KAMAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three writ petitiones, petitioners are challenging the order dated 21.12.2000, Annexure -P/9 in W.P. No. 651/2001. By this order the State Government considered the applications made by six persons and allowed the application of Kunwar Vikrant Singh Patel, respondent No. 3 with respect to Survey No. 218 and 220 for 17 hectares. Lease for prospecting licence for lime stone was granted. The applications filed by Abhay Kumar Jain, M/s Chunnilal Harishanker Nema, Shri Ajay Jain, Shri Kamal Jain and Shri Sharad Jain were dismissed on the ground that they were not entitled for the priority as per section 11(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as "the MMRD Act"]. The grant was made for a period of one year. That period has come to an end on 22.12.2001.

(2.) PETITIONERS assail the grant made in favour of the respondent No. 3 Kunwar Vikrant Singh Patel on the ground that firstly when there were rival applicants and there was dispute with respect to availability of the minerals, proper procedure for the State Government was to obtain the applications after ascertaining the availability of the nature of minerals in the mines in question. The second submission raised by the petitioners to assail the impugned order that the provision of section 11 (2) of the MMRD Act is not applicable with respect to minor minerals. Thus, the State Government erred in law in not proceeding in accordance with law while disallowing applications filed by the petitioners and allowing that of respondent No. 3 Kunwar Vikrant Singh Patel.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the report indicates that low grade dolomite lime stone is available in the quarry in question which is highly siliceous in nature and traversed by fine quartzitic veins. This can be treated as "minor mineral". This may take polish. Thus, section 11 was wrongfully applied by the State Government. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Gorelal Dubey v. State of M.P. 1976 JLJ 547 para 11 to contend that when there are two rival claimants with respect to lease of minor minerals and others minerals it was not open to State Government to merely ignore the applications of other incumbents. The proper course in such situation is to direct the State Government to consider both the applications determine the question as to whether the quality of the limestone contained in the area in question is such that a lease to quarry it as "minor mineral" should be granted or is such that a lease for mining it as a "major mineral'' should be granted and then it should proceed to grant the lease.