BRIJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions arise for consideration in these writ petitions and therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) WE will briefly refer to the facts in M. P. No. 3113 of 1987. The petitioner on 13-10-1982 submitted an application to the State Government for grant of mining lease for extraction of ochre and white-clay in 10. 374 hectares of land. The application was submitted under Section 10 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') and Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 framed by the Central Government under Section 13 of the Act. The Act was amended by Central Act No. 37 of 1986 which came into force with effect from 10-2-1987. Consequently the Rules were also amended and the amendments were brought into force with effect from 10-2-1987. On 1-10-1983, the State Government rejected the application. The petitioner filed a representation before the Central Government which set aside the order of the State Government and directed it to consider the application afresh in accordance with law. This order was passed on 4-2-1986. On 27-6-1986, the State Government wrote to the petitioner requiring him to produce environmental clearance certificate. By letter dated 28-7-1986 the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 2,000/- which he did. A local inspection was also arranged to be held. By Annexure-J letter dated 3-9-1987 and letter Annexure-K dated 11-9-1987, the State Government required the petitioner to conform to the requirements of the amended provisions of the Act introduced by the Central Act No. 37 of 1986 and the amended rules. This was evidently based on Annexure-L letter dated 9-5-1987 of the Central Government to the State Government indicating that all pending applications have to be disposed of only in terms of the amended provisions of the Act and the Rules. The petitioner prays that Annexures-J, K and L may be quashed and it may be declared that the amendments incorporated in the Act and the Rules have no retrospective effect and the petitioner's application cannot be dealt with under the amended provisions. Returns have been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.

(3.) THE facts of the other petitions are more or less similar. The contentions raised in the returns are also more or less similar. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the amendments to the Act and the Rules were not made expressly retrospective and there is nothing in the provisions to indicate the intention to give them retrospective effect and, therefore, the applications pending on the date of amendment should be disposed of under the law in force prior to the amendment.