AJEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant aggrieved by the dismissal of writ petition by the learned Single Judge has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE appellant was granted a mining lease in the year 1983 under an agreement executed on June 12, 1983 and registered on August 22, 1983. THE respondent No. 5 Babulal Gupta who was also desirous of grant of same area of mining lease, had also applied for grant of lease on October 22, 1982 and January 19,1983. Both these applications were rejected and the said respondent No. 5 Babulal Gupta filed two appeals before the Additional Director Mines, Udaipur. THE appeals were also dismissed on August 12,1983. A further appeal was also taken to the State Government which was decided on July 3, 1984. THE appeal was partly allowed and operation of the area not covered by the lease agreement in favour of the appellant was directed to be granted to said respondent No. 5 Babu Lal Gupta. Not satisfied with the partial success of the appeal, the respondent No. 5 preferred a revision application under S. 13 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act of 1957' hereinafter ). Vide order dated March 12, 1987, the Central Government allowed the revision application and set aside the Order granting lease in favour of the appellant-original petitioner. THE case was remanded to the State Government for passing appropriate order on the application of respondent No. 5 on merits. This Order of the Central Government Was challenged in the Writ Petition, before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge by the order under appeal held that no interference was called for in the order of the Central Government and dismissed the writ petition. This is how the matter has come up in appeal before us.

(3.) AS regards second application of Respondent No. 5, Babulal Gupta dated January 19, 1983, the objection was that it was made Within 15 days of the date on which entry] was made in the Mining Register under R. 56 of the Rules and was therefore, premature. If this objection is upheld the appellant alone remains in the field having applied on January 20, 1983, on the 16th day of the entry made under R. 56 of the Rules. It was pointed out by the appellant that the State Government had admitted in its reply to the Writ Petition that entry in the register of mining lease showing the area as available for regrant was made on January 4, 1983 and copy of the order dated January 4, 1983 declaring the area being available for regrant was also annexed to the reply of the State Government as Annexure R/2. It was, therefore, contended that in compliance with R. 56, entry as to the area being available for regrant was made on January 4, 1983 and hence the area would be available for regrant on expiry of 15 days from January 4, 1983. Any application made on January 19,1983 would therefore be premature and the first date on which the application could be made was January 20, 1983 on which date the appellant had applied. We need not go into the question whether under R. 56 any application made within 15 days of the entry in mining lease register would be premature as we are of the view that R. 56 has no application to this case for reasons stated hereinafter.