SURENDRA MOHAN SARDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the guidelines as contained in letter dated 24.06.2009 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Mines, under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, on the ground of the same being ultra vires to the provisions of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. The petitioner sought the relief because of the reason that the petitioner was the applicant for allotment of lease of the mine situated at Badajamda, Dist. West Singhbhum, measuring 106.230 hectare, which mine was earlier leased out to M/s. General Produce company Limited, whose lease expired on 19.05.1965. After 19.05.1965, this mine was initially notified only on 3.1.1979 and then again it was notified on 26.2.2007. The petitioner's said prayer was rejected by the order dated 1.9.2010 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Mines & Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand. It will be worthwhile to mention here that along with the petitioner, there were 63 more applicants and therefore, by the order dated 1.9.2010, the claim of all such applicants has been rejected. The petitioner's and others claim for the said mine was rejected on the ground of coming into force of the National Mineral Policy, 2008, which required more scientific details and data with respect to the minerals in the mining area which can be gathered by undertaking certain exercises and that exercise yet has not completed.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, mine in question was already leased out to the earlier lessee which is evident from the notification itself wherein that fact has been mentioned and the mine became available because of the expiry of the earlier lease of the lessee and in view of the above reason, there was full compliance of section 5(2) of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, which provides that where there is already evidence of lease of mine and evidence of earlier prospected the area which is sought to be offered, then in that situation there is no other requirement of obtaining any further evidence. It is submitted that as per rule 22(3)(g) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the applicant is required to submit an affidavit showing particulars of area mineralwise in the State which the applicant or any person jointly with him is holding or has already held or has applied for and certain other information are also required to be given by the applicant. It is submitted that refusal could have been done only under rule 26 of the Rules of 1960. This refusal is permissible only if certain particulars in the application in the Form "I" or Form "J" are not supplied in spite of a notice under subrule (3) of rule 26.