BAIJNATH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ. The circumstances are these. The petitioner, who has been granted a certificate of approval under Section 6 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, made an application to the State of Bihar for grant of mining lease for mica and beryl in respect of 371 acres comprised in survey plots Nos. 1 and 3 situate in village Dumri Tola in the district of Monghyr. By their order dated 29th October, 1956, the State Government allowed the prayer of the petitioner for a lease out only in respect of an area of 352,03 acres. On "29th October, 1956, they wrote a letter to the Collector of Monghyr communicating to him that they have decided to grant a mining lease for mica and beryl to the petitioner in respect of 352.03 acres and asked him to demarcate the ares and deliver possession to the petitioner on his giving an undertaking to the effect that he would execute the lease in the standard form approved by the Government vide Annexure A). Under the orders of the Mining Officer, Deoghar, datert 3rd December. 1956, the petitioner deposited Rs. 500 on 4-12-1956, on account of the cost of demarcation and also gave a written undertaking to execute the lease in the form approved by the Government (vide Annexures B and E). Thereupon, the Mines Surveyor of the Government of Bihar demarcated the area and delivered possession to the petitioner on 7-12-1956. Thereafter, the petitioner started prospecting the mining work in the demised area. On his application and after confirmation by the Collector the Mica Controller endorsed the area on his license. On 26-3-1957 for certain undisclosed reasons the Mining Officer. Deoghar directed a fresh demarcation or the area leased out to the petitioner to which the latter objected by his letter dated 2-4-1957. On 24-8-1957, the petitioner, however, received a letter from the Mining Officer, Deoghar, dated 14-8-1957, intimating that the State Government had withdrawn their order dated 29-8-1956, and directing him to submit consolidated return of mica and beryl extracted from the area and to deposit royalty by the end of August, 1957, at the latest. The opposite party, namely, the State of Bihar, the Mining Officer, Government of Bihar, Deoghar, and the Chief Mining Officer, Government of Bihar, want, it is alleged, to oust the petitioner from his lawful possession of the leased area. The case of the petitioner is that the opposite party are bound in law to carry out their obligations under the Mineral Concession Rules 1949, to execute a formal document of lease and to issue the same to him and that their contemplated action is illegal and in violation of his fundamental right to hold the properly. On these allegations he claimed a writ of mandamus or an appropriate direction commanding the opposite party to respect their order dated 29-40-1956, and execute a lease in his favour in respect of the demised area, as provided in the Mineral Concession Rules and to restrain the opposite party from interfering with his possession.

(2.) By their affidavit the State of Bihar admitted that a tentative decision had been taken to grant a lease to the petitioner in respect of 352.03 acres and delivery of possession had also been given, but alleged that no final order sanctioning the grant of lease had been made, nor could it have been made in law without the concurrence of the Government in the Finance Department and without the prior approval of the Government of India. They further alleged that immediately after obtaining possession the petitioner started mining operation in contravention of Section 6 of the Mines Act, 1952 without giving due notice to the Chief Inspector of Mines, the Director, Indian Bureau of Mines and the District Magistrate, Monghyr, and the Chief Mining Officer visited the area on 14-2-1957, and discovered that he had committed serious irregularities and also extended the operation beyond the demised area, and, therefore, the Government withdrew their order dated 29-10-1956. They asserted that the order was perfectly legal, and the petitioner had no right, and there was no question of infringement of his fundamental right.

(3.) During the pendency of this application Maharani Giriraj Kumari, Rajmata Sahiba of Gidhour, applied for and obtained order of this Court to intervene. The affidavit made on her behalf disclosed that the State of Bihar had already granted her a lease for mica and beryl in respect of 61.50 acres including 9.17 acres out of plot No. 1 included in the petitioner's proposed lease in May, 1955, and had also delivered possession to her after due demarcation. She alleged that the approval of the Government of India for granting lease to the petitioner had not been obtained and that no lease in fact was made in favour of the petitioner. She complained that the petitioner mala fide claimed 9.17 acres leased to her out of plot. No. 1 as a part of his lease and sought a declaration that this area be held to be outside fie area proposed to be given to him in the lease.