DURGA PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner by this writ Petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 20th May, 1992 passed by Dr. A. Vravalli, Joint Secretary(Law) and Mr. Surendra Mishra, Joint Secretary(Mines), Revisional Authority constituted under section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957 (for short the Act) and Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short "the Rules"), by which the revisional authority set aside the order dated 30th November, 1988, passed by State of Haryana (Respondent No.2) granting lease to Durga Prasad (Petitioner) for a period of ten years; and the orders dated 24th January, 1989 and 7th February, 1989 passed by State of Haryana (Respondent No. 2) rejecting mining lease applications of the Respondents No. 3 and 4 and remanding the matter back to Government for reconsideration of the mining lease applications of the Petitioner as well as, of Respondents 3 arid 4, along with other applicants, in accordance with law.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this Petition, briefly, are that State of Haryana, vide notification dated 15th January, 1988 issued under Rule 59(1) of the Rules, invited applications for grant of mining lease for China Clay over an area of 96.7 hectares in village Anangpur, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, Haryana. It was an old mine for which State Government wanted to give fresh lease. The applications could be filed within 30 days of the notification.

(3.) Six persons submitted applications, viz Durga Prasad (petitioner), M/s. Bhaskar Stone Ware pipes Limited (BSWL Respondent No.3), J.L. Jaiswal (Respondent No. 4), Kartar Singh, M/s. Rajdhani Minerals and M/s. Mohan Ram & Company in the prescribed form. Each applicant under Rule 22 of the Rules, was required to file, along with the application, a mining plan of the area, duly approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines, (for short IBM), since China Clay was a major mineral. None of the applicants initially filed mining plan. Director (Industries), Government of Haryana, vide letter dated 8.4.1988, under Rule 26(3) of the Rules, called upon all the applicants, to complete their applications and submit their mining plan; all the applicants sought extension of time for the same but even in the extended time the mining plans were not submitted. On 20th September, 1988, the Petitioner submitted his mining plan and the Director (Industries) recommended his name to the State Government staling that his was the only complete application.