABASAPPA Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the same person in all these three petitions. He had been granted by the State Government of Madras, a prospecting licence in respect of 200 acres of land in an area known as the N.E.B. Range, Sandur Hills, Karadikolla Forest Range. This area is situated in Sandur Taluk of Bellary District. (At the time when he obtained the prospecting licence in respect of the 200 acres, Bellary District formed part of the former State of Madras. Subsequently, when the Andhra State Act come into force, this part of the Bellary District became integrated with the former State of Mysore. After the reorganisation of the States, the petitioner obtained from the State of Mysore a mining lease (under an order dated 17-9-1957), in his favouring respect of the said 200 acres. (The blue print of the sketch which the petitioner had attached to his application for a mining lease, has been produced by the Government Pleader and has been marked as Exhibit R-8; this sketch shows, the location of the said 200 acres). The petitioner has been carrying on his mining operations, even since, then. In the meanwhile, three persons who are the third respondents in these three writ petitions, filed applications for the grant of prospecting licences in them, in respect of different extents of land, situated in this area. The third respondent in W.P. No. 988/1964 applied on 29-9-1956 for the grant of prospecting license in respect of an extent of 100 acres. The third respondent in W.P. No. 989/64 applied on 2-4-1956 for a the grant of a prospecting licence in respect of an extent of 80 acres. Kotra Gowda, the third respondent in W.P. No. 900 of 1964 applied on 6-12-1957 for a prospecting licence in respect of an extent of 80 acres. The location of these areas in respect of which the said three respondents had filed their applications for the issue of prospecting licences, is shown in the sketch Exhibit R. 7 which has been filed by Mr. Government Pleader. The extent of 200 acres of land in the occupation of the petitioner is also shown in Exhibit R-7. On 23-5-1960, the petitioner made an application as per Exhibit A for the grant a mining lease in his favour in respect of an extent of 10 acres of land. Exhibit R-9 which purports to be a true copy of the sketch which the petitioner had attached to his application as per Exhibit A, shows the location of the said 10 acres. These 10 acres have been shown in Exhibit R-9 as the buffer zone lying to the west of the 200 acres in the occupation of the petitioner, and situated between the said 200 acres and that plot of land in respect of which one Vnganna Chetty is stated to have obtained a mining lease. On 23-8-1961, the Government of Mysore made an order as per Exhibit D, purporting to follow a previous policy decision of 31-12-1957 (as per Exhibit R-4) and the Government ordered that all applications for prospecting licences and mining leases, which were pending (on the date of Exhibit D), be rejected. In the order as per Exhibit D, the Government also further directed the Director of Mines and Geology (hereinafter referred to as the Director to prescribe a time limit of two months for the receipt of fresh applications of prospecting licences and mining lease. In compliance with the said Government order, the Director, by his letter dated 22-12-1961 (Exhibit C), intimated the petitioner that his application as per Exhibit A was rejected. He also further intimated the petitioner that in case the petitioner is interested in obtaining miner concessions over the said area, the petitioner should make a fresh application within a period of two months. Thereafter, in accordance with the intimation conveyed to him under Exhibit C, the petitioner made a fresh application as per Exhibit E dated 24-2-1962, for the issue of a mining lease to him in respect of the said 10 acres. Then, on 17-1-1963 the petitioner filed another application as Exhibit G praying for the grant of a mining lease in respect of the 20 acres of land shown in Exhibit H which is a copy of the sketch annexed to that application. It will be seen from that sketch that the said 20 acres consist of a stretch of land situated towards the west of the 200 acres in the occupation of the petitioner, another stretch toward the south of the said 200 acres and also a block of land situated the about the south-western corner of the corner of the said 200 acres. By the publication as per Exhibit P in the Gazette dated 26-12-1963, each of the three above said persons who had applied for prospecting licence was issued a prospecting licence in respect of extends of land much smaller than what had been prayed for in each of the application for prospecting licences. The third respondent in W.P. No. 988 of 1964 who had applied for a prospecting licence in respect of 100 acres of land, was ordered to be given a prospecting licence in respect of 1.25 acres of land, the third respondent of W.P. 989/1964 who had prayed for the issue of a prospecting licence in respect of 90 acres of land, was ordered to be granted, prospecting licence in respect of 39.19 acres of land; and Kotra Gowda the third respondent in W.P. 990/64 who had applied for a prospecting licence is respect of 80 acres of land, was ordered to be granted a prospecting licence in respect of only 13 acres of land. The location of these plots of land in respect of which these three persons have been granted prospecting licences under Exhibit P. has been shown in the sketch as per Exhibit R-7. The petitioner is feeling aggrieved at the grant of prospecting licences to the said three respondents, in respect of the said extents of lands, which are all adjacent to 200 acres which are in his occupation. That is why the petitioner has filed these three writ petitions, impleading in each case the respective grantee of the said prospecting licences as the third respondent and the State as the first respondent and the Director as respondent No. 2. He prays for the issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the grants made under Exhibit P; he also prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any appropriate direction requiring respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's applications as per Exhibit E and G for the issue of a mining lease, on the basis that they were the only valid applications. The grievance of the petitioner is that by reason of the policy decision of the Government dated 31-12-1957, the three applications for prospecting licences made by Kotra Gowda and the other two respondents-applicants, should have been rejected. It is also alleged by him that the extents of the lands in respect of which prospecting licences have been ordered to be issued under Exhibit P. did not form part of the acres in respect of which the said three persons had applied for prospecting licences. It is also alleged that the Director has acted mala fide and was influenced by a brother of Kotra Gowda who happened to be an M.L.A. The petitioner has further alleged that in granting the said prospecting licences, the authorities have acted in disregard of the relevant provisions of the Act and rules, and in an arbitrary and discriminary manner so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution. According to the petitioner the three applications for prospecting licences could not have any legal existence subsequent to the Government order as per Exhibit R-4 dated 31-12-1957 and that the only surviving applications were those of the petitioner as per Exhibits E and G for the issue of mining leases in his favour. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit. The third respondent in each of the two writ petitions W.P. Nos. 988 and 989 of 1964 has also filed a counter affidavit; Kotra Gowda the 3registered respondent in W.P. No. 990/1964 has not filed any counter-affidavit.

