JAS RAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jasraj petitioner in his writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has alleged as follows : The petitioner obtained a certificate of approval under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the erstwhile Government of Central Provinces and Barar (now Madhya Pradesh) on 4th November, 1947. It was renewed from time to time and was valid up to 31st December, 1963. He was granted a prospecting licence for coal over an area of 305.00 acres in Government forest Block No. 64, Amarwara Range in the district of Chhindwara. Madhya Pradesh, on 10th December, 1954. The Government of Madhya Pradesh executed the prospecting licence agreement on 18th March, 1958, in his favour. He was allowed to enter the area by the Collector. Thereafter he approached the Range Officer, Amarwara, for demarcation of the area for prospecting but the latter officer could not demarcate the area till 25th October, 1959. He was not able to do any prospecting werk in the area before this date and as the prospecting licence was to expire on 17th March, 1960, the prospecting work remained in abeyance all through. The petitioner on 8th March, 1960, applied for the grant of a mining licence over the aforesaid 305.00 acres for which he had earlier obtained the prospecting licence. The State of Madhya Pradesh respondent No. 2 rejected his application by order dated 24th September 1962 (Ann"xv,reF). He filed a revision petition against the above order to the Central Government, Ministry of Mines and Fuel, under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, which was also dismissed recorder dated 13th June, 1963 (Annexure A). He prays for quashing of the orders of the State Government, Madhya Pradesh (Annexure F) and of the Central Government (Annexure A" on the grounds that the State Government refused to grant him the licence on the advice of the Central Government which was against law and that the Central Government rejected his revision petition without hearing him The other grounds urged in the petition may not be noticed here because those were not alluded to by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments.

(2.) The respondents in their written statement pleaded that respondent No. 2 was bound under the law to seek approval of the Centra Government before granting the mining licence asked for by the petitioner and that respondent No. 1 before finally disposing of the revision petition filed by the petitioner invited his comments on the report submitted by the State Government on his revision petition and this was all what was required under the Rules and so the petitioner could not say that he was not heard before a decision was taken on his revision petition.

(3.) There is no doubt, as is evident from Annexure F, that respondent No 2 declined to grant the mining licence asked for on the grounds that the area was he'd by him under a prospecting licence, that no prospecting had so far been done by him and that he had no financial capacity to run the proposed mine efficiently and scientifncally.This was done on the advice eceived from the Government of India which is clear from AnnexureG, a letter written by the Under-Secretary to Government, Madhya Pradesh, to the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Mines and Fuel, which incorporated comments of respondent No. 2 on the petitioner's revision petition. Section 5 of the Act lays down the restrictions on the grant of prospecting licenceor mining lease, the relevant portion of which runs as : "5. (1) No prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted by a State Government to any person unless he- (a) holds a certificate of approval in the prescribed form from the State Government; (b) produces from the Income-tax Officer concerned an income-tax clearances certificate in the prescribed form ; and (c) satisfies such other conditions as may be prescribed. (2) Except with the previcrs approval of the Central Government, no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted- (2) as respects any mineral specified in the First Schedule, or (b) to any person who is not an Indian national. Coal appears as' item No. 4 in the First Schedule. Acursory reading of the above provision of law makes it clear that the State Government could not have granted the petitioner a mining licence prayed for by him without the previous approval of the Central Government because it was in respect of a mineral specified in the First .Schedule of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that such previous approva of the Central Government was not necessary in individual cases but was to besought of matters of general policy only. His argument does not findsupport from the provision of law which is express, explicit and mandatory and indeed it admits' of no implications and exceptions. It plainly lays down that no prospecting licence or mining lease could be granted without the previous approval of the Central Government in respect of any mineral specified in the First Schedule and coal is. one of such minerals. The argument advanced by the learned counsel is of no avail to him.