MAHALAKSHMI MINES AND MINERALS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Firm, undertaking the activity of mining. It submitted an application, on 25.10.2008, before the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Vizianagaram, the 4th respondent herein, with a request to grant mining lease over an extent of Acs. 11.92 cents of land survey Nos. 338/1 to 7 and 339/1 to 18 of B.P. Varakatta Village, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Since Manganese happens to be major mineral, the competent authority to grant lease is the State Government, the 2nd respondent herein. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder mandate that, before the State Government grants mining lease, it should obtain the approval of the Central Government, the 1st respondent. The application submitted by the petitioner was processed by various authorities. Ultimately, the 2nd respondent, submitted proposals to the 1st respondent recommending grant of mining lease for a period of 20 years in favour of the petitioner. The 1st respondent passed order, dated 01.09.2010, returning the proposal in respect of the land applied by the petitioner and certain other proposals, on the ground that the application for grant of mining lease was filed straight away, without there being an application for prospective licence and that the provisions of Section 5(2)(a) of the Act are not complied with.

(2.) The 2nd respondent re-submitted the proposals, on 26.10.2010 mentioning that the area applied for by the petitioner, at one stage, was reserved in favour of the State Government undertaking and such reservation was affected only on being satisfied that there exists adequate deposits of the mineral. It is also mentioned that in the immediate neighbourhood of the said land, the mining activity for Manganese is going on. However, the 1st respondent passed an order, dated 12.08.2011, returning the proposal. Acting on the same, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 31.12.2011, requiring it to show as to why the application be not rejected. The petitioner submitted representation on 23.01.2012. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 28.02.2012 rejecting the application of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner contends that when the State Government has clearly stated that not only adequate proof as to existence of mineral is available, but also the area was reserved in favour of the State Government undertaking, there was no basis for the 1st respondent in insisting on obtaining prospecting licence. It is further pleaded that the 1st respondent returned proposals in a mechanical manner and the 2nd respondent has passed the orders almost reeling under obligation to do so.