ANKIT KOTWAL Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Factual matrix of the case is that the official respondent Nos. 1 to 4 received two applications for grant of Minor Lease of Minor Minerals on 23/2/2013 and 4/3/2013 from the respondent No. 5 and the petitioner respectively with regard to a block in river bed of Chenab at Village Parshela, Prem Nagar, Doda comprising of Survey No. 551 and the site plans submitted by both the applicants were referred to the Coordinator, Geology and Mining Department, Jammu for physical verification, who after physical verification of the sites as per the site plans reported that the areas applied for by these applicants are completely superimposing each other.

(2.) Vide order 27/11/2013, a Committee of officers was constituted to examine the applications in light of the Sec. 11 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), enabling the respondent No. 2- Directorate of Geology and Mining, J&K to dispose of the applications on merits. The Committee submitted its report on 11/2/2014, observing that the application of the petitioner, namely, Ankit Kotwal has superior claim over the application of respondent No. 5, namely, Saleem Raza Wani; that the report of the Committee was examined by the mineral Sec. of the respondents and upon examination, it was noticed that the Committee had not considered the matter in its right perspective and the matter was again referred to the Committee vide letter dtd. 18/3/2014 for scrutiny/ re-examination in the light of the necessary notings/scrutiny conducted by the official respondents to justify their report; that the Committee vide letter dtd. 24/4/2014 instead of re-examining the matter and submitting a conclusive report/recommendations, submitted para-wise reply of the observation made by the respondents, contradicted its earlier report, without specific findings; that this para-wise reply of the Committee on examination, was also found unsatisfactory and against the mandate of law by the official respondents and in absence of any specific recommendation or proposal by the Committee, in light of the provision of Sec. 11 of the Act, the entire report of the Committee was not accepted by them.

(3.) The official respondents having regard to the applications for the same block and having fulfilled the primary requirements, as prescribed under relevant rules, decided that the application of the respondent No. 5 was received by the respondents on 23/2/2013, whereas the application of the petitioner had been received on 4/3/2013, as such, the respondent No. 5 had a preferential right in terms of Sub-Sec. 2 of Sec. 11 of the Act and Rule 32 of the Jammu and Kashmir Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1962").