INDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions, namely, C.W.Ps. No. 506,517, 519, 520, 521, 523 and 524 of 1998, are dealt with together since they raise identical issues except certain deviations in respect of individual factual details which do not matter for the manner of consideration required, and also for the fact that the learned counsel appearing on either side had also made common submissions highlighting the facts in only one case for the appreciation of the issues raised. C.W.P.No.506 of l99R In mis writ petition, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari seeking to quash the order of the second respondent Director of Industries, Shimla, dated 18.7.1998 recalling with, immediate effect the grant of Mining Lease made by the proceeding date 6.11.1997 for collection of Sand. Stone and Bajri from Khasra No. 61 and 254/60, measuring 483 -16, situated at Mauja Satiwala and Bheral, Tehsil Paonta, District Sirmaur, HP. and for a consequential direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner in terms of the grant order dated 6.11.1997.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was granted with a lease of the very quarry in question in the year 1995 for a period of one year, that thereafter he was working the quarry by obtaining the short term permits and that pursuant to an application (undated) for the grant of mining lease, after following the procedure prescribed therefore by an order dated 6.11.199.7 the second respondent has granted the mining case under Himachal Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971 (hereinafter re - fared to a Minor Mineral Roles) subject to die terms and conditions as also in consideration of die amount payable as specified therein. The petitioner further claims that one of the conditions of the grant is mat he shall execute the mining lease deed on non -judicial stamp papers worth Rs. 480/ - in Form ˜F and submit five copies of the same along with revised revenue map of the area duly complete in all respects to the second respondent The petitioner claims that on 19.12.1997 he purchased the required stamp papers, got the lease deed engrossed thereon and submitted the same on 20.12.1997 and thereby discharged his part of obligation in this regard. Notwithstanding all this and the efforts taken, according to the petitioner the respondents, particularly, the second respondent has not carried out their part of the obligations and has chosen to pass the impugned order dated 18.7.1998 recalling the grant earlier made due to non -execution of the mining lease deed under Rule 19 of the Minor Mineral Rules within the stipulated time and for the reason that the relaxation from the rigour of the rule has been disallowed by the State and, therefore, cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner had adhered to all the conditions stipulated in the grant order, that he had invested huge amounts for putting mineral based industry, mat is, stone crusher, mat the amount of payment of minimum royalty assured is on the previous auction bid with 30% annual increase which has to be fixed by the Mining Officer, Nahan with such increase every year, that his application being the first, he was entitled to the grant of mining lease as per rule of priority, mat die applicants who made claims latter did not made any competitive offer of rates more than the petitioner and mat after the submission of the lease deed on 20.12.1997 a common representative m respect of all the six cases relating to the grant in Giri and Yamuna River areas have been representing for the completion of the formalities and despite subsequent personal approaches and representations made nothing was done on the side of the respondents and therefore, if at all it is only the respondents who are at fault and the petitioner could not be found fault with or fixed with any lapse in this regard and mis aspect of the matter was also folly borne out by the inter - departmental communication dated 29.6.1998 filed as Annexing P -l 1 and that therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the impugned order has the consequence of depriving and divesting the petitioner of his substantial and valuable rights acquired by him by virtue of the grant and inasmuch as there is no violation of Rule 19 of the Minor Mineral Rules or any of the conditions of the grant which could be attributed to the petitioner, there was no basis or justification in law for recalling the earlier order granting the tease in favour of the petitioner. It is also contended mat recalling of the grant which has me effect of revocation of the lease earlier granted could not have been without issuing a proper show cause notice and giving an opportunity to the petitioner and mat the State Government also cannot refuse to execute the lease deed even after the expiry of the period of three months stipulated under Rule 19 of the Minor Mineral Rules in the absence of any fault or lapse as such on me part of me petitioner and that the respondents could not take advantage of their own lapse and fault to deny the rights of the petitioner.

