IQBAL BAIG S/O. SRI USMAN BAIG Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COAL AND MINES, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal and writ petitions are related to grant of mining lease of an extent of 15.38 Hectares of Navalatti Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District and therefore, the above writ appeal and writ petitions are heard and disposed of together.

(2.) 1. Writ appeal No. 1243/2008 is directed against the order dated 14th March 2008 made in Writ Petition No. 10463/2006 filed by one Iqbal Baig challenging the proceedings dated 1.9.2005 by the State of Karnataka recommending to grant mining lease in respect of Manganese and Iron Ore over an extent of 15.38 Hectares of Navalatti Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District in favour of P. Venkateshwara Rao for a period of 20 years, to the Central Government under Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short hereinafter referred to as MMMDR Act"), made pursuant to the notification dated 15.3.2003 under Rule 59(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short hereinafter referred to as "MC Rules"). 2.2. The learned Single Judge by order dated 14th March 2008, holding that the writ petitioner -Iqbal Balg was not given an opportunity of being heard under Rule 26(1) of the MC Rules before refusing to grant mining lease in his favour, quashed the proceedings dated 1.9.2005 made in favour of P. Venkateshwara Rao. Hence, the 4th respondent in the writ petition -P. Venkateshwara Rao has preferred W.A. No. 1243/2008.

(3.) 1. The appellant -P. Venkateshwara Rao in Writ Appeal No. 1243/2008 and petitioner in W.P. No. 23219/2009, In whose favour, the State Government had recommended to grant mining lease, by order dated 1.9.2005, contends that as on the date of issuance of notification dated 15.3,2003, there was no renewal application pending; the legal representatives approached the Central Mines Tribunal, by way of a revision application after lapse of 18 years; and that the original lessee died In the year 1998, viz., after eight years from the date of expiry of original lease in the year 1990. Since the original lessee has not prosecuted his right to seek renewal, his right to seek renewal abates. As there is no valid application for renewal as on the date of his death, the legal representatives of Krishnamachari have no right to seek for renewal of mining lease originally granted in favour of their father Krishnamachari nor to prefer a revision petition before the Central Mines Tribunal. In view of the fact that right to seek renewal by the original lessee itself got abated, the first proviso to Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules is not attracted and therefore, the State Government was well within its jurisdiction to issue notification under Rule 59(1) of MC Rules, notifying the area available for grant of mining lease. Consequently, the Central Mines Tribunal has erred in exercising its jurisdiction under Rule 54 in allowing the revision petition and passing the final order dated 5.12.2008 directing the State Government to consider the renewal application filed by the original grantee and in -turn, the State Government has also, by proceedings dated 15.1.2009, erred in directing the Director of Mines and Geology to process the renewal application in favour of legal representatives of Krishnamachari. 4.2. In any event, the claim of the legal representatives of Krishnamachari seeking renewal of lease, which expired on 17.2.1990, after nearly 18 years, is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. 4.3. In addition to the above contentions, he contends that the contention of Iqbal Baig, the petitioner, in W.P. No. 10463/2006, does not deserve any consideration because while recommending grant of mining lease in his favour, the State Government had taken into consideration the criteria specified under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC Rules, of course, after following the procedure contemplated under Rule 26(1) of the MC Rules, which infact, was not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 14.3.2008, ought not to have interfered with the said order of recommendation dated 1.9.2005 made in favour of P. Venkateshwara Rao and quash the said order of recommendation.