SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANIL V. SALGAOCAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI), MINISTRY OF COAL AND MINES, DEPARTMENT OF MINES REP. HEREIN BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions are by persons who had aspired for mining lease of government reserved forest lands in Kumaraswamy range of reserved forest of Sandur taluk in Bellary district, which land figures one amongst several parcels of lands notified for grant of mining lease by the government of Karnataka in terms of its notification No. Cl 16 MMM 2003 dated 15 -3 -2007. The notification was issued under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 [for short, the Rules], which in turn is the Rules framed under the provisions of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 [for short, the Act].

(2.) IT appears that the writ petitioner in WP No. 20739 of 2005 M/s Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd., had filed an application in form No. 1 and had sought for grant of mining lease in respect of an extent of 524.80 ha of forest land in Ramanamale block, Sandur range, Bellary district and a sketch plan had been enclosed along with the application, the application of the petitioner in WP No. 19339 of 2005 filed by one H.G. Rangagouda son of Gaviyappa of Hospet in Bellary district, was in respect of 350 ha of forest land in Yashwanthnagar forest range, Sandur taluk, Bellary district.

(3.) WRIT petitioners have urged many grounds in support of their challenge to the legality of the notification. It is mainly contended that the notification of this nature in exercise of the power under Section 17A(1A) of the Act cannot be issued in respect of the lands which had been once held on lease and had been notified for further lease under Rule 59 of the Rules, but a notification can only be in respect of virgin lands and not in respect of a land which had already been held on lease or prospecting licence.