SHISH PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Shish Pal Singh applied on 2nd Feb. 1984 for the grant of a mining lease over an area 3358 Kanals in village Pali, District Faridabad for extraction of silica sand, China-clay and fire clay minerals and quartz under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 by the Central Government. His application was rejected on Ist Apr. 1985 on the ground that the area applied for by him had already been leased out to Shri S.P. Sethi, added-respondent, on 30th Oct. 1984 on the bash of his application dt. 26th Sept. 1983. The said order of the State Government was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Government by filing a revision application under S.30 of the above said Act read with Rr.54 and 66 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The Central Government vide their order dt. 8th May, 1986 (copy Annexure-P1) set aside the Order granting additional lease to Shri S.P. Sethi and directed the State Government to grant the lease for the area in question to the petitioner (Shish Pal Singh) for a period of 10 years. Shri S.P. Sethi added respondent challenged the above said decision of the Central Government before the Delhi High Court by filing C.W. P. No. 1301 of 1986 and obtained an ex parte order of stay of dispossession. The writ petition was finally dismissed on 5th Mar. 1987.

(2.) The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 19th Mar. 1987 for a direction to the State Government to implement the orders of the Central Government dt. 8th May, 1986 (Copy Annexure- P1) allowing his revision application. At the time of the motion hearing on 3rd Aug. 1987 the Bench passed the following order : - "The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondent State Government to impliment the decision Annexure- P/1, whereas on behalf of the respondent-State Government, it has been asserted that Annexure- P/1 is not required to be complied with in view of R/4 which has been passed in exercise of power under S.4-A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'). It also transpires that this order was challenged in Delhi High Court and Delhi High Court has since quashed this order of the State Government on the ground that the said order had been passed without complying with the requirement of prior notice as envisaged by S.4-A of the Act. The State Government has challenged this judgment in the Supreme Court and the matter is pending in the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has, however, stated that qua the petitioner, fresh order shall be passed after giving him due notice. Admitted. The petition requires to be disposed of early, so, we direct that this petition be set down for hearing within six months. The respondent shall be well within its rights to issue notice under S.4-A of the Act, and take a decision in the matter, if so advised" The State Government after issuing a notice to the petitioner dt. 17th Dec, 1987, calling upon him to file his objections, if any, passed the orders on 29th Feb. 1988 (copy Annexure- P5 with the amended writ petition challenging the said order). The last para of the said order reads as under : -

(3.) No further amendment of the writ petition was sought in order to challenge the said notification issued by the State Government, as, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no such notification could be issued at this stage, when there was already an order of the Central Government dt. 8th May, 1986 (Copy Annexure-P1) in favour of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such a reservation, if any, under R.58 could be made at the initial stage before the licence was granted either to Mr. Sethi, added respondent, by the State Government, or to the petitioner by the Central Government. vide order dt. 8th May, 1986. Any reservation made after the said order was mala fide and without jurisdiction. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, once the State Government initially decided to give the land in dispute on lease, the powers under R.58 of the Mineral Concession Rules were exhausted and could not be exercised subsequently. In support of this contention he referred to S.Lal and Co. Ltd. v. Union of Inda AIR 1975 Patna 44. He further argued that even the order passed under S.4A ( Copy Annexure- P5) was wrong and illegal because the said order could be passed by the Central Government after consulting the State Government under subsec. (1) of S.4-A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. It was the Central Government which could request the State Government to make a premature termination of a prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of any mineral other than a minor mineral in any area or part thereof. According to the learned counsel, no such request was made by the Central Government and, therefore, the order dt. 29th Feb. 1988 was without jurisdiction. Similarly, the notification issued subsequently thereto under R.58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, reserving the area, was also an afterthought, illegal and beyond the scope of the Act. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the petitioner was entitled to implement the order of the Central Government dt. 8th May, 1986 (Copy Annexure- P1). In support of this contention he referred to Dharam Chand Jain v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 1433. Reference was also made to P. Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 663, to contend that the State Government has no powers, to modify or annul the order of the Central Government passed under S.30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was also brought to the notice of this Court that Civil Writ Petition No. 2174 of 1986, filed by Mr. S.P. Sethi, against the order dt. 29th Sept. 1986 passed under S.4-A of the Act, was allowed by the Delhi High Court on 4th Dec. 1986 and the appeal filed by the State of Haryana against the said order of the Delhi High Court has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 6th May, 1988 in Civil Appeals Nos. 1472-77 of 1987 (State of Haryana v. Ram Kishan, AIR 1988 SC 1301).