SAROJINI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought the quashing of order dt. 8-12-1972 as per Annexure-5 passed by the Central Government refusing to accord approval under S.5 (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 for grant of mining lease for iron ore and manganese to her and of order dt. 8-6-1972 as per Annexure-8 passed by the State Government rejecting her application for grant of mining lease for iron ore and manganese and of order dt. 2-5-1978 as per Annexure-11/s passed by the Central Government dismissing her revision filed.

(2.) Omitting the unnecessary details, it may be stated that an area nearing 438.50 acres in Kalaparbat area in the district of Keonjhar was thrown open by the State Government for regrant on 20-7-1965 under R.58(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The petitioner and six others made applications for grant of mining lease. None of the applications having been disposed of within the time prescribed were deemed to have been rejected. Against the said order of deemed rejection, the petitioner carried revision to the Central Government. By order dt. 7-4-1967 her revision was allowed and the State Government was directed to reconsider her application. At this stage, it may be noted that the State Government did not refuse to approve grant of mining lease in respect of the area. It may also be stated here that while the revision application of the petitioner was pending before the Central Government, the State Government in its comments had recommended the case of the petitioner, but observed that inasmuch as the minerals were included in the First Schedule to the Act, no mining lease could be granted except with the previous approval of the Central Government as provided in S.5(2). When the matter came back to the State Government for re-consideration, by order dt. 3-9-1971 it decided to grant mining lease in favour of the petitioner and asked for approval of the Central Government to grant mining lease. By letter dt. 18-2-1972 (Annexure-5), the Central Government communicated its decision refusing to accord approval. The bald and cryptic order was as follows :

(3.) Shri R.K. Mohapatra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has canvassed two contentions. Firstly, the decision of the Central Government under S.5(2) refusing to accord approval offended the principles of natural justice. Secondly, failure of the Central Government to give reasons for the decision refusing to accord approval infringed the principles of justness and fairness.