CYRIAC Joseph, C. J. - (1.) In the year 1995, the petition ers applied to the Government of Uttar Pradesh for grant of prospecting li cences under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). Before any decision was taken on their applications, the State of Uttaranchal was created w. e. f. 09-11- 2000. After the creation of the State of Uttaranchal also, no decision on their applications was communicated to the petitioners. When the petitioners con tacted the second respondent - District Magistrate, Bageshwar - they were in formed that, as per Annexure 1 order dated 29-12-2004, the Government of Uttaranchal had rejected the applica tions. A copy of the said Government Order dated 29-12-2004 was supplied to the petitioners by the District Magis trate. As per Annexure 1 order dated 29-12-2004, the District Magistrate, Bageshwar was informed that the Gov ernment had decided to refuse the ap plications for grant of prospecting li cences in respect of an area of 8. 38 Sq. Kms. in Village Kunoli Sunera, District Bageshwar and the District Magistrate was directed that the said area be no tified inviting applications in accord ance with the Rules. However, no rea son was stated in Annexure 1 order for rejecting the applications. On the basis of Annexure 1 Government Order, the second respondent issued Annexure 2 notification dated 22-01-2005 inviting fresh applications for grant of prospect ing licence in respect of the above-men tioned area. In the said notification, though it was stated that the earlier ap plications had been rejected by the Government, the reason for such rejec tion was not indicated. In such circum stances, the petitioners filed this writ petition praying for quashing Annexures 1 and 2 and for directing respondent No. 1 to grant the prospect ing licences to the petitioners in respect of an area of 8. 38 Sq. Kms in Village Kunoli Sunera, District Bageshwar. They also prayed for restraining the re spondents from granting prospecting li cence to persons who applied pursuant to Annexure 2 notification.
(2.) THE writ petition was admitted on 26-07-2005. Though the petitioners had filed Civil Misc. Application No. 4750 of 2005 seeking stay of operation of Annexures 1 and 2 and an order re straining the respondents from granting prospecting licence to persons other than the petitioners in respect of an area of 8. 38 Sq. Kms. in Village Kunoli Sunera, the interim relief was not granted. However, it was directed that the grant of licence to persons other than those who had applied pursuant to the first notification shall be subject to further orders in the case. According to the petitioners, Annexure 1 order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the appli cations of the petitioners were rejected against the provisions contained in the Rules. It is also contended that once Annexure 1 is quashed, the consequen tial notification (Annexure 2) and all further proceedings pursuant to the said notification are liable to be quashed. It is specifically contended that an application for grant of pros pecting licence can be rejected under Rule 12 of the Rules only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the applicants and after recording in writing the reasons for the rejection. It is further pointed out that the refusal of the application should be communi cated to the applicants. According to the petitioners, no reason has been as signed by the Government for rejecting the applications of the petitioners and the refusal was not even communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners came to know of Annexure 1 order only when they made enquiries with the sec ond respondent. It is pointed out that Annexure 1 order is not marked to any of the petitioners. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent by the Secretary, Industrial Develop ment, Government of Uttaranchal. It is admitted that the petitioners had ap plied for grant of prospecting licence in respect of an area of 8. 38 Sq. Kms. in Village Kunoli Sunera in District Bageshwar under the Mineral Conces sion Rules, 1960. But it is stated that the applications were not in accordance with the Rules, in as much as, the ap plications were not accompanied by the necessary informations and documents. In order to give an opportunity to re move the defects, detailed notices dated 19-10- 2001 were sent to the pe titioners from the office of the District Magistrate, Bageshwar. Copies of the said notices are produced as Annexures CA1 to CA4. The said notices were sent by registered post. But none of the pe titioners responded to the notice and furnished the required informations and documents for a long period. There fore, the District Magistrate, Bageshwar, vide his letter dated 18-02- 2002, rec ommended rejection of the applications of the petitioners on account of non-compliance of the notices dated 19-10-2001. Again, vide his letter dated 19-10-2004, the District Magistrate in formed Government that the petitioners had not submitted the required documents in support of their applica tions for grant of prospecting licence and, as such, recommendation had al ready been sent to the Government to reject their applications. Accepting the recommendation of the District Magis trate, the State Government rejected the applications of the petitioners as per Annexure 1 order dated 29-12- 2004. It is contended in the counter af fidavit that the rejection of the applica tions was justified in view of the failure of the petitioners to comply with the di rections contained in Annexures CA1 to CA4 notices sent from the office of the District Magistrate.
(3.) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by petitioner No. 4 on behalf of all the petitioners stating that the petition ers had not received Annexures CA1 to CA4 notices stated to have been sent from the office of the District Magis trate, Bageshwar. In view of the statement of the petitioners that they had not received any notice from the second respondent, the respondents were directed to pro duce the relevant files. The files pro duced by the learned Standing Coun sel show that the notices were sent to the petitioners by registered post on 20- 11-2001. But there is no record to show that the notices were actually served on the petitioners. The conten tion of the learned Standing Counsel is that when the notices were actually sent by registered post and when they were not received back undelivered, the pre sumption is mat they were delivered to the addressees.;