BANARASI DASS BHANOT Vs. SHRI DEVI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are that in 1964 the petitioner, Banarsi Dass Bhanot, had filed an application under Article 226 for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order dated the 3rd July 1963 of the Additional Collector, Jabalpur, rejecting the petitioner's application for the grant of a quarry lease in respect of his own certain Bhumiswami land and granting the lease in respect of that land to the non-applicant No. 1 Devi Shankar. THE petitioner's application for the grant of quarry lease was made on 7th June 1963; the application of Devi Shankar was, however, presented earlier, namely, on 3rd June 1963. THE applicant had also prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus requiring the Collector, Jabalpur, to hear and dispose of in accordance with law the two applications made to him for the quarry lease.

(2.) THE petitioner's application under Article 226 made in 1964 was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 21st August 1964 taking the view that the Additional Collector had not been empowered under section 26 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, to exercise the powers exercisable by the State Government under rules 5, 8 and 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). That decision is reported in Banarsi Dass v. Devi Shankar (1964 MPLJ 906). THE application filed by Banarsi Dass for the grant of quarry lease being subsequent to the one made by Devi Shankar, the quarry lease could be granted only by the State Government in accordance with rule 12 (2) of the Rules which lays down that the State Government may for special reasons to be recorded grant a quarry lease to an applicant whose application was received later in preference to an applicant whose application was received earlier. On the scope and effect of this rule, the Division Bench, hearing the petitioner's first application under Article 226, said-

(3.) SHRI Dabir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that the order dated the 17th September 1965 of the Government granting Devi Shankar's review petition was erroneous on the face of it as the review petition was allowed on an altogether erroneous construction of rule 12 (2), propounded by the Minister of State for Revenue and Natural Resources, which was utterly contrary to the view expressed by this Court in Banarsi Dass v. Devi Shankar(1964 MPLJ 906) on the question of the scope and effect of that rule. It was also said that after allowing the review petition it was incumbent on the Minister of State for Revenue and Natural Resources to have heard the parties on merits before setting aside the Government's order passed in January 1965 granting the quarry lease to the petitioner and remanding the matter to the Collector for fresh disposal.