CHANDAN MAL JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28 -8 -81 contained in Annexure - 7. This order was passed by the Central Govt. Respondent No. 1, on the revision filed by the petition under Rule 54 of the Mineral Commission Rules, 1960 rejecting the revision application dated 9 -6 -81 as not maintainable with a direction that for the failure of the State Government to pass orders, the petitioner may, if so advised, seek relief in an appropriate court of law.

(2.) The relevant facts to dispose of this application are that on 23 -8 -77, the petitioner applied for mining lease of fire -clay over an area of 656.05 acres of land situated in village Bankita in the district of Palamau. On 29 -8 -77 the petitioner submitted a revised map for an area of 566.24 acres only since most of the land situated in village Bankita was barren and there was no deposit of fire -clay. In April, 1978, the Deputy Commissioner Palamau after careful scrutiny recommended that out of total area applied for only 192.21 acres was free for settlement. He however stated that further area of 97.75 acres was available for settlement. Since the same could not be granted in favour of the original applicant, M/s. Bharat Mineral Industries and as such the total area which was available for grant of lease in favour of the petitioner was 289.96 acres in village Balu. Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, the State Government rejected the application on 14 -8 -78 mainly on the ground that there was likelihood of the presence of coal in the said area. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision application before the Central Government under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules.

(3.) The parties were heard and both the grounds raised by the State Government (a) that the area is not in a contact block, and (b) that there is likelihood of the presence of coal in the area, were rejected by the Central Government considering the first ground that the area was not compact since various Khasra Nos. were not included in the original application, the reasoning of the State Government, was rejected and it was held that even though the block nos, were not included in the original application, the petitioner had after obtaining the consent of the pattadars submitted the same before the Mining Officer long before the order was passed and that details were in fact, available in the records of the State Government. As regards the second reasoning for rejection that there was likelihood of the presence of coal in the area, it was held that the representation of the State Government, admitted that the mining leases have been in this area for fire -clay and it would be unfair to reject the application of the petitioner on the ground as it will amount to discrimination.