KANHAIYALAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Parliament has framed the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and development) Act, 1957, (to be hereafter referred to as 'the Act of 1957' ). The act of 1957 divides the minerals into major minerals and minor minerals. Section 15 of the Act of 1957 empowers the State Governments to make rules regulating the grant of prospecting licenses and mining leases in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. The Rajasthan State, under the powers given to it by the Act of 1957, has framed the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1959' ). Rule 20 of the Rules of 1959 empowers the grant of lease of a minor mineral by public auction.

(2.) RULE 36 of the Rules of 1959 provides the procedure for holding auction for the grant of mining a minor mineral lease. Sub-clause (5) of Rule 36 of the rules of 1959 provides that no bids should be regarded as accepted unless confirmed by the Government or the competent authority. Schedule III of Rules of 1959, contains delegation of the powers under the Rules of 1959, and shows that the power to confirm a bid in an auction upto the amount of Rs. 20,000 is vested in the Director of Mines and Geology. Rule 60 of the Rules of 1959 provides that the State Government may, in respect of any order, whether in appeal or otherwise, passed under these Rules by the Director, Mining Engineer or the Assistant Mining Engineer, on application made in this behalf or on its own motion, call for and examine the connected records for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order and may confirm, vary or rescind such order.

(3.) THE auction for the grant of mining lease of sand-stone was held on september 4, 1975. The petitioner gave bid of Rs. 15,100 (which was the highest) while the bid of respondent No. 3 was of Rs. 12,000. The petitioner, as required by the Rules, deposited 25 per cent of the amount of bid for one year and 25 per cent, of the amount as security for the bid for the terms and conditions of the mining lease. The bid of the petitioner was confirmed by the director of Mines and Geology, respondent No. 2, as conveyed by letter dated january 7, 1976. No lease deed was however executed in favour of the petitioner and in the meanwhile the petitioner received a communication dated july 20, 1976 from respondent No, 2 (Director) intimating him that the State government, on consideration, had decided by its order dated June 30, 1976, that the lease be granted in favour of respondent No. 3 for Rupees 15,100 and consequently the confirmation of the order in favour of the petitioner communicated to him by letter dated January 7, 1976, should be treated as cancelled and orders had been passed to refund the amount of Rs, 7,555 deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner was naturally aggrieved and has come up to this Court to challenge the impugned order of the State government.