SHAILENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 21.06.2010, passed by the Mining Officer, Satna by which the petitioner's application for grant of quarry lease over an area 6.583 hectares of Khasra No. 78/1, 12/5, 12/5 and 12/5 of village Tatiyajhir, district Satna has been rejected on the ground that in view of the amendment in the Rules affected from 09.02.2010, query lease can be granted only through public auction and not on the basis of individual application. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the application for grant of query lease was filed by the petitioner on 12.10.09, which was being processed by the authorities in accordance with the prevailing Rules at the time of filing of the application, however, during the pendency of the application, the provisions of 36(1) of the M.P. Minor Mining Rules were amended by notification dated 19.04.2010 making a provision to the effect that minerals specified at Sl.No. 5 of Schedule I and those specified in Sl.Nos. 1,3 and 4 of Schedule II shall be allotted only by auction, and therefore, as flag stone is mentioned at Sl.No. 5 of Schedule II of M.P. Mining Rules, 1996, the Mining Officer by the impugned order rejected the application filed by the petitioner without processing it further relying upon the amended provisions of the Rules. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(2.) The learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application for grant of query lease prior to coming into force of the amendment. The application had also been processed to certain extent by the concerned officers, therefore, the application could not have been rejected on the ground taken by the Mining Officer as the amendment in the rules would only operate prospectively and would not affect pending applications.

(3.) The learned Panel Lawyer per contra submits that the petitioner has no vested right to claim that his application should be decided only on the basis of the un-amended provisions of law, as the application for query lease can only be decided in accordance with the rules, that are in force on the date of disposal of the application. The learned Panel Lawyer has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M/s. Hind Stone, 1981 AIR(SC) 711 and the Division Bench of this court rendered in the case of Brijendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India and Others, 1995 MPLJ 710.