DEV KUNVER BAI PANDYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is directed against the revisional order of the Central Government dated 20-10-1978, annexed as Annexure-8, and for issue of a writ of mandamus to the State of Orissa (opposite party No. 1) to consider the question of renewal of the petitioner's lease in accordance with law.

(2.) Petitioner's case, briefly stated, is that her husband had obtained a mining lease from the ruler of Bonai for extracting manganese in villages Gonua and Mundajora over an area of 438.47 acres under Annexure-1 dated 30-9-1943 for a period of thirty years. On 12-1-1959, the Controller of Mining Leases passed an order reducing the period of lease from 30 to 20 years and thereafter illegally took over possession of the mines on 23-8-1971. The order of taking over possession was challenged in this Court in O.J.C. No. 303 of 1972 and by judgment dated 28-2-1973, annexed as annexure-2, this Court quashed the order of the Controller of Mining Leases and directed that the petitioner was entitled to continue for the full period of thirty years which was to expire on 30-9-1973. Before the expiry of the said lease, in accordance with the provisions for renewal, the petitioner made an application for renewal on 27-9-1972. No order having been passed on the application for renewal within the statutory period of six months under sub-rule (2) of R.24 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), the said application would be deemed to have been refused under sub-rule (3) of R.24 of the Rules. Against the deemed refusal, the petitioner moved the Central Government in revision u/s. 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development), Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") read with Rr.54 and 55 of the Rules. The Central Government by order dated 31-12-1973 set aside the deemed rejection and directed the State Government to consider and pass appropriate orders on merit within a period of four months after obtaining orders of the Central Government wherever necessary. This order of the Central Government has been annexed as Annexure-4. Notwithstanding the aforesaid direction of the Central Government, the State Government did not dispose of the renewal application and issued a reservation notification on 2-4-1977 reserving the Gonua and Mundajora manganese mines for exploitation in the public sector. This notification has been annexed as Annexure-5. After issuing the aforesaid reservation notification, the State Government rejected the petitioner's application for renewal on the ground that the area in question has been reserved for exploitation though public sector and no free area is available. This order was communicated to the petitioner and has been annexed as Annexure-6. Against this order of the State Government rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal on the purported plea of reservation for exploitation in public sector the petitioner went up in revision before the Central Government. It was indicated by the State Government in its Comments to the Central Government that the said area had been applied for by the Hindusthan Steel Limited, Rourkela, in May, 1970, and, therefore, the area was kept reserved and was given to the Hindusthan Steel Ltd. The State Government granted the area in favour of the Hindusthan Steel Limited on 19-7-1977 which order has been annexed as Annexure-9. The Central Government by order dated 20-10-1978 (Annexure-8) passed the final order in revision and though the order of the State Government rejecting the application for renewal filed by the petitioner was set aside yet did not grant any relief in favour of the petitioner on a peculiar conclusion, namely:-

(3.) Mr. Panigrahi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the renewal application of the petitioner was required to be disposed of by the State Government in accordance with the direction of the Central Government under Annexure-4 dated 31-12-1973 taking into consideration the facts which existed on the date of the application for renewal or the date of the revisional order itself and without complying with the said order of the revisional authority and reserving the area for exploitation in the public sector long four years thereafter and thereupon making the application for renewal infructuous passing an order to that effect, the State Government must be held to have acted not in consonance with fair sense of justice and further the order of reservation must be held to be in colourable exercise of power and not sustainable in law. The learned counsel further submits that the Central Government was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the State had no power to consider the application for renewal after expiry of the period granted by the revisional authority and, therefore, the conclusion that the order is non est on the ground on which the Central Government has held it so cannot be sustained. The next submission of Mr. Panigrahi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Central Government being a statutory authority under the Act and the Rules and having issued a direction to the State Government to dispose of the application for renewal in accordance with law, it was not open for the State Government to decline to carry out the order on a ground which came into existence subsequent to the making of the order of the Central Government and, therefore, the impugned order of rejection of petitioner's renewal application on the sole ground of reservation for exploitation in public sector is illegal and cannot be set aside. The learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, contends that the State being the owner of the mines has unfettered power to reserve any mines for exploitation in public sector and that power cannot be taken away by the Central Government in the garb of exercise of revisional power and, therefore, the order of reservation cannot be held to be bad in law. The learned counsel further contends that since the reservation notification has been issued on 2-4-1977, there was no other option than to reject the application for renewal filed by the petitioner had accordingly there is no infirmity in the order of the State Government rejecting the application for renewal. The rival contentions require a careful examination of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and certain decisions cited at the Bar.