BRIJ LAL SURI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 132(1) and 133 (1) of the Constitution for grant of certificates that the case involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and that the judgment sought to be appealed against involves directly and indirectly a claim or question respecting property worth not less than Rs. 20,000/-.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant, Brij Lal Suri, is the Karta of a joint Hindu family firm trading under the name of Northern India Lime Marketing Association, Dehra Dun, (hereinafter called the firm). There are substantial lime stone and other mineral deposits in the district of Dehra Dun and some other districts in this State. On the 31st July 1948 the firm was granted a prospecting licence to prospect for sulphates, carbonates, phosphates and sulphides such as Gymsum, Albaster, Limestone and others. The licence was in the standard form of prospecting licence, as prescribed in the U. P. Mining Concessions and Mineral Development Rules, 1940, (hereinafter referred to as 1940 Rules). The licence was initially for the period of one year, but one of the terms of the licence was that the licensee would have the right, subject to compliance with the Rules, to a mining lease over so much of the land included in the prospecting licence as the licensee desired and the Provincial Government thought fit to grant. The application, however, for the grant of the lease was to be made before the determination of the term of the licence and, if such application was duly made, the term of the licence was to extend for the further period till the date on which the lease was granted or the date which was prescribed by the Collector in his discretion. Soon after the grant of the licence, the firm made an application on 20-9-1948 for the grant of a mining lease for 30 years over the entire land. The mining lease was not granted and the firm applied to the Collector of Dehra Dun that the period of the prospecting licence be extended to the date of the execution of the deed. Neither was the term of the prospecting licence extended nor was a mining lease granted to the firm. On the other hand, on 28-6-1949 the Collector of Dehra Dun wrote to the firm a letter purporting to cancel the licence.

(3.) The firm, however, continued to exercise its alleged rights under the prospecting licence and made representations to the State Government and the Central Government for the execution of the mining lease. The mining lease, however, was not executed and a writ petition was moved in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying inter alia for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the State of Uttar Pradesh to execute a mining lease in favour of the firm for a term of 30 years. This petition was opposed by the State on a number of grounds, including the ground that the 1940 Rules did not apply to limestone and most of those grounds were considered and decided by a Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 8-12-1953. The decision on other points was in favour of the firm, but on the question whether the 1940 Rules were applied by the State Government, the Court was not satisfied that they were so applied to limestone. The rules did not apply by their own force to a mining lease for excavating limestone, and the question whether the State Government had applied those rules to limestone was a question of fact which depended upon evidence. The material before the Court was not considered to be sufficient for deciding the question, and the Bench decided to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus in the alternative. The State Government was either to grant the lease or to show cause why the same be not granted. The State Government decided to show cause against the grant of the writ and by their application dated 7-1-1954 averred that the 1940 rules had never been applied by the State Government to leases for excavating limestone. Subsequently a number of applications were made on behalf of the firm to the effect that no proper cause had been shown by the State Government against the issue of the writ and that the State Government be directed to discolse the documents which appertained to the point in controversy and to allow inspection of a number of files.