A.H. JAFFER & SONS AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF STEEL AND MINES, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six petitions can be disposed of by common order, as raising common questions with regard to the orders made by the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu upon request by the Union of India under Section 4A(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, terminating the mining leases before the period of each of the mining lease had run out.

(2.) FOR the purpose of these petitions, it is not in dispute that the leases are granted concerning the mineral covered by the provisions of Section 4A and further that the leases were for the period which did not expire when the impugned order was made. Each of the petitioners under the lease was entitled to mine silica -sand from the dunes and beaches that lie within the territory of Goa. It is not necessary to set out all the details of these leases. We purport to set out the admitted position with regard to the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 170 of 1983. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 therein claim to be carrying on business of mining silica -sand. After due application for extraction of that mineral over an area of 120 hectares, lease was sanctioned to them. The said lease area is situated at villages Cavelossim and Carmona in Salcete Taluka of South Goa. The lease was granted by an order dated 2nd August, 1969 and due instrument in that regard came to be registered by 30th October, 1969 under registration No. 1145. The lease was to expire by 29th October, 1989. Somewhat similar are the facts with regard to each petition. Suffice it to mention, therefore, that when the impugned orders were made under Section 4A(1) the lease under the original sanction had not expired and the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu purported to follow the mandatory request from the Central Government so as to prematurely terminate the said lease.

(3.) AS far as the ground of mala fide is concerned, the allegations contained in the petition mainly relate to one Mr. Naik said to be the Minister for Industries and Mines and his alleged strained relations with the petitioners since 1970. These allegations are available in paragraphs 11,12,13 and 14 of the first of the petitions and on the basis thereof it is contended that the present action under Section 4A(1) by the Central Government was vitiated by reason of those mala fides. We have carefully gone through the allegations on which reliance was placed. We find it difficult to hold that those allegations contain any averment against the Central Government or any of its officials. Said Mr. Naik is also not arrayed as a party. Further under the provisions of Section 4A, it is the Central Government which is required to form an opinion so as to make a mandatory request to the State Government for the purpose of taking steps to terminate prematurely a mining lease. Allegations contained in all these paragraphs do not contain even a whisper against any of the officials of the Central Government. Charges of mala fide are easy to make but difficult to establish. By its very nature these are quasi -criminal and require clear proof. We have hardly any material to connect Mr. Naik with the request of the Central Government. We, therefore, do not find any substance in this charge.