SHANTILAL PARAKH Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in allowing application of respondent No. 4 for grant of mining lease for winning lime stone. Reliefs, which have been claimed by the petitioner, contained in para, 7 of the writ petition, are as under:-

(2.) The petitioner desirous of obtaining mining lease in respect of an area comprised of Khasra No. 623/2.00 Hectare situated at Village Takraguda, Taluka Jagdalpur, District Bastar applied to the State Government vide his application dated 11-06-2001. After submission of the application, the petitioner also obtained clearance/no objection from different authorities.

(3.) Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, the action of the respondents in accepting application of respondent No. 4 is challenged on the ground that such action impliedly rejects application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease in respect of the same area in utter violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960(In short "the Rules of 1960"). It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that inviolable rule of affording an opportunity of hearing and recording reasons for rejection has been given a complete go by. It has been further contended that in the present case, the authority has proceeded to pass an order in favour of respondent No. 4 completely ignoring petitioner's right of being considered and the implied rejection of the petitioner's application suffers from arbitrariness. Other submission is that the area applied for was not notified one and therefore, per force, provision of Sub Section 2 of Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (In short "the Act of 1957"), the petitioner, having applied for grant of lease at an earlier point of time, was entitled to preferential treatment. It is further submitted that the respondents having not recorded any reason as required under sub section (5) of Section 11 of the Act of 1957 to justify departure from normal rule of preferential treatment, action of the respondents is in clear breach of statutory mandate of sub section (2) of Section 11 of the Act of 1957.