SALIGRAM KHIRWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that falls for determination in this case is whether an existing lessee for a major mineral can claim preferential treatment in the matter of grant of permission or lease for quarrying of a minor mineral found within the area leased to him.

(2.) The petitioner Shri Saligram Khirwal was granted lease over an area of 482.97 acres for carrying on mining operation for the major minerals. Toffa Lime Shell, Quartzite and Pyrophyllite valid for 10 years from 19-3-198l. Proper agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the State Govt. through the Collector of the district. The competent authority granted working permission to the petitioner on 17-1-83 to carry on mining operations over an area of 8.75 acres. In the meanwhile by the impugned order passed on 17-9-88 the Mining Officer, Keanjhar (opp. party No. 3) has granted lease in favour of opp. party No. 5 Shri S. K. Jhalkarnayan for carrying on quarrying operations for Calc-Toffa, a minor mineral, over an area of 12.94 acres out of the area leased out to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by such action the petitioner filed the application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the prayer to quash the order No. 2128 dated 17-9-88 of the Mining Officer.

(3.) The essence of the petitioner' challenge to the impugned order is that it was passed without following the procedure prescribed under the relevant Rules and also the principle of natural justice; he was neither intimated nor given the offer for inclusion of the minor mineral in his lease which privilege, according to the petitioner, he was entitled to have under the statutory provisions. It is the further contention of the petitioner that if the impugned order is allowed to stand it will create a very difficult, well-nigh impossible situation for him to work out the major minerals covered under the lease since the opp. party No. 5 is likely to intrude into the area and disturb the mining activities carried on by the petitioner.