K RAGHUNATHA REDDY Vs. GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to understand whether Rule 22(3) of the Mining Concession Rules, 1960 is mandatory or otherwise in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Shreeram Durgaprasad v. Govt. of India, AIR 1978 AP 422, the Division Bench referred the matter to a Full Bench. Hence, this reference.

(2.) A few facts which are necessary to answer the reference are as follows :

(3.) It was contended before this Court that Rule 22(3) had no application in the case of the petitioner. However, mining dues certificate was produced immediately after the application. There is no delay or laches on his part to attract Rule 22(3). The reason for not producing the certificate was at the instance of the Government. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent contended that the application filed by the petitioner was not a valid application in the eye of law as the certificate was not filed within 90 days from the date of the application. Secondly, the petitioner was in due of arrears on the date of filing of the application whereas he took the certificate stating that he was not in due. The learned single Judge did not incline to accept the second ground urged by the 3rd respondent, as for the first time the said contention was raised by the 3rd respondent though such a contention was not raised earlier even when the revision was filed or in the earlier writ petitioner. The learned single Judge considered the contention raised by both the parties on the question whether the petitioner's application is valid or not. He referred to Rule position of Rule 22(3) and observed as follows: