ARUN KUMAR MONDAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Rule the petitioner has challenged the propriety and legality of Notification No. 2350 mines, dated 25th of April, 1975 issued by Government of West Bengal, Commerce and Industries Department (Mines), published in the Calcutta gazette (Extra-ordinary) on 25th of april 1975. By the aforesaid impugned notification it was notified for general information that from the date of publication of the said notification and until further notification under Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, no application for mining lease for such minerals should be entertained from any other party, in respect of the lands described in the schedule appended to the said notification.

(2.) THE petitioner is interested in item 2 of the schedule to the said notification concerning J. L. No. 97 of mouza Beldih within Police Station barabazar, in the district of Purulia. The petitioner's case is that he made an application for grant of mining lease in respect of the lands appertaining to the said mouza Beldih measuring about 51 acres of land and the petitioner had also paid Rs. 500/- and Rs. 200/-respectively towards the fees for the application and preliminary expenses payable under Rule 22 (2) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The petitioner's case is that along with the application he also submitted certificate of approval, income-tax clearance certificate etc. and complied with all other formalities, as required under the Minerals Concession Rules. The petitioner's grievance is that while the said application was pending before the State Government, the impugned notification was issued by the State Government to frustrate the petitioner's application to the serious loss and prejudice of the petitioner. It also transpires that previously, one M/s. Ganesh Coal Company Limited had applied for mining lease in respect of the said minerals on the aforesaid mouza. The said application could not be entertained by the respondent No. 1 in view of the fact that Atomic Mineral division was interested in that area at that point of time. As the said Atomic mineral Division was not ultimately interested in the mineral operation, the said M/s. Ganesh Coal Company Limited again applied for the mining lease but the application of the said M/s. Ganesh Coal Company Limited was again rejected by the State Government on the allegation that the said m s. Ganesh Coal Company Limited had huge arrear of royalty payable to the State Government. The said M/s. Ganesh Coal Company Limited thereafter made a revisional application before the Central Government under rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules and it is stated by the petitioner that the said revisional application is pending adjudication by the Central Government.

(3.) MR. Mukherjee the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having made an application in accordance with law in respect of the lands which were not reserved at the time of making the said application, the State Government and/or the authorities concerned were bound to dispose of the said application in accordance with the Mr. Mukherjee further contended that when an application had been made by the petitioner on payment of requisite fees, it was not open for the State Government to declare the lands in question as reserved for being utilised by the State government itself and/or by any undertaking of the State Government. Mr. Mukherji contended that when the state Government allowed the petitioner to make an application for a mining lease in respect of an unreserved area the petitioner acquired vested interest in respect of the said lands and it was no longer open to the State government to treat the said lands as reserved and thereby frustrate the application of the petitioner to his loss ami prejudice. Mr. Mukherji further contended that the State Government was also not entitled to reserve the lands for its personal use or for the use of the State Government undertaking particularly in view of the fact that the application of M/s. Ganesh Coal Company Limited before the Central government was pending adjudication at the relevant time and if the decision of the Central Government was favourable the said M/s. Ganesh coal Company Limited was entitled to get a lease of the lands in question. Mr. Somendra Chandra Bose the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3, namely, the Chief miming Adviser and Managing Director, west Bengal Mineral Development and trading Corporation (A Government of West Bengal Undertaking), submitted that at the relevant time under rule 24 (1) of the Mineral Concession rules, it was incumbent on the part of the authorities concerned to dispose of any application for the grant of a mining lease within a period of nine months from the date of the receipt of such application and it has been specifically provided in sub-clause (3) of rule 24 that if any application is not disposed of within the aforesaid period the said application shall be deemed to have been refused. Mr. Bose submits that hence, in view of the specific provision of Rule 24 of the Mineral concession Rules, the application of the petitioner must be deemed to have been refused after the laps of the specific period and the petitioner not having moved the higher authorities against the rejection of his application as provided for in the Mineral Concession rules the instant writ application is barred because of the fact that alternative remedy available to the petitioner was not availed of, Mr. Bose further contended that in any event, it is quite open to the State Government to extract minerals belonging to the state Government either by itself or through its agencies and it cannot be contended that simply because the petitioner made an application for grant of lease in respect of a particular area, the hands of the Stale Government were so tied that it was no longer open to the State government to keep the said area reserved for operation by itself or through its agencies. In this context Mr. Bose relied on a decision made in the case of amrita Lal Sha vs. Union of India, reported in A. I. R. 1976 S. C. 2591. It was held in the said decision that there is nothing in the Act or in the Rules to require that the restrictions imposed by Chapters II, III and IV of the Mineral Concession Rules would be applicable even if the State Government itself wanted to exploit a mineral because such mineral was State Government's own property. It was further held that there is no reason why the state Government could not, if it so desired reserve any land for itself for any purpose and in case of such reservation by the State Government, the said land would not be available for the grant of a prospective licence or a mining lease to any person until or unless the said land is released subsequently by issuing appropriate notification under rule 50 of Mineral Concession Rules. Mr. Bose further contended that by making an application for grant of a mining lease the petitioner did not acquire any vested interest or a vested right so that the State Government was precluded from keeping the said land for its own operation. In my view the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Bose are of substance and I have no hesitation in accepting the same. The State Government has absolute right to reserve mines belonging to it for its own operation and as such it cannot also be argued that the State Government could not reserve the said land in view of the fact that the application of M/s. Ganesh Coal Company Limited was pending adjudication before the Central Government. So long a mining lease is not granted in accordance with law, the State Government being owner of the mines has a right to reserve a mine for its own use. The learned Standing Counsel appearing with Mr. Tapan K. Sengupta for the Slate respondents also adopted the contentions made by Mr. Bose. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case this Rule should fail and is, therefore discharged. But in the facts and circumstances of the case i make no order as to costs. Rule discharged.