(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned judge in W.P.No.1805 of 1991. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in the appeal. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents in the writ appeal. For sake of convenience,we are referring to the parties, as per their nomenclature in the petition.
(2.) THE petitioner was faced with a show cause notice for determination of the lease Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as "the formulated pursuant to powers conferred by Sec.13 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957). THE petitioner challenged the show cause stating that the same has been issued by the second respondent who has no jurisdiction competency as per the Rules to issue the same. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 57 of the Rules unambiguous in its language. It speaks only about the State Government determining lease as per the preceding sub-rules in Rule 37. What was relied on by the respondent before the learned single judge to any that the second respondent was competent to the impugned show cause notice was G.O.Ms.No.888, Development Department, 28.2.1951, which contemplated that the Collector of a District can take such suitable as is necessary for the enforcement and observance of the conditions of prospecting licences and mining leases granted in their Districts and to see to the proper working of the learned single Judge countenanced this plea of the respondents. Further, respondents advanced the theory that the ultimate order of termination of lease would passed only by the first-respondent and in that view no exception need be taken impugned show cause notice by the second respondent. THE stand of the respondents also countenanced by the learned single Judge. As a result, the Writ Petition was dismissed. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge.
(3.) MR.A.L.Somayaji, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit, with regard contention that the second respondent has only issued a show cause notice and the ultimate order of determination will be passed only by the first-respondent, it could not have countenance at the hands of this Court, because, in the absence of any provision authorising and enabling the second-respondent even to issue the show-cause notice, cannot do so. This submission has got sound ethics behind it. It will not be a proposition to say that the initiation of the proceedings though incompetent, could culminate in an ultimate decision at the hands of the competent authority. In the absence of any conferred on the second-respondent at least to initiate proceedings towards determination the lease, it is not possible to dissect the proceedings and allow initiation and prosecution proceedings at one stage by one authority, who patently lacks jurisdiction and leaving rest of the proceedings to be prosecuted to its culmination by another authority jurisdiction. May be it is possible to provide for such contingencies by making provision to that effect. Such is not the case here. Hence we are not able to fall in the thinking of the learned single Judge, when he accepted the pleas of the respondents this question. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed; the order of the learned single in W.P.No.1805 of 1991 is set aside and that Writ Petition will stand allowed, as prayed We make it clear that the first respondent is at liberty to initiate fresh action against appellant in accordance with law, if there is still a warrant for the same. We make as to costs. Appeal allowed.