BALKRISHNA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitoner has called in question the propriety of the order dated 21.8.91 passed vide Annexure -B by the State of Madhya Pradesh in the Department of Minerals Resources reducing the period of mining lease granted in favour of the Petitioner to 10 years and the order of affirmation dated 11.4.94 passed by the Respondent No. 3, the Central Government in revision preferred under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

(2.) THE facts as have been uncurtained in the petition are that the Petitioner applied on 20.11.90 for grant of mining lease for extraction of soap stone and marble etc. over an area of 38.58 acres in Mauja Karmai Tahsil Majholi in the District of Sidhi for a period of 20 years. The State Government vide Annexure -B dated 21.8.91 granted the lease for the aforeasaid area for a period of 10 years without a renewal clause. Feeling aggrieved by the same the Petitioner preferred a revision before the Central Government seeking modification of the period of 10 years to 20 years and for inclusion of clause of renewal of mining lease. The Central Government invited the comments of the State Government but the State Government did not assign any reason about why the lease was granted for 10 years and not for 20 years. The Petitioner, as alleged in the petition, was called upon to submit his comments and he did so. The Central Government on consideration of the factual matrix rejected the revision vide Annexure -F on 11.4.94. It is averred in the petiton that the order passed by the Central Government is unsustainable as the revisional authority has not appreciated the contentions raised by the Petitioner with regard to the grant of an opportunity of being heard to the applicant by the State Government as enjoined under Sub Rule 1 of the Rule 26 of the Rules.

(3.) A rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner stating that under Section 8 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. 1957 the Petitioner is entitled to a renewal. Non affording of an opportunity of hearing has also been highlighted. The Petitioner has also referred to the decision dated 14.5.90 by the High Court of Delhi in writ petition No. 730/97 (Ram Chandra Bansal v. Central Government and another).