VIKAS CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the responded No. 2 by which the respondent No. 4 has been granted the prospecting licence for iron ore in Khasa No. 66, area 26.110 hectares of village Andheri Gadai, Tahsil Gopad Banas, district Sidhi, on the ground that the prospecting licence application for mineral laterite was submitted by the petitioner much prior to the application made by respondent No. 4 The Minister concerned considered all the applications and specifically passed an order in favour of the petitioner sanctioning the prospecting licence to the petitioner on the aforesaid khasra number. However, the Secretary of the Department, the respondent No. 3, was ever since interested to favour respondent No. 4 and, therefore, on flimsy ground it was informed to the Minister concerned that prospecting licence was already sanctioned to the respondent No. 4 and it was not proper to grant prospecting licence to the petitioner. It is contended that on the basis of some correspondence done on a subsequent date, respondent No. 4 made an application for grant of prospecting licence and the said application has now been considered and allowed by the impugned order, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the preference was available to the petitioner under Section 11 (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (herein after referred to as 'Act') and, therefore, such a benefit extended to the respondent No. 4 is bad in law. It is further contended that the respondent No. 4 was not to be given the benefit of prospecting licence because the respondent No. 4 had committed a breach of conditions and terms of the reconnaissance permit granted to it. Instead of taking any action, imposing any penalty as prescribed under Section 21 of the Act or terminating the prospecting licence of the respondent No. 4 as per the provisions of Section 4A of the Act, with malafide intention, respondent No. 4 has been favoured by the impugned order, therefore, the same is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. In response to the allegations made by the petitioner, a return has been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 and it has been contended that no wrong has been committed in considering the application of the respondent No. 4. It is contended that for the purposes of making application, the respondent No. 4 had obtained all the documents as also stamp was purchased for the purposes of executing an affidavit much before the date any correspondence has taken place. Not only this, as per the provision of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (herein after referred to as 'Rules'), the area was to be vacated for the purposes of permitting the prospecting of the minerals, which was though not shown under the reconnaissance permit, by the respondent No. 4 but was found during reconnaissance and, therefore, if this was the situation, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of preference under Section 11 (2) of the Act. This being so, it is contended that there was no malafide intention of the authorities nor any such malafides are proved against them and, therefore, challenge to the order passed by the respondents is not sustainable. It is further contended that the lease has already been granted in favour of respondent No. 4 but the fresh executed in favour of respondent No. 4 has not yet lease executed in favour of respondent No. 4 has not yet been challenged in the writ petition, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(2.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred certain provision of Act and Rules and has also taken this Court to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner to meet out the allegations made in the return of the respondents and has contended that specific conduct has been brought to the notice of the authorities, yet a defaulter has been favoured and this is a case of granting benefit to such a defaulter person, and in such circumstances what more malafide of authorities are required to be proved. It is contended that even after passing the order in the note sheet reducing the area of respondent No. 4 which was earlier granted under the reconnaissance permit, the amount was not properly deposited by respondent No. 4 and, therefore, the respondent No. 4 was to be treated as defaulter. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the note-sheet produced along with the writ petition as also with the rejoinder obtained under Right to Information Act indicates that the actions taken by respondent No. 3 were nothing but pure malafide. Drawing the attention of this Court that respondent No. 3 was added as a party by name only because of these malafides, it is contended that reply to the allegations was required to be filed by the said respondent. Since there was no reply filed by the said respondent, it is to be treated as if he has accepted the allegations made and, therefore, all actions taken by the said authority or at the behest of said authority, are bad in law. It was necessary to take appropriate action against the respondent No. 4 for all such faults, which have been specifically pointed out. Instead of doing this, the benefit of granting of prospecting licence has been extended, therefore, such an order is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents minutely.