SRIKANT LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner; Srikant Lal, has obtained a rule from the High Court, calling upon the respondents to show cause why the orders of the Mica Controller, dated 17-2-1955 and 10-3-1955, should not be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. Cause has been shown by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.

(2.) The petitioner obtained a lease of mining area of village Sawaiyatand, bearing tauzi No. 12561, from his wife, Srimati Ambika Bhawani Devi, by a registered patta dated 8-3-1938, for the years 1345 to 1349 Fasli. The lease expired in 1349 Fasli, but the petitioner continued to hold over with the assent of Srimati Ambika Bhawani Devi and also paid rent from year to year. The petitioner also took a hukumnama from Srimati Ambika Bhawani Devi with regard to mining lands situated in village Lat, tauzi No. 11109. On 4-5-1943, the petitioner obtained a lease of mining area of village Madih Kalonda, tauzi Nos. 3174, 3195 and 3196, from Pearey Mohan Prasad for a period of 51 years. On 3-8-1946, the petitioner made an application for a mining licence to the District Magistrate of Gaya with regard to all the three villages, namely, Sawaiyatand, Lot and Madih Kalonda. On 18-7-1947, the Mica Controller of Hazaribagh granted a licence No. 23G to the petitioner for all the properties on the recommendation of the District Magistrate. On 27-6-1953, a notification was issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, by virtue of which the proprietary interest of Srimati Ambika Bhawani Devi vested in the State of Bihar with regard to villages Sawaiyatand and Lat. In January, 1955, the petitioner applied for renewal of the mining licence. The Mica Controller renewed the licence but informed the petitioner by his memo. No. 166, dated 17-2-1955, that he had expunged Sawaiyatand and Lat from the mining licence, because the Additional Collector of Gaya had reported that the lease in respect of these two villages was not valid and had not been recognised under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The petitioner submitted a representation before the Mica Controller for reconsideration of his order, but this representation was rejected by the Mica Controller on 10-3-1955. The orders of the Mica Controller dated 17-2-1955 and 10-3-1955 are annexures D and E to the application of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that Bihar Act I of 1949, which amended Bihar Act 10 of 1948, did not receive the assent of the Governor-General and was repugnant to the Mica Control Order, 1940, made by the Central Government under Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules. It was argued that Section 6 (6) and Section 17(3) of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947, are void and ultra vires and inoperative as they are repugnant to the corresponding provisions of the Mica Control Order, 1940. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that Section 6 (6) and Section 17(3) of the Bihar Mica Act are void and inoperative because they impose unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(g) of the Constitution, It was also argued that the order of the Mica Controller was passed without giving a hearing to the petitioner and that a copy of the report of the Additional Collector of Gaya was not supplied to the petitioner and hence there was a violation of the principle of natural justice.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in this case.