(3.) Notice has been ordered in me writ petition as well as application for stay and the respondents have entered appearance and filed their reply con -tending that the auction held in the year 1995 for Yamuna river bed area in respect of the quarry question was no doubt granted in favour of me petitioner for Rs. 11,00,000/ - per annum for the period from 8.9.1996 to 7.9.1997, that thereafter on a joint request made by the present petitioner and others short term permit basis permission to collect sand, stone and Bajri from the said river bed was granted for 30% annual increase on the previous bid, that the earlier contract as well as short term permit were granted in joint name only, that though die. petitioner submitted the lease deed it was incomplete and that the, amount of minimum royalty, which was to be fixed by the Mining Officer, Nahan was not got fixed by him and entered in condition No. 16 part V of the, lease deed and thereby the lease deed submitted was found to be incomplete, that there had been no doubt joint inspection of the land conducted by the representatives of the different departments in terms of the procedure in vogue, that the claim of the petitioner that lie had commenced working of the quarry is incorrect since the currency of lease starts from the date of execution of lease deed in terms of Rule 19, that the petitioner failed to get minimum royalty to be paid calculated and certified from the Mining Officer, Nahan, before submitting the lease deed as envisaged in Condition No. 13 of the grant order -and that the petitioner alone - made his application for the grant in question. and there was no offer made by the department to any one and M/s Brij Bhushan Joshi, Mukesh Arora, Kapil Dev Joshi And Abhishek Bhandari filed an affidavit on 24.6.1998 only when they affirmed therein to work the mines in question at 100% above insead of 30% and that the short term, permit ... permission was given and contitued after the expiry of the earlier contract at the request of the petitioner and that the petitioner, did not contact the office after submission of the papers of his lease deed and since the documents submitted were not complete for consideration, - is on account of such lapse only the petitioner disabled himself from the authorities considering his claim so for finalisation of the lease deed. The further stand of the respondents is that none of the petitioner or his representative has. ever approached any officer of j, the Department regarding the execution of the lease deed within the prescribed period of three months and that the deposit of surface rent by the petitioner was on his own and not on the directions of the respondents and the petitioner is not entitled to either rely upon or base his claim of rights on an interdepartmental correspondence dated 29.6.1998 which was never meant to be or actually communicated to him. Though the second respondent referred the matter to die Government for consideration of the claim under Rule 19 of the Rules, the first -respondent -Government considered the same and rejected the claim and consequently no exception could be taken to the orders passed for recalling grant of mining lease earlier made. It is also contained that the area in question with other parts of Yamuna and Gin rivers were directed by the first respondent to be put in public auction to fetch better revenue to the . Government and mat respondents No. 2 and 3, therefore, have initiated steps to put the quarries in open public auction with an initial bid of Rs. 35,10,000/ -per annum as offered by M/s B.B. Joshi, Mukesh Arora, Kapil Dev Joshi and Abhishek Bhandari as against the lease amount of Rs. 17,55,000/ - per annum offered by the petitioner and others. Reference is also made to the opinion tendered by the Law Department of the Government that the land in question where mines are located/attract the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and even after auction prior permission of the Government of India would be required before actual grant is made and that a condition to that extent is to be incorporated along with other terms and conditions of the auction. The other allegations accusing the departmental authorities of any lapse or imputing motives 10 them were also stoutly denied. The proceedings of the Government dated 4.7.1998 stating that the Government is not in favour of granting relaxation of the rules for the execution of lease deeds which have not been executed within the prescribed tune limit and that the decision of the Government has taken earlier to give the areas in question on lease has been reviewed by the Government and it has since been decided that there areas must be put to auction as was being done heither -to -fore in order to fetch better revenue to the Government with a further direction to take steps in this regard came to be filed as an annexure to the reply. The third respondent also filed a supplementary reply enclosing certain orders and relevant proceedings which would help a proper decision of the case. A further supplementary reply was also filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 contending that the respondent -State grants mineral concession as per rules and when two or more parties are interested to any area the best way of disposing the claim is to put the area in open public auction to enable any one from the public to participate in auction to fetch a competative price and better revenue to the State and that so far as the area under dispute in this writ petition is concerned more parties are interested to take the mines for working and the persons noticed earlier have offered an initial bid of Rs. 28,60,000/ - for Yamuna river and Rs. 6,50,000/ - for Giri river and "in furtherance of their commitment they have already .deposited 50% of the amount and as per the conditions of the auction the areas will be put to auction with such amount specified as the initial bid with liberty to every one to participate in the said auction and the action taken by the department in the best interest of the revenue of State cannot claimed to be vitiated in any manner either in law or otherwise and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve for any relief to be granted in his favour .