RAMKO BAI ADIWASI Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . This order shall govern the disposal of Writ Petitions No. 310/07 and 311/07 as they arise out of common order Annexure P-1 passed by the State Government dated 23.12.2006 whereby the application filed by the present petitioners for grant of quarry lease is rejected and lease is granted in favour of respondent No. 3 Sanjay Yadav.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner in WP No. 310/07 has applied for quarry lease on a part of survey numbers 445 and 446 situated in Village Majra, District Morena while petitioner in WP No. 311/07 has applied for quarry lease on a part of survey numbers 445, 446, 447, 449 situated in the same village. Petitioners in both the petitions have applied for 15.06 hectares of land out of the said survey numbers. Respondent No. 3 Sanjay Yadav applied for grant of lease in respect of the same survey numbers for which petitioner Gulab Singh in WP No. 311/07 has applied. However, he had prayed for lease of an area 13.206 hectares.

(3.) CONTENTION of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the applications for quarry lease filed by the present petitioners were rejected by the State on the ground that the petitioners have not produced no objection certificate from the forest authorities. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no objection certificate from the forest authorities is required only in respect of the forest land and once no objection certificate in respect of the same land is granted in case of respondent No. 3, it was not necessary for the petitioner to produce no objection certificate because even if that land is in forest area then respondent No. 3 is not eligible for grant of quarry lease on the said land and in case it is found that the land is not the forest area then the aplications of the petitioners could not have been rejected on that ground alone. Counsel for the petitioners invited attention to Rule 19 (2) of the Rules which provides that the application for quarry lease will not be rejected only on the ground that the applicant is not complete or some more documents are required for allowing the application. He submits that as per Rule 19 (2) if the sanctioning authority finds that the application is not complete then the authority shall serve a notice by registered A/d post to the applicant for correcting the defects or making the aplication complete and after service of notice shall decide the application on merits. But in the present case, this Rule is not complied with and the applications of the petitioners are dismissed without issuing notice as required by Rule 19 (2) of the Rules.