ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, inter alia, seeks quashment of orders dated 16 -9 -2008 and 14 -6 -2011 passed by the State Government and Central Government respectively. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus for directing the State Government to grant mining lease over the area in question to the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for an alternative relief by way of writ of mandamus seeking a direction to the respondents to re -hear and decide the various applications for grant of mining lease over the area in question. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition lie in a narrow compass. On 2 -3 -2007 the State Government issued a notification inviting applications for grant of mining lease in respect of an area admeasuring 2451.754 hectares situated in various villages in district Satna. In the aforesaid notification it was mentioned that preference will be given to the applicants who are willing to set up big industries on the basis of available minerals. In response to the aforesaid notification, 24 applicants including the petitioner and respondent No. 3, submitted the applications for grant of mining lease. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of mining lease on 30 -3 -2007, whereas the respondent No. 3 submitted its applications on 15 -2 -2007 and 2 -4 -2007. The State Government on 18 -9 -2007 afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to all the applicants including the petitioner and respondent No. 3. Thereafter, by communication dated 6 -6 -2008, the applicants were asked to submit their written submissions. In pursuance of aforesaid communication, the petitioner submitted its written submissions. The State Government vide order dated 16 -9 -2008 recommended for grant of mining lease in favour of respondent No. 3 and sought approval/relaxation of the Central Government under section 6 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')]. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed a revision under section 30 of the Act read with Rule 54 of Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 [for short "Rules"]. The Central Government vide order dated 14 -6 -2011 dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that hearing before the State Government took place on 18 -9 -2007 and thereafter by communication dated 6 -6 -2008 the State Government required various applicants to submit the written submissions, pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted its detailed written submissions. Yet, the State Government ignoring the written submissions chose to decide applications on the basis of oral arguments after a period of one year from the date of hearing of the arguments. Thus, there was unreasonable delay between hearing of the arguments and delivery of the order. Rule 63 -A of the Rules was brought to our notice to contend that an application for mining lease should be disposed of within 12 months from the date of receipt of such an application. Second proviso to aforesaid rule mandates that the State Government shall give reasons for delay in writing, if the application so filed for grant of mining lease is not disposed of within the time limit stipulated under Rule 63 -A(c) of the Rules. Therefore, the delay in passing the impugned order is arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. In this connection, reference was made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Anil Rai and another v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 and Jagarnath Singh and others v. Francis Kharia and others, : AIR 1948 Patna 414.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned orders. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 at the outset raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the petition on the ground that the order passed by the Mines Tribunal is a quasi judicial order and, therefore, the petitioner ought to have filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of High Court of Jharkhand in Murliwala Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, : 2014 (2) J.L.J.R. 611. It is also pointed out that no ground has been mentioned in the writ petition to show as to how the order passed by the Mines Tribunal is illegal, so as to warrant interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. An objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court has also been taken oh the ground that the impugned order dated 14 -6 -2011 ought to have been challenged before Delhi High Court. It is also urged that after the impugned order dated 14 -6 -2011, the State Government has passed an order granting the area in question to the respondent No. 3 and the mining lease has also been executed in favour of the respondent No. 3, which has not been challenged and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.