D NARAPA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for a mining lease of Mica over 19 acres 50 cents in Survey Nos. 30, 31 and 55/2B of Perumalappadu village Nellore District on 19-11-1976. The 3rd respondent also applied for 35 acres 60 cents in Survey Nos. 31, 55 and 57-Part of the same village on 23-8-1976. The State Government considered the applications and requested the Central Government to accord their approval under Section 11 (4) of the Act in favour of the petitioner for area applied for by him. The Central Government accorded its approval on 23-6-1978. Accordingly in G 0 Ms No. 740 dated 22-9 1978, the State Government granted the mining lease to the petitioner over an extent of 14 acres 66 cents. The 3rd respondent was granted lease for an area of 18 acres 35 cents instead of 35 acres 60 cents., as applied for by him.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of the State Government, the 3rd respondent filed a revision under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules before the Central Government. The Central Government dismissed the revision on 15-10-80 saying that the lease granted to the petitioner was already approved by the Central Government and that it has no jurisdiction to reconsider the matter. The 3rd respondent challenged the order of the Central Government in writ petition No. 5604 of 1980 and the same was allowed on 26-6-1981 holding that the approval given by the Central Goveranment was on the administrative side without according a hearing to the parties and the same does not preclude the Central Government from considering the merits of the case on the judicial side in exercise of their power under Section 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules. The matter was remitted to the Central Government for reconsideration on merits.

(3.) On remand by the High Court, the Central Government reconsidered the matter. The main objection taken in the revision petition was that the applications filed by the petitioner is invalid as it was not accompanied by Minor Mineral Clearance Certificate nor was the said certificate filed within 3 months from the date of application as required by Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. It was therefore, contended that the application was liable to be rejected for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the said Rule. This contention was accepted by the Central Government and the lease granted in favour of the petitioner was set aside by order dated 16-8-1982 on the sole ground that mineral dues clearance certificate was not filed within 90 days of the application as required by the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 Clause (3) and that the application is therefore invalid. The order of the Central Government is challenged in this writ petition.