LAWS(PAT)-1988-8-16

MADAN LAL JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On August 26, 1988
MADAN LAL JAIN Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexures-1 and '2' appended to this application. By annexure-1, the Ministry of Steel and Mines, Department of Mines, (respondent 1), the Central Government rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner under R.54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as the M.C. Rules, 1960) on the ground that it was time barred. Vide annexure-2, the Director, Mines, Bihar. respondent No. 3 communicated to the petitioner that his application for first renewal of the mining lease in respect of 35.42 acres of land situate in village Saidpur Buzurg has lapsed by time and as such the same stood automatically rejected.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, in short, are that the petitioner made an application for grant of mining lease of China Clay and Silica Sand over an area of 35.82 acres of land situate in village Saidpur Buzurg within the district of Sahebganj which was granted by the State Government for a period of ten years and registered deed of lease was executed on 10-9-1966. The petitioner dissatisfied with the grant of mining lease only for a period of ten years made an application before the Central Government under R.54 of the M.C. Rules, 1960 and the Central Government by its order dt. 19-5-1967 allowed the application of the petitioner and directed the State Government to grant mining lease for a period of twenty years and accordingly a rectification deed was also executed and the lease was extended up to 5-9-1986.

(3.) Since the petitioner's lease was going to expire on 6-9-1986, the petitioner filed an application on 9-4-1985 for renewal of the lease as required under the provisions of R.28 of the M.C. Rules, 1960. It appears that some queries were made by the State Government or by the Assistant Mining Officer, respondent No. 4 and the petitioner complied with the same. However, all on a sudden, the petitioner received a letter dt. 4-5-1987 as contained in annexure-2 stating that the application for renewal of the mining lease for first renewal stood automatically rejected