PRITHVI MINES AND MINERALS 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 26.6.2008 (Annexure -P -1) for grant of mining lease for Manganese over an area of 7.140 hectares of land bearing Khasra No.36/1, 80/1 and 130/11 situated in village Chokhandi, District Balaghat. Besides the application of the petitioner, some other applications were also received for grant of mining lease 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 mining lease 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 mining lease was taken in favor of the petitioner. The Manganese, 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 mining lease to the petitioner was sent, along with memo dated 30.09.2008 (Annex.P/2) to the Central Government for approval. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of the State Government dated 30.09.2008, one of the unsuccessful applicant M/s Asim Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 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.16/24/2008 -RC -II. In pendency of such revision for adjudication, the Central Government vide letter dated 9.10.2009 (Annex.P/3), returned the said proposal to respondent No.2/State with a request to reconsider the entire proposal and send the revised proposal in the light of the guideline/ circular dated 24.6.2009 (Annexure -P -5).

(3.) SHRI Vikram Singh, learned Standing counsel of the Union of India, the counsel of respondent no.1 submitted that in connected identical matter writ petition No.4929 of 2011, on behalf of the respondent no.1, he has filed the counter affidavit in the shape of the return and also prayed to adopt the same in the present petition and in such premises, said that he does not want to file separate return or counter affidavit in the matter. The same is also stated in the order sheet dated 18.10.2003. In such premises, the case of respondent no.1 is being considered on the basis of the counter affidavit filed in connected writ petition No.4929/11.