RAMNARESH SWAMY Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition by Ramnaresh Swamy who had applied for a quarry lease in respect of minor mineral viz. , 'limestone used in kilns for manufacture of lime used as building material'. This was in respect of khasra No. 346, area 1. 31 acres. Respondent No. 3 H. P. Pathak had applied for a larger area, in all 33,63 acres, including this particular plot No. 346 measuring 1. 31 acres. In the application of respondent No. 3 the description of the material to be quarried was mentioned as "limestone for burning. " Since the application made by respondent No. 3 was in respect of a larger area, it could not be considered by the Director of Geology and mining and was to be considered by the State Government while the application of the petitioner being for a smaller area was to be considered by the Director of geology and Mining. Both these applications remained pending for more than the specified period and were, therefore, deemed rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal against the deemed rejection of his application to the State Government which was transferred to the Board of Revenue as the powers had been delegated to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue ultimately remanded the case for reconsideration on merits. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 3 applied for review to the State Government against the deemed rejection of his application and the state Government on 16th June 1969 revised the order of deemed rejection and granted a lease only with respect to plot No. 346, area 1. 31 acres, for quarrying purposes. In the original lease the description of the material to be quarried was the same as mentioned in the application viz. , "limestone for burning". The petitioner then filed the present application for quashing the order of grant in favour of respondent No. 3 and contended that the application as well as the grant in favour of respondent No. 3 were illegal as the application did not mention any minor mineral for which a quarry lease was required and similarly the quarry lease granted in favour of respondent No. 3 did not mention any minor mineral.

(2.) THE petitioner had also made an application to the State Government under rule 30 of the M. P. Minor Mineral Rules. 1961, for exercise of suo motu powers and pointed out that the quarry lease in favour of respondent No. 3 was illegal on account of no minor mineral having been mentioned in the application and in the lease granted in favour of the respondent. That application was dismissed by the state Government by order dated 5th September 1970 (An-nexure 'g' to the petition) by stating that the application was not according to rules fu;ekuqlkj u gksus ds dkj. k The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the two orders, namely, the order dated 16th June 1969 granting a lease in favour of respondent No. 3 and the order dated 5th Sept. 1970 rejecting the petitioner's application for exercise of powers under Rule 30 mentioned above.

(3.) AFTER the making of this writ petition, the State Government is said to have amended the words in the lease and has described the minor mineral as "limestone used in kilns for manufacture of lime used as building material. "