IDEAL MINERALS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2011 (Annexure-P-1) passed by the respondent no.5 revisional authority (Constituted under Section 30 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 (In short 'the Act') in revision application/file No.16/04/2007-RC-II whereby, dismissing their revision filed under Section 30 of the Act read with Rule 54 of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 ( in short 'MCR'), the order No. 2-64/05/12 dated 27.10.2006, passed by the respondent no.1 State of M.P., allowing the respective applications of the respondents No.2 & 3 for grant of prospecting lease (In short PL) with respect of the land situated at village Chanotta District Jabalpur, their applications filed in that regard on account of incomplete and insufficient information, were dismissed, has been affirmed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that, for grant of PL of the land bearing Khasara Nos.72 and 92 of village Chanoota, District Jabalpur, as many as 12 applications of the different applicants including the petitioners and respondents herein, were received in the Office of the Collector Jabalpur. Pursuant to it, the Collector Jabalpur vide proposal 2 dated 21.5.2006, intimated to the State authorities that an area of 14.50 Hectare of Khasara No.72 being forest of shrubs and an area of 1.02 Hectare Khasara No.92 being rocky land are situated in the aforesaid village. The area being affected under the Forest Act, the DFO has intimated his inability to issue No Objection Certificate. The petitioners herein submitted their separate applications for grant of PL over an area of 7.25 Hectare each of Khasara No.72. In this regard, the prescribed registration fees and processing fee had also been deposited by them.

(3.) Petitioners' counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition annexed papers along with the impugned order of the revisional authority Annexure-P-1, argued that the petitioner has filed his application on dated 4.5.2005, for grant of PL for the area 15.52 Hectors of the aforesaid land bearing Khasara nos. 72 and 92 of village Chanotta District Jabalpur to find out the prospect of the laterite only, subsequent to this application the petitioners have filed another application on dated 21.6.2006, to give such PL on such land to find out the prospecting of Iron Ore and Blue Dust also. In such premises he said that, the application of the petitioners were first in number and the same had to be considered as prior application for grant of PL. In continuation he also pointed out that, the application of Pradeep Kumar Dubey, was filed prior to petitioners on dated 24.10.2001, for the area 1.02 Hectares of Khasara No.92, but he had applied for the area less than 4.00 Hectares, therefore, by virtue of Rule 22 D of the MCR, his application was not taken in the process for consideration. Besides this, various other applicants including the respondents no.2 & 3 also applied for the same . The respondents no.2 & 3 filed their respective applications on 19.4.2006 for grant of PL regarding Laterite, Iron Ore and blue dust. Each of them applied for grant of 7.25 Hectares of the aforesaid land of Khasara no.92. In continuation by referring sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act, he argued that the petitioners being first applicant in comparison of the respondents no.2 & 3, was entitled on priority basis for grant of PL of the aforesaid land as the petitioners have filed their initial application prior to the respondents no.2 and 3, but by ignoring such provision of Section 11 (2) of the Act, by dismissing their applications, the applications of the respondents no.2 & 3 have been allowed by the respondent no.1 vide order dated 27.10.2006 (Copy of such order has not been placed or annexed by any of the parties hence, the record of the revisional Court had been called through Assistant Solicitor General of India). He further said that the aforesaid order was passed by the respondent no.1 without any intimation to the petitioners. They came to know from other source on 25.11.2006, that some decision on the aforesaid applications have been taken by the respondent no.1. On which under the RTI Act, they applied and obtained the copy of such order dated 27.10.2006, on dated 28.11.2006, then he came to know about dismissal of their applications, then he filed the revision (Annexure-P-2) under Section 30 of the Act read with Rule 54 of MCR on 19.1.2007 before the respondent no.5. Subsequent to filing such revision ,the respondent no.5 has directed the respondents no.2 & 3 to file their comments in response of revision memo. He further submits that in response to it, when he did not receive any copy of the comments from the respondents no.2 & 3, then he sent an application dated 12.4.2007 to the respondent no.5 intimating that within the prescribed period, he did not receive such comments, thereafter he also moved another application dated 29.5.2008 (Annexure-P-5) to decide the revision. On which the revision was fixed on 9.8.2010 for hearing, the same was adjourned for 24.8.2010. Subsequent to that, he received the information on 17.8.2008, from the respondent no.5 through telegram dated 16.8.2010 (part of Annexure-P-6) about postponing such date of hearing from 24.8.2010 to 7.9.2010, thereafter again received a telegram dated 3.9.2010 from respondent no.5 on dated 4.9.2010 about reschedule the date of hearing on 7.9.2010. But subsequent to that the petitioners did not receive any information regarding any other adjournment. He specifically stated that for want of information about fixing the date of hearing on 26.10.2010, on such date no one could appear on behalf of the petitioners before the respondent no.5 On such date, the revisional authority respondent no.5, had heard the revision on merits and decided the same by the impugned order Annexure-P-1. On coming to know about such decision he came to this Court with this petition. He further said that on the aforesaid date i.e. 26.10.2010 before hearing the arguments of the respondents no. 2 & 3, the fair opportunity of hearing under information to the petitioners should have been given to them but due to lack of information of the date they could not appear to get such opportunity and prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order of the revisional Court by admitting and allowing this petition.