BIHARI LAL PALIWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a mandamus to declare Notification dated, October 6, 1994 (Annexure-15), issued by the Government of Rajasthan in exercise of power conferred by Rule 65-A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short the Rules of 1986) as invalid on the ground of being arbi-trary and beyond legal competence of the State Government. In the course of arguments, much stress has been made to set aside clause (9) of the Notification. Further prayer is consequential to quash and set aside the two letters dated 19. 10. 94 issued by the Mining Engineer, Jaipur, rejecting the applications made by the petitioner for grant of mining lease.

(2.) THE Notification in question is, in fact, a new policy prescribing the procedure for grant of mining lease/quarry licence for marble, including serpentine/green marble etc. THE salient features of the new policy are : (i) delineation of plots of prescribed size by the Government for granting mining lease/quarry in the government land; (ii) size of plots to be of 2. 25 hectares. THE size of plots could be changed by the Director for reasons to be recorded in writing; (iii) the plots so delineated to be notified for grant of mining lease/quarry licence by the Director with prior approval of the government; (iv) it restricts that no person shall acquire an area exceeding 4. 50 hectares in the entire State; (v) It also provides the procedure of selection when there are two or more applicants for the same plot.

(3.) CONFRONTED with the above situation, Shri N. K. Maloo learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in the above judgments, the new policy has not been tested in the light of Sec. 15 of the Mines and Mineral Regulations and Development Act, 1957 (for short the Act of 1957 ). According to the learned counsel, the grant of mining leases can be regulated by the rules and not by a notification, as such, the new policy/notification dated 6. 10. 95 was beyond competence of the State Government. It is also contended that Clause (9) of the Notification is arbitrary and irrational and should be struck down. In the same sequence, further contention isthat the policy cannot be given retrospective effect by rejecting applications of the petitioner which were pending when Notification was issued by the State Government. Learned counsel also contended that new policy is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Rules of 1986 and it deserves to be declared invalid and inoperative.