(2.) Before proceeding to deal with the other matters in controversy between the parties, it would be convenient to dispose of the allegations pertaining to mala fides. These allegations are found in paragraphs 11 and 19(c) of the petitioner's affidavit. Having regard to all these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that these allegations of mala fides have absolutely no foundation, and in rejecting the same.

(3.) In the course of his arguments Mr. Venugopalachari did not attempt to take the stand that any of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, were contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. He did not also dispute the fact that the rights and obligations of the persons applying whether for prospecting licences or mining leases, as well as the competence of the specified authorities dealing with the same, would all be as regulated and controlled by the provisions of the Act and the Rules. His contention is that the alleged discriminatory treatment prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner was two-fold. It is stated by the learned Advocate, that firstly, the State Government should have rejected the three applications for prospecting licences in pursuance of the policy decision as per Exhibit R-4, as it did in the case of Exhibit A (the petitioner's application for a mining lease). Secondly, it is argued by him that the grant of these prospecting licences to Kotra Gowda (third respondent in W.P. No.990 of 1964), is in respect of an extent of land not included in the area for which he had applied for a prospecting licence. (This latter contention was not urged in respect of the grants to the third respondents in the other two Writ Petitions.) It would be convenient to first dispose of the second contention. It was explained to us by Mr. Venugopalachari, that this contention of the petitioner is based on the fact that the extent in respect of which prospecting licence has been granted to Kotra Gowda, does not fall within the area shown in Exhibit F-1, as the disputed area. Ex. F-1 is a sketch which was attached to Ex. F the order or notice dated 17-6-1960, served on the petitioner. It was stated by Mr. Government Pleader during the course of his arguments, that the sketch as per Exhibit F-1 was not quite precise and that there is a mistake therein, in showing the disputed area. According to the sketch Exhibit R-7, which has been produced by Mr. Government Pleader, it is seen that part of the area for which Kotra Gowda had applied for a prospecting licence, extends beyond the Southwestern limits of the 200 acres in the occupation of the petitioner. But, in Exhibit F-1, the disputed areas is shown as if it is wholly within the limits of the 200 acres in the occupation of the petitioner. It was explained by Mr. Government Pleader that this mistake is due to the disputed area having been shown as being further north-wards than it really was, in the area in the occupation of the petitioner. Exhibit F-1 is a small sketch which was incidental to the order in Exhibit F and its main purpose was to apprise the petitioner, of the approximate area in dispute. It was not intended to be a communication to the petitioner of the extent or the location of the area in respect of which Kotra Gowda had applied for a prospecting licence. The exact extent and the location of the area for which Kotra Gowda had applied for a prospecting licence, could only be determined with reference to the sketch annexed to his application for the prospecting licence. It was not a copy of that sketch that was served on the petitioner. The possibility of an error, such as has been explained by Mr. Government Pleader, cannot be excluded altogether from a rough and ready sketch like Exhibit F-1. It was also explained to us by Mr. Government Pleader with reference to Exhibit R-10, which is the sketch which had been annexed by Kotra Gowda to his application for a prospecting licence, that the area of 80 acres for which he had made that application, lay, really to the south-west of the 200 acres in respect of which the mining lease had been granted to the petitioner. It was stated by Mr. Government Pleader and by Mr. Ullal, that the dispute between these grantees of prospecting licences and the petitioner, is due to the petitioner having shifted his operations to areas beyond the limits of the 200 acres in respect of which he has been granted the mining lease. We do not think that it is either necessary or desirable for us to make any pronouncement in respect of this alleged shifting or encroachment by the petitioner. We are told that there is a civil suit pending between the petitioner and these three prospecting licence holders, in which the petitioner has sought for a permanent injunction against them. Therefore, we do not wish to state anything about the merits of the question as to whether the petitioner has shifted beyond the limits of the 200 acres in respect of which a mining lease had been granted to him. All that is necessary for the present purpose, is merely to point out that the area and the location of the plot in respect of which Kotra Gowda had applied for a prospecting licence, as shown in Exhibit R10, do not fully accord with what has been shown as the disputed area in Exhibit F-1. Apart from the information which the petitioner derived from what is shown in Exhibit F-1, there is no material placed by him to show that the 13 acres in respect of which a prospecting licence in favour of Kotra Gowda had been ordered under Exhibit P, are not included in the area for which he had made his application for a prospecting licence. This contention of the petitioner, which is based on an inexact representation in Exhibit F-1, must be rejected. In rejecting the petitioner's application as per Exhibit A, for the issue of a mining lease in his favour in respect of 10 acres of land, the Government relied on an order dated 23-8-1961. In Exhibit C it is stated clearly that the said application was rejected in accordance with the said Government Order. That Government Order is Exhibit D and is as follows: