S P GOENKA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR GIDDAPAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed an application for the grant of a mining lease in barytes on 29-8-1973 before the District Collector, Cuddapah in respect of an area of 200 acres in Mangampet village, Rajampet. Taluq. Cuddapah District. The said application was received by the District Collector on 5/09/1913. The application was accompanied by the necessary documents as required under the Mineral Concession Rules 1960, herein after referred to as the Rules in pursuance of his application, the petitioner was called upon Iocate the area in respect of which the licence we, applied and survey Operations were also conducted by the revenue authorities However. the application of the petitioner was not disposed of within 12 months of its receipt as required under Rule 24 of the Rules, Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 if any application is not disposed of within 12 months it shall be deemed to have been refused. So the petitioner filed a revision application before the Central Government under Rule 54. The Central Government forwarded a copy of the revision application to the State Government for its comments. On receipt of the comments of the State Government and without communicating the comments of the State Government to the petitioner the central Government rejected the revision application on 15-2-1977. Government while rejecting the application informed the petitioner that the State Government in their comments stated that the barytes bearing areas in Mangampet village were served for exploitation. In public sector in G. O. Ms. No. 27 of Industries and Commerce (Mines III Department. dated 7-1-1974, that the State Government are competent to reserve any area for exploitation in public sector and that the petitioner was therefore, not entitled to the grant of mining lease over the area. Aggrieved against the said order of the Central Government, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The first and the principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Central Government erred in law in rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner without communicating the comments of the State Government to the petitioner and calling upon him to make such further and calling upon him to make such further comments as he may like the Rules and that the petitioner was thereby deprived of a reasonable opportunity to present his case.

(3.) Rule 55 of the rules reads as follows: "55 . orders on Revision Application: