JAMUNA DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to cancel the mining lease granted in favour of respondent 4 and further to direct them to grant the mining lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of the entire area for which the petitioner filed his application on 3-1-1974. It has further been prayed that Annexure-8, the communication of the State Government addressed to the petitioner refusing to grant him mining lease and Annexure-9 the order of the Central Government passed under S.30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner, be also quashed.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are as follows :- The petitioner J.S. Sharda as well as respondent 4 Banwari Lal Newatia filed applications for grant of mining lease over an area measuring about 27.30 hectares in villages Kamarhatu and Markemhatu in the district of Singhbhum for mining of soap stones and lime stones. The applications were made in respect of different areas of land but for the purpose of this application it is said that the area under consideration measured approximately 27.30 hectares and the area applied for by both the applicants was the same. The petitioner as well as respondent 4 filed their applications on the same day, that is, on 3-1-1974. It appears that respondent 4 filed Royalty Clearance Certificate on 14-5-1974 and the certificate of approval on 18-9-1974. These documents are required to be filed in support of the application for grant of mining lease as contemplated by R.22(2) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The report of the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum pointed out that the application of respondent 4 was defective for non-filing of material documents under R.22(2) of the Rules. As observed earlier, these documents were filed on 14-5-1974 and 18-9-1974 even before the Deputy Commissioner submitted his report on 25-11-1974. The report of the Deputy Commissioner, however, also pointed out that so far as the petitioner was concerned he had not submitted the up-to-date certified copy of the khatian in respect of an area of 9.612 hectares, as a result of which that area could not be verified. The Deputy Commissioner had recommended that both the applications should be rejected.

(3.) Since the State Government did not pass an order either granting or rejecting the application of either of the applicants within the statutory period, i.e. 9 months, the petitioner as well as respondent 4 filed revisions before the Central Government under R.54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. While the revision petitions were pending before the Central Government, the State of Bihar granted a mining lease in favour of respondent 4. The first lease deed related to an area of 2.5 hectares which is dated 30th of March, 1976 and the other lease deed related to an area of 22.96 acres and is dated the 7th of April, 1977. When the revision application preferred by the petitioner came up for hearing before the Central Government, by order dated 9th of March, 1978, the revision application was allowed and certain directions were made by the Central Government. The aforesaid final order of the Central Government is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application and is dated 9th March, 1978. The Central Government in its aforesaid order observed as follows : "The State Government have passed orders vide their letter dated 7-4-1977 determining the priority in favour of Shri Newatia in accordance with Rule 22(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Certain procedural requirements are indicated in Rule 22(3) Apart from certificates envisaged under Section 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the presence or absence of the other documents envisaged under Rule 22(3) will not make a memorial difference to the question of inter se priority of the two applicants who have filed their applications on the same date, as these documents are only the accompaniments and a specific order has to be passed by the State Government to determine the inter se priority of the two parties who have filed on the same date under Section 11(2) of the M.M. (R and D) Act. 2. The State Govt. can have recourse to the provisions of Section 11(2) of the M.M. (Rand D) Act only if both the applications received on the same day are before it. The M.L. application submitted by Shri Newatia has already been disposed of by the State Govt. vide their order dated 7-4-1977 whereby the mining lease in respect of the area in question has been granted in his favour. This order is defective inasmuch as it has been passed on an improper understanding of the implication of Rule 22(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules. The Central Govt., therefore, in exercise of suo motu powers of revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, set aside the said order of the State Govt. dated 7-4-77 and direct the State Govt. to consider both the applications of S/Shri Neamunadas Das Sarda and Newatia in the light of the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and pass orders within a period of 120 days."