GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 from issuing prospective licence in his favour for lime stone in the area of 14. 733 hectares of land comprising survey No. 39/1 in village Morka Tahsil Jawad Dist. Mandsaur. Further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondents 1 to 3 from issuing mining lease in favour of respondent No. 4. Further prayer has also been made for quashing of prospective licence granted in favour of respondent No. 4. Yet another prayer made by the petitioner is for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondents 1 to 3 from entering into mining lease in favour of respondent No. 4.

(2.) IT is relevant here to state that this writ petition was filed on 30-8-1995 and after filing of the said writ petition, on 29-11-1995 mining lease has been granted to respondent No. 4. Shorn off the unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that on 18-1-1991 (according to respondent-State, on 12-1-1991) respondent No. 4 filed an application for prospective licence. The petitioner filed an application for prospective licence on 10-3-1992 and it was on 18-5-1992 that prospective licence was granted to respondent No. 4.

(3.) SHRI Chitale appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the fact that his application for grant of prospective licence was latter than that of respondent No. 4, respondents 1 to 3 were under obligation to consider the case of the petitioner as also respondent No. 4 on its own merits. According to his submission, the date of filing the application for grant of prospective licence is not only the relevant factor. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1991 SC 818. My attention has been drawn to paragraph 16 of the judgment which reads as follows :