NARAYAN GRANITES Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the letter dated 6.9.2005 issued by the Under Secretary to Government of Orissa in the Department of Steel and Mines -Opposite Party No. 2, under Annexure -5 and to direct Opposite Parties 1 to 3 to grant quarry lease over an area of 15.443 hects. in respect of the Petitioner's application dated 28.10.2004. Prayer has also been made to quash the Order Dated 3.4.2006 passed by the State Government in Annexure -6 granting quarry lease in favour of Opposite Party No. 4 for the aforesaid area so also the lease deed executed with Opposite Party No. 4.

(2.) NOTICE in this case was issued on 28.9.2005 and on the same day, this Court passed an interim order in Misc. Case No. 12229 of 2005 directing that the lease in favour of Opposite Party No. 4 might be executed but the same should not be allowed to be operated till the next date. Thereafter, hearing of the case was concluded on 27.10.2006 and Judgment was reserved. The matter was then listed under the heading 'To Be Mentioned' on different dates including on 27.2.2008, on which date the interim order passed on 28.9.2005 was modified to the effect that pendency of the Writ Petition would not be a bar on the part of the lesser or lessee for operating the lease and such operation would be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. Thereafter the Petitioner filed SLP (C) No. 6673 of 2008 before the Apex Court challenging the Order Dated 27.2.2008 passed by this Court modifying it's earlier interim Order Dated 28.9.2005. On 7.8.2009, the Apex Court granted leave in the aforesaid SIP and allowed the appeal by pasting the following order: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the interim Order Dated 27.2.2008 passed by a Learned Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack whereby the interim Order Dated 28.9.2005 has been modified. On the facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in passing the impugned order especially when the matter was reserved for Judgment. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order & allow this appeal. However, the High Court is directed to deliver the Judgment as expeditiously as possible. We make it clear that the High Court will decide the case uninfluenced by any observation made by us in this order. Appeal allowed. No order as to the costs.

(3.) ACCORDING to Learned, Counsel for the Petitioner, the Director of Mines, Orissa, Opposite Party No. 3 on receipt of the applications from the Petitioner and Opposite Party No. 4, considered the case of both the parties in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and after a thorough enquiry submitted his report vide Annexure -3 recommending the application of the Petitioner to the Govt. for grant of Prospecting Licence for decorative stone and for rejection of the application of Opposite Party No. 4. In the meantime, the Petitioner had also made a representation on 2.5.2005 to the Minister, Steel and Mines, Orissa vide Annexure -4, but no action was taken thereon. On the other hand, Opposite Party No. 2 by order of Opposite Party No. 1, issued the letter dated 6.9.2005 (Annexure -5) directing Opposite Party No. 4 to execute the lease deed in respect of the quarry in question on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. According to the Petitioner, the application made by Opposite Party No. 4 for grant of lease of the quarry could not have been accepted as the same was made on 12.2.2004 when the area for which the Mining Lease was applied for was held under lease for decorative stone by M/s Arya stone. In other words, according to the Petitioner, no area was available for consideration of the application of Opposite Party No. 4 for grant of lease. Annexures 6 & 7 filed by the Petitioner are certain information received by it under the Right to Information Act. Anenxure -6 is the order passed by the Government on 3.4.2006 granting quarry lease in favour of Opposite Party No. 4 & Annexure - 7 is the office note in the concerned file dealing with grant of Mining Lease for the, quarry in question. According to the Petitioner, Opposite Party No. 3 -the Director of Mines, after considering the applications of both the Petitioner & Opposite Party No. 4, by the letter dated 14.1.2005 issued to the Addl. Secretary to Government, recommended for grant of Prospecting Licence for decorative stone in favour of the Petitioner & forwarded the application of Opposite Party No. 4 for rejection. Since the State Government decided to grant Mining Lease in favour of Opposite Party No. 4 without considering the aforesaid fact, such decision of the Government is highly illegal, arbitrary & is liable to be quashed & the application of the Petitioner should be considered for grant of Prospecting Licence. In support of his contention, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew our attention to Rule -16 of the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules. 2004 which dealt with disposal of the applications, & submitted that when more than one application relating to any of the categories mentioned in Clauses (ii) & (iii) of Sub -rule (2) of the aforesaid Rule, are received for the same area, the interse priority shall be decided on the basis of the installed capacity, technical knowledge & experience in prospecting & quarrying of decorative stones.