SESA GOA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has called in question in this petition the validity of the Notification dated 18 - 11 - 2003 vide Annexure - F whereby the first respondent has delegated to the second respondent to perform the imposition of duties under Rule 26 (1) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and also the letter of recommendation of the State Government no. CI 14 MMM 2004, dated 9 - 2 - 2004 seeking approval of the third respondent for grant of mining lease to the fourth respondent vide Annexure - H. It also seeks issue of mandamus to the respondents no. 1 and 2 to consider the applications filed by the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard he persuasive arguments of the learned Counsel sri Phanindra and the learned Additional Government Pleader in supplementation to the material on record.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel Sri Phanindra has referred to the following factual matrix which is borne out from the record in support of the relief sought in the writ petition and has particularly made mention to the proviso of Section 11 (2) and Section 26 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the MMRD Act) as also to the imposition of duties upon the State government by provision of Rule 26 (1) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the MC Rules ).