ISHWAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the renewal application moved by the petitioner for renewal of the mining lease in respect of the minerals Pyrophyllite and Diaspore. The rejection of the renewal application was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 4.2.1986 issued by the Joint Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the Notification dated 9.4.1986 issued under the provisions of Rule 58 of The Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) whereby an area of 47.42 Acres in village Dhankua, District Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh was reserved for the use of a Corporation established by the State Government or a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner company aggrieved by the rejection of its renewal application as well as by the said notification which reserved the very area of the mining lease earlier granted to the petitioner to be used only by a State Government Corporation or a Government company filed two separate revision applications under Rule 54 of the said Rules.

(2.) The grounds on which the renewal application came to be rejected were:

(3.) Asregards the issuance of the Notification dated 9.4.1986 issued by the State Government, reserving the area in question for use by a State Government Corporation or a Government Company, the petitioner contended that the same was discriminatory and in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, it had a right to renewal of the lease in terms of paragraph 3 of Part VIII of the Lease Deed. Had the Government really been serious about the exploitation of Pyrophyllite and Diaspore in the Public Sector, the State Government ought to have reserved all the areas in the vicinity of the petitioner's lease also. This was not done. On the contrary the State Government reserved only the petitioner's lease area leaving out other areas for exploitation by private parties. This, according to the petitioner, was discriminatory and arbitrary and, therefore, was liable to be set aside as such.