PADAM CHAND VINAY CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the petitioners against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the S. B. Civil Writ No. 1451 of 1976 of the petitioners.

(2.) The appellants are a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of mining. In the village Khawa Raoji, Tehsil Dausa, Dist. Jaipur, the petitioners have two mining leases each for an area of 106 acres and 450 acres respectively granted to the petitioners by the Rajasthan Government in the years 1970 and 1971. Close by to this area, there was an area supposed to be a soap stone bearing one, measuring 77.7 hectares, which was previously granted under mining lease to one Shri Anand Singh Kachwaha, but as he did not execute the mining lease, the area was declared free and fresh applications were invited by notification dated Feb. 18, 1970 published in Rajasthan Rajpatra dated Dec. 3, 1970. The petitioners submitted an application for mining lease on Jan. 4, 1971 for an area of 887.46 acres or 359.13 hectares, addressed to the Secretary, Govern-ment of Rajasthan, Mines and Industry Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan, through the Mining Engineer, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Most of the portion of the applied area (887.46 acres) was overlapping the existing area of the said two leases of the petitioners. Shri Prakash Chandra Jain, respondent No. 3, also submitted an application on Jan. 4, 1971 for mining lease for an area of 209 acres, a part of the area of 887.46 acres for which petitioners had applied, and which had become free for grant when Anandsingh Kachwaha did not execute a mining lease. The Government of Rajasthan under Order No. F.32(69)/Khaniz/71, Jaipur, 27th Dec., 1971 granted the mining lease for an area of 209 acres to Prakash Chandra Jain respondent No. 3. and the mining lease application of the petitioners was rejected vide Order No. F.32(69)/Khaniz/ 71. Jaipur dated the 1st Jan., 1971 on the ground that priority has been given to Prakash Chandra Jain and the area is now not free for allotment.

(3.) The appellants preferred a revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) before the Central Government. After calling for the comments and counter-comments of the parties, and after considering the record the Central Government vide Order dated Nov. 26, 1974 (Ex. 13 to the S. B. Writ Petition) allowed the revision application of the petitioners and the order granting mining lease of 209 acres to respondent No. 3 was cancelled and the case was remanded to the State Government with a direction that the State Government may pass a reasoned order indicating how the matters referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act were taken into consideration by them.