VIJAY PRAKASH MITTAL Vs. ABDUL HAQ ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two special appeals are directed against the order of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 23rd April 1969, in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 729/1967.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Shri Abdul Haq Ansari (hereinafter called 'the petitioner') was holding a prospecting licence for mining of Gar-nett in village Khatwar Tehsil Phagi District Aimer from 27th February 1963 to 26th February 1964. On 26th November 1963, he applied for renewal of the licence but the same was reiected by the State Government on 25th Feb. 1064 but the petitioner was informed about it on 27th February 1964, after the period Against Judgment of Single Judge of this Court in C.W.P. No. 729 of 1967, D/ 23-4-1969. of prospecting licence had expired. On 29th February 1964. he applied for the grant of fresh mining lease but this was rejected by the Director of Mines and Geology as time barred. On a representation made by the petitioner the Government of Raiasthan forwarded the application for consideration to the Union Government, but it was also rejected by the Union Government on 25th November 1964. Thereafter, this area was notified and declared to be free for the grant of mining lease on 7th April 1966 in the Rajasthan Gazette and the petitioner applied along with a plan on 7th May, 1966 and a receipt Annexure 1 was issued by the Assistant Mining Engineer to the petitioner. Shri Viiay Prakash Mittal (hereinafter called the respondent) also submitted his application for the grant of mining lease of this very area to the Assistant Mining Engineer on 10th May, 1966. According to the respondent 8th May, 1966 was Sunday and 9th May, 1966 was declared a gazetted holiday and therefore he could not have filed his application before 10th May. 1966, as no special arrangements were made for the receipt of such applications on gazetted holidays. The Government of Raiasthan according to the petitioner did not dispose of these two applications within a period of 9 months, and as such the petitioner under the deeming provision of Rule 24 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') took it that his application was rejected by the State Government. The petitioner then filed a revision application under Rule 54 to the Secretary, Ministry of Mines & Metals, Government of India, New Delhi. The Government of India invited comments from the Government of Rajasthan on the revision application made by the petitioner. The Government of Raiasthan sent its comments and the petitioner was asked to send counter comments. The petitioner then sent his counter comments to the Government of India. After consideration of the whole matter Under Secretary to the Government of India informed the petitioner vide Annexure 5 dated 6th December 1967, that the Union Government did not find any reason to reject the recommendations of the State Government for giving priority to the respondent after considering the claims of the parties under Section 11 (2) and (3) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, (hereinafter called 'the Act') and keeping in view the instructions contained in the Government of India's letter dated 25th July, 1961 which stated that applications received on a holiday without having made any special arrangements and without having notified such arrangements will not have priorities over the one received on the first working day after holiday. It was also mentioned in Annexure 5 that the financial resources and technical staff at the disposal of Shri Mittal are also a shade above that of the petitioner. The application for revision filed by the petitioner had, therefore, no force and was rejected.

(3.) The petitioner in the above circumstances filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Government of India dated 6th December. 1967, on various grounds. The learned Single Judse held that the circular letter dated 25th July, 1961 issued by the Government of India was in the nature of administrative direction which could not over-ride the provisions of Rule 23 which provided that the receiving authority shall issue the receipt of the application forthwith if they were received Personally or on the same day if received through the post office, and if in pursurance of the said rule the Receiving Authority had received an application on a particular day and issued a receipt thereof on that very day then it cannot be said that the application was received in the eye of law on the day when the office was opened after holidays that the doctrine of 'first come first served' emanated from Section 11 (2) of the Act and as the petitioner, whose application was received earlier shall have the preferential right for the grant of lease over the respondent whose application was received later. Learned Single Judge felt inclined to allow the writ petition on this ground alone and as such did not propose to go into the merits of other grounds advanced before him and in the result set aside the order of the Government of India dated 6th December 1967 and sent the case back to the Government of Rajasthan to dispose of the application of the petitioner in the light of the law laid down by him. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge both Shri Vijay Prakash Mittal as well as the State of Rajasthan have come in special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. 1949.