ITTIGI VEERABHADRAPPA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ittigi Veerabhadrappa has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging 'the validity of the order rejecting petitioner's application for a prospecting licence to mine iron and manganese Ores and granting it to Kal-gani Sannabasappa, hereinafter called the respondent, under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948.

(2.) The facts relevant for decision of this petition are not in dispute and have been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner thus: On 20th of June, 1952 the respondent applied for prospecting licence for survey Nos. 90 and 91 of Bela-gal village Bellary Taluk. On 1st of July, 1952, Hie petitioner made an application to prospect survey No. 91 for two years. Ignoring the respondent's application the Government of Madras sanctioned the grant of this licence to the petitioner by order dated the 20th of November, 1952. Exhaustive rules have been framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulatipn and Development) Act. Under Rule 20 such a grant had to be entered in a register maintained for the purpose and there was at that time no rule for executing a formal document incorporating the grant of licence and the conditions on which it had been granted. On 27th of February, 1953, Rule 17-A was added laying down that such a formal document must be executed within three months of its grant and if this is not done then the order granting the licence is liable to be revoked unless the authority concerned is satisfied that the applicant is not responsible for the delay. As no such document was executed in this case the Government of Madras revoked the order and cancelled the licence by order dated the 18th June, 1953 and further directed the Collector to submit the respondent's application for orders of the Government apparently in view of the respondent's application dated 20th of June, 1952. The petitioner on 17th of August, 1953, applied to the Central Government under Rule 57 for review of this order on the ground that Rule 17-A having been subsequently added did not apply to the case. The Central Government forwarded a copy of the review petition to the Madras Government (or comments and called for the records and in reply the State Government stated that the review petition may be dismissed inter alia on the ground that Kalgani Sannabasappa respondent's application had been over-looked when granting the prospecting licence to the petitioner. The Central Government held that Rule 17A was not applicable to the case but directed the Mysore Government (now in charge of the matter) to take appropriate action after taking into consideration the petitioner's as well as the respondent's applications. This order was passed on 13th of May, 1955 and was communicated to the petitioner in due course. In pursuance of this order the State Government took proceedings to determine as to which of the rival claimants should be granted this prospecting licence and in a lengthy order dated the 2nd of March, 1956, decided the matter in respondent's favour. The petitioner thereupon filed a review petition to the Central Government which was rejected on 6th of October, 1956, hence this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the validity of both the orders passed by the Central Government under Rule 59. The first Order of 13th May, 1955 is stated to be invalid On the ground that it travelled beyond the scope of the-review petition then pending before it and also because no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to submit his point of view to the Central Government. The second order is challenged only on the ground that the petitioner was not given any hearing.