SM SUDHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner, Sm. Sudha Devi, has applied for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution for calling up and quashing the two orders of the State Government, dated 6-1-1956, sanctioning grant of a mining lease in favour of respondents 3 and 4 for about 2893 and odd acres of land located in village Sabeyatand District Gaya, for the purpose of mining, mica. Cause has been shown by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State of Bihar and learned counsel on behalf of respondents 3 and 4.

(2.) Respondent 4 Chalhu Ram Horil Ram Ltd. is a private limited company with members of two joint Hindu families as shareholders. Respondent 3, Sant Saran Prasad Bhadani, is a Director of the Company. On 30-9-1940, respondent 4 took lease of the mica mining area in dispute by two documents executed by the proprietors of the tauzi for a period of 15 years. On 27-6-1953, the tauzi in question, namely tauzi No. 12561, was notified under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, and the proprietary right, including the mica area in dispute, vested in the State of Bihar. By Section 10, Bihar Land Reforms Act, it is provided that the lease made by the previous proprietor would be deemed to be a lease made by the State Government to the holder of the subsisting lease for the remainder of the term of the lease, and such holder shall be entitled to retain possession of the lease-hold property. The section further states that the terms and conditions of the lease by the State Government shall, mutatis mutandis be the same as the terms and conditions of the subsisting lease, subject to certain exception mentioned in the section. After the date of vesting the State of Bihar accepted rent from respondent 4 for the mining area. The lease in favour of respondent 4 expired on 30-9-1955, but respondent 3 and respondent 4 both filed applications for grant of mining lease in respect of the same area. On 6-1-1956, the State Government sanctioned a grant of mining lease in favour of respondent 4 for 410 acres of mica mining area, and in favour of respondent 3, Sant Saran Prasad Bhadani, for an area of 2890 acres of mica mining area. The petitioner alleges that she was granted a certificate of approval on 12-1-1956, from the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949. The petitioner had intended to take a mining lease of the area in question. The case of the petitioner is that there was no notification of the State Government in the official gazette about the date front which the area should be treated as available for regrant, as provided by Rule 67 of the Mineral Concession Rules. The contention of the petitioner is that there was violation of Rules 67 and 68 and, therefore, the orders of the State Government sanctioning lease in favour of respondents 3 and 4 were illegal and ultra vires and ought to be quashed by the High Court by the grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit respondents 1 and 2 state that there was no fresh grant of lease to respondents 3 and 4, but there is only a renewal of the previous grant. It was contended that Rules 67 and 68 have no application to the case. In para. 5 of the counter-affidavit respondents 1 and 2 further state that the State Government had granted a licence to respondent 3 for setting up a factory in Jhumri Tilaiya for the manufacture of micanite, and for the purchase of the necessary machinery the Bihar State Finance. Corporation had granted a loan of Rs. 2,80,000/- to respondent 3. It is stated that in view of these facts the State Government had decided to renew the lease in favour of respondent 3.