TRINITY INFRASTRUCTURE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court while hearing the Writ Petition No.25364/2019 (M/s Trinity Infrastructure vs. State of M.P. and others) along with connected matters on 29/1/2020 found conflict between the Division Bench decision of Indore Bench of this Court passed in W.P. No.6215/2019 (Prathvi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and others) decided on 27/6/2019, which was later on modified by the Bench vide common order dtd. 8/11/2019 passed in Review Petition No.1051/2019 (State of M.P. and others vs. Prathvi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and others) decided along with connected review petitions and the observations made by a Division Bench of Gwalior Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 20/1/2020 passed in W.P. No.19690/2019 (Smt. Prabha Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others). Therefore, the following questions were framed for consideration and determination by the Larger Bench:-

(2.) After the matter was referred to the Larger Bench for consideration and determination of the aforesaid questions in M/s Trinity Infrastructure s case (supra) and connected matters, some more writ petitions involving similar dispute have been filed. In W.P. No.6767/2020 (M/s Aman Stone Crusher vs. State of M.P. and others) filed before the Gwalior Bench involving similar controversy, the petitioner therein sought parity with the order dtd. 20/1/2020 passed by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Prabha Sharma (supra) wherein the Court has directed the Licensing Authority to exercise powers under Rule 6 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Rules ") and table contained therein, which indicates that the case of the petitioner therein falls under Entry 6 of Schedule-I (specified minerals which can only be granted and renewed as per the procedure prescribed therein). After discussing both the pronouncements in the cases of Prathvi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Smt. Prabha Sharma (supra), the Division Bench at Gwalior vide order dtd. 8/7/2020 again observed that quarry of stone for making Gitti by mechanical crushing can only be allotted by the authority as per the procedure prescribed in Rule 6 of 1996 Rules itself and not by auction. Accordingly, the said Division Bench relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Suseela and others vs. University Grants Commission and others (2015) 8 SCC 129, formulated the two questions for determination by the Full Bench:-

(3.) Brief facts, leading to the questions referred, are that the petitioner M/s Trinity Infrastructure has obtained a quarry lease from one M/s Premium Stones by way of transfer, which is situated at village Ghathari, Tehsil Gorihar, District Chhatarpur bearing Khasra No.48 admeasuring 4.00 Hectares, for "Minor Mineral Stone for making Gitti by mechanical crushing " (hereinafter referred to in short as "Mineral-G "), which was registered in its favour on 8/8/2016. The said lease is valid till 2021. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application dtd. 2/8/2018 (Annexure P-2) to the Collector, Chhatarpur for renewal of grant in terms of Rule 17 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (for short "the 1996 Rules "), but, in view of an order dtd. 27/6/2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by Division Bench of Indore Bench of this Court in Prathvi Infrastructure s case (supra) the Mining Department has stalled the entire process for grant/renewal of quarry lease for Mineral-G other than by way of auction, as a result of which, the renewal application of the petitioner has been kept pending. In this manner, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to renew its quarry lease for Mineral-G as prescribed in the Rules 6 and 18 of the 1996 Rules.