HARICHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF T N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent in Mu. Mu. No. 1244/84 dt. 4-9-1984, rejecting the application put in by the petitioner for the grant of a mining lease to quarry grey granite under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to grant such a lease to the petitioner in relation to an extent of about 8 acres in Survey No. 121, Modikkuppam village, Krishnagiri taluk Dharmapuri district. The petitioner claims to be a repatriate from Ceylon. With a view to rehabilitate himself and also to support his family, the petitioner is stated to have applied on 16-5-1984 for the grant of a mining lease for quarrying grey granite. The application so put in by the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent by the impugned order relying upon G.O. Ms. No. 960 Industries, dt. 16-8-1984, under which the State Government has reserved the whole of Dharmapuri district for the exploitation of multi-coloured Gneissic granite commercially known as grey granite by the Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. the third respondent herein in the exercise of powers conferred under R.38 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, several grounds have been set out including the invalidity of R.38 of the Rules. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised only two points in support of this writ petition on the basis that R.38 of the Rules is valid. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reservation of the area comprised in the entire district of Dharmapuri for exclusive exploitation of grey granite therein by the Government or a Corporation established by a Central or State Government Act or a Government company is not bona fide and was also arbitrary and unreasonable and was only intended to shut out others from exploiting the same. In this connection, it was also pointed out by the learned counsel that the pockets in Dharmapuri district reserved for such exploitation had not been exploited at all and at this state of affairs, the reservation of the entire area comprised in Dharmapuri district was unreasonable and arbitrary. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that on the basis that R.38 of the Rules is valid, no exception could be taken to the reservation of any area for exploitation by the Government or a Corporation established by any Central or State Act or a Government Company and that under G.O. Ms No.118 Industries, dt.1-2-1984, the Government had reserved for exploitation of grey granite by the Government or a Corporation established by any Central or State Act or a Government Company, 15 villages and in those villages, the minerals were being exploited and in view of the circumstances that the lands in question belonged to the State, it had the exclusive right to all the minerals therein as well as no exception can therefore be taken to the reservation of the entire district for exclusive exploitation of grey granite by the State or by a Corporation established by any Central or State Act or a Government Company, as the third respondent herein.

(3.) There is no dispute that the lands in respect of which the petitioner made an application for the grant of the lease to him for quarrying grey granite belonged to the Government. That this mineral therein also belonged to the Government is not in doubt. The exploitation of the grey granite minerals in the lands belonging to the State can be done either by the State or by the State granting leases in favour of other persons. Till recently, the exploitation of such minerals even in Government lands was being done by granting leases for such exploitation and mineral development in favour of private persons, companies etc. Later, after the coming into existence of the third respondent Corporation, which is fully owned by the State Government, and whose 100% share holding is also held by the Government of Tamil Nadu, for the purpose of exploitation of minerals and mineral development by employing modern methods and technique including the use of machines, it was felt necessary to curtail private exploitation of minerals belonging to the Government and to make available larger extents or areas for more methodical exploitation of the minerals therein by the State owned Corporation viz. the third respondent. It was only with a view to make available larger areas for such exploitation, R.38 of the Rules for the reservation of any area for the exploitation by the Government or a Corporation established by any Central or State Act or a Government company was made. This was in G.O. Ms. No. 1080 Industries dt.2-9-1983. Prima faice, therefore, the reservation made of areas for exploitation of grey granite by the Government or by Government Companies cannot be taken exception to. However, what is urged by the petitioner in this case is that despite the earlier reservation of small pockets in Dharmapuri district for such exploitation by the Government or Government Corporation, that had not been done and in that context, the further, reservation of a larger area comprising the whole district would be arbitrary and unreasonable. This was countered by the learned counsel for the third respondent on the ground that the grey granite mineral wealth of the 15 villages reserved under G.O. Ms. No.118 Industries, dt. 1-2-1984, is being exploited, subject to the completion of formalities in that regard and it cannot therefore be stated that even without exploiting the areas of grey granite already reserved, the other areas comprised in the whole district have been further reserved amounting to unreasonable or arbitrary reservation.