- (1.) The appellant was granted a mining lease on August 30, 1969 by the State of Bihar (Respondent 3) with the prior approval of the Central Government (Respondent 2) for winning a mineral known as Apatite over an area of 1999.634 acres. Respondent 1 filed a writ petition on September 15, 1969 challenging the lease on the ground that he had earlier on March 22, 1965, applied for a mining lease over an area of 280.62 acres in certain villages of Singhbhum District which was included in the lease granted to the appellant, but as no orders were passed by the State Government within the statutory period the application was deemed to have been rejected. He thereafter filed and revision petition to the Central Government which called for the comments of the State Government. The State Government intimated to the Central Government that it wanted to work the area itself and for that reason had in fact rejected all the applications for this area including that of the first respondent. On receipt of this comment, the Central Government rejected the revision petition of the first respondent.
(2.) It appears that the appellant had pursuant to an advertisement in the newspapers applied along with others for the grant of a mining lease for phosphatic rock (Apatite) over an area of 4.1 sq. miles in village Khajurdari in Singhbhum District. But all the applications were rejected as the State Government had by then decided to work the phosphatic bearing areas in the public sector. Later. however, as 3rd respondent felt that such a venture could be better undertaken by a private party rather than the State Government in view of the dispersed nature of the deposits, whose concentrated and efficient supervision may not be possible through the public sector, it decided to release the area in question to be worked in the private sector. Accordingly permission was sought from the Central Government and an advertisement published in the newspapers for the general information of the interested parties who may be willing to set up a beneficiation plant for upgrading the low grade Apatite to ensure its use for the production of phosphatic fertiliser and who were capable of making an investment to the extent of Rs. 40 to 50 lakhs. The appellant who is reported to be financially sound submitted a scheme for setting up a beneficiation plant for upgrading the Apatite. In view of the financial solvency of the appellants his application was recommended to the Central Government. The Central Government accepted this recommendation and directed the grant of the mining lease in the following terms : "The Central Government in the interest of mineral development, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, hereby authorise the State Government to grant mining lease for apatite over the area to Dr. Satya Narain Sinha without following the procedure laid down in sub-rule (l) of the said Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules. 1960. Further in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 31 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. 1957, the Central Government hereby authorise the State Government to grant mining lease to Dr. Sinha over the area in question which does not form a compact block. The Central Government also, in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, authorise the State Government to grant mining lease for apatite over the areas to Dr. Sinha excess of the limit of 10 square miles prescribed in Section 6 (1) and (b) of the said Act."
(3.) Immediately on getting to know of the approval given by the Central Government to the grant of the mining lease to the appellant, the first respondent moved the State Government for a stay and though that application was rejected, he made several other attempts but without any success. The last revision application was filed on November 17, 1970 under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules-hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' - before the 2nd respondent on which an order dated November 23, 1971 was passed. This order as disclosed by the 1st respondent in his supplementary affidavit shows that the Central Government had, in exercise of their revisional powers under Et. 55 of the Rules, set aside the orders of the State Government and directed it to give further consideration and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months inasmuch as the State Government had not followed the correct procedure in dealing with the application of the 1st respondent;