- (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High court dated 13/3/1975 in CWP No. 350 of 1975.
(2.) The facts, briefly stated, are as follows.
(3.) On 9/2/1962, the then State of Punjab invited applications for grant of mining lease with respect to an area of 671 bighas of land in Villages Majra and Manethi in Tehsil Rewari of District Gurgaon. In response to e said invitation Diwan Singh Sethi, deceased-Respondent 4, filed an application for grant of mining lease for a part of this area on 12/3/1962. Kangra Valley State Co. Ltd. , Respondent I, also filed an application for a similar grant on 20/3/1962. Since the State government did not dispose of these applications within the stipulated period of nine months as required by the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") , the said applications were deemed to be refused. Both the applicants filed revisions before the central government against the said deemed refusal. By order dated 25/6/1965 the central government directed the State government to consider the applications of the applicants. Originally the time granted for such consideration was till 31-8-1965, but it was last extended till 31/7/1969. In the meantime, there was reorganisation of the State of Punjab and new States of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh were constituted. The area in question fell in the territory of the State of Haryana. By order dated 19-7-1969 the State of Haryana informed both the applicants that their applications for grant of mining lease have been rejected because the area in question was being re-notified for the grant of lease. This led to a second set of revision petitions by both the applicants before the central government wherein the central government passed the order dated 24/2/1970 directing the State government to reconsider the applications of both the applicants and decide them on their merits. Thereafter, the State government passed an order dated 4/11/1971 whereby the said applications were dismissed for the reason that in exercise of its executive powers under Article 298 of the Constitution the State government has decided to exploit the area itself. Both the applicants filed the third set of revisions before the central government against the said order. The said revisions were disposed of by the central government by two separate orders dated 20/3/1972 and 19-4-1972. Both the orders were identical in nature and by the said orders, the central government held that the State government did not have the power to make a declaration under Article 298 of the Constitution after a notification had been issued throwing open the area for grant or regrant. The central government also observed that among the two rival contestants. Respondent 4 had to be preferred under Section 11 (2 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") provided he is otherwise qualified.;