SUNIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ for the following reliefs : -

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that petitioner submitted an application dated 22.1.07 for grant of prospecting licence for iron ore over an area of 27.761 hectares of land bearing Khasra No.986/1 situated in village Maddevra, District Chhatarpur. Besides the application of the petitioner, some other applications were also received for grant of prospecting licence over the said area. The same were considered by the respondent No.2/State in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1958 (in short the 'MMDR Act'). On such consideration, on the basis of information supplied by the petitioner, the respondent No.2/State decided to grant the prospecting licence to the petitioner. Since the petitioner's application was not first in point of time, therefore, after recording the detail reasons, the aforesaid decision for grant of prospecting licence was taken in favor of the petitioner. The iron ore, being the mineral specified in first schedule to the Act, therefore, by virtue of proviso to sub section (1) of Section 5 of the MMDR Act, the aforesaid decision for grant of prospecting licence to the petitioner was sent, along with memo dated 19.12.07 (Annex.P/1) to the Central Government for approval. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of the State Government dated 19.12.07, one of the unsuccessful applicant M/s Tech Mak Ores and Minerals filed the revision under section 30 of the MMDR Act read with Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules (in short 'the MCR Rules') before the revisional authority of the Central Government to challenge such order. Such revision was registered as R.A No.16/16/2008 -RC -II. In pendency of such revision for adjudication, the Central Government vide letter dated 29.5.08 (Annex.P/2), returned the said proposal to respondent No.2/State with a direction to reconsider the matter and send the revised proposal specifying clearly as to why the petitioner is being given preference over the earlier applications with a further direction to submit the comparative merits of the petitioner over the earlier applicants and the reasons for preferring such later applicant. In compliance of such direction again the matter was considered by respondent No.2/State and the fresh recommendation dated 22.7.08 (Anenx.P/3) in favor of the petitioner along with the comparative merit of the applicants was sent to the Central Govt. for approval. Such subsequent proposal was again returned by the Central Govt. vide letter dated 4.12.08 (Annex.P/4) to the State Govt. with a direction to furnish the comparative table of the applicants and reasons for preferring the later applicant/ petitioner. In compliance of such subsequent direction, again the matter was considered by the respondent No.2/State and the proposal dated 24/7/09 (Annex.P/5) for grant of prospecting licence in favor of the petitioner along with the comparative table of all the applicants and the reasons for giving preference to the petitioner over the earlier applicants was sent to the Central Govt.

(3.) IN counter affidavit of C.K. Rawat, an under Secretary/ return of the respondent No.1 it is stated that the State Governments are the owners of the minerals located within their respective boundaries and pursuant to it, they grant the minerals concessions Reconnaissance Permit (RP), Prosecting Licence (PL) and Mining Lease (ML) under the provisions of the MMDR Act. Prior approval of the Central Govt. is required under section 5(1) of the Act for grant of RP, PL and ML in respect of Atomic and Metallic Minerals specified in Part "B" and "C" of the First Schedule to the Act including the iron ore. After the prior approval of the Central Govt., mining lease etc are executed by the State Government with the mining agencies after they obtain all statutory clearances and approvals. In addition, it is stated that in the context of its responsibility the Ministry of Mines is bound to ensure that the provisions of MMDR Act and the MCR Rules are complied with in letter and spirit by all the stakeholders including the State Government and applicant companies. The ministry has from time to time issued guidelines on various provisions of the MMDR Act and the MCR Rules. These guidelines are essentially meant to clarify and explain the provisions of the Act and the MCR, in order to bring abut consistency in the minerals concessions regime to the extent possible in the light of the National Mineral Policy adopted by the Government of India and laid in Parliament in 2008. It is also submitted that Ministry of Mines is conscious of the need to have a transparent and efficient system for processing the minerals concession cases and, pursuant to it, the National Mineral Policy 2008 was made and in compliance of such policy several steps were taken. In continuation of the same, the Central Coordination -cum -Empowered committee has been constituted in the Ministry of Mines on 4.3.09 to monitor and minimize delays in grant of approvals for mineral concessions. The Ministry has also framed a Model State Mineral Policy and circulated to it all State Governments on 12.10.09. Simultaneously, has also issued the guidelines on various aspects of mineral concession regime. In further averments it is stated that the guideline dated 24.6.09 have been framed after due consultations with all the mineral rich State Governments. The draft guidelines were circulated on 25.11.08 to the State Governments for comments/ suggestions. In this regard a meeting was held on 14.2.09 with Secretaries, Mining and Geology of the State Governments to consider the suggestions of the State Governments. The basic rationale for formulating such guidelines is to ensure that concession cases are decided in a transparent and objective basis in a uniform manner. After issuing the guidelines on 24.6.09, the Ministry has also issued guidelines on 9.2.10 on "special reasons" for invoking section 11(5) in recommending a later applicant.