AMRITLAL NATHUBHAI SHAH Vs. UNION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of nineteen petitions raises an interesting question of construction of certain provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 The facts giving rise to the petitions are identical save for difference in the area and location of the lands in respect of which mining lease is sought by the petitioners and it would therefore be sufficient if we take one of the petitions namely Special Civil Application No. 1045 of 1968 as a representative petition and state the facts of that petition.

(2.) The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 1045 of 1968 carry on business of mining and they are also dealers in minerals. Bauxite is an important mineral having its uses as raw material in several industries including manufacture of alumina. There are fairly large deposits of bauxite in three districts of the State of Gujarat namely Jamnagar Junagadh and Kutch. The Government of Gujarat by a notification dated 31 December 1963 notified for the information of the public that the lands in all the Talukas of Kutch District and Kalyanpur Taluka of Jamnagar District are reserved for exploitation of bauxite in the public sector. Similar notification was also issued by the Government of Gujarat for all areas of Jamnagar and Junagadh Districts on 26th February 1964. On 1st June 1967 the petitioners made an application to the State Government through the Collector of Kutch District in the prescribed form for grant of mining lease for bauxite in respect of an area of about 209 Acres 36 Gunthas forming part of Survey No. 151 situate in village Polandia Mandvi Taluka Kutch District. The application was made under Rule 22(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and according to the petitioners it was in conformity with all the requirements of the Act and the Rules. There was no other prior application in respect of this area of land and the petitioners were the only applicants so far as this area of land was concerned. The State Government by its order dated 13th June 1967 rejected the application of the petitioners on the ground that the State Government has reserved the areas of Kutch District for public sector vide Government Notification....dated 31st December 1963. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of rejection preferred a revision application to the Central Government under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 The Central Government invited the comments of the State Government against the revision application under Clause (1) of Rule 55 and on receipt of the comments from the State Government the Central Government gave an opportunity to the petitioners under Clause (2) of Rule 55 to make such further comments as they liked in reply to the comments of the State Government. The Central Government thereafter on a consideration of the revision application the comments of the State Government and the counter-comments of the petitioners made an order dated 30th April 1968 confirming the order of the State Government and rejecting the revision application of the petitioners. The ground on which the Central Government rejected the revision application may be stated in its own words:-

(3.) Though the ground on which the orders of the State Government and the Central Government were challenged was a limited ground the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties ranged over a wide field and led to an interesting debate on the true scope of the executive power of the State Government in regard to reservation of land for mining purposes and the proper construction of some of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 We shall presently refer to these arguments but before we do so it would be convenient at this stage to notice a few of the relevant provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 The Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 came into force on 1st June 1958. It contained the following declaration in sec. 2 on contemplated under Entry 54 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution:-