Sanjay Yadav, A.C.J. - (1.)Petitioner by way of present petition seeks following reliefs :
"(i) Issue a writ/writs/direction of appropriate nature commanding the respondents to execute the lease agreement pursuant to the final grant order dated 26.02.2019 sanctioning Quarry Lease, considering petitioner's application to be under Rule 6, 18 and 30 of the M. P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 in respect of the mineral applied for, within reasonable time frame.

(ii) To hold that the process of grant specified in respect of the mineral specified at entry-6 of Schedule-I referring to Rules 6, 18 and 30 of the M. P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996, does not contemplate process of auction.

(iii) Consider any other relief or direction which this Court may deem proper and appropriate under the fact and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Cost of petition."

(2.)It being jointly submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the issues-
(I) Whether the grant of quarry lease for minor mineral stone for making Gitti by mechanical crushing (i.e. use of crusher) at Item No.6 of Schedule I, which is governed by Rule 6 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, on the government land, could be only by way of open auction?

(II) Whether under the 1996 Rules there can be two separate processes i.e. one by open auction for government land and another by way of grant for private land in respect of grant of minor mineral stone for making Gitti by mechanical crushing (i.e. use of crusher) at Item No.6 of Schedule I particularly when Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules prescribes for grant and renewal of quarry lease by the Authority mentioned there under?

(III) Whether the Division Bench judgment of Indore Bench of this Court in W.P. No.6215/2019 (Prathvi Infrastructure v. State of M.P.) decided on 27.06.2019 which was modified in R.P. No.1051/2019 decided on 08.11.2019 to mean that allotment of quarry lease on any land owned/controlled by any instrumentality of the State or the State in respect of quarry for making Gitti shall be done by the State through the process of open auction only can be held to be deciding the legal issue correctly in view of the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012, 2012 10 SCC 1?

(IV) Whether the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 have been correctly interpreted in the Division Bench judgment of Gwalior Bench of this Court in W.P. No.19690/2019 (Smt. Prabha Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others)?

(V) Any other question, which may arise for adjudication of the issue involved in the present petition or which the Larger Bench thinks appropriate to decide?

(3.)- having been answered by a Full Bench vide its order dated 21.09.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.25364/2019 (M/s Trinity Infrastructure vs State of M.P. and others) and batch of writ petitions, whereby, it is held :
"33. Considering the true meaning and effect of the Rules 6 and 7 and the relevant entries in the Schedule-I and II coupled with the other relevant provisions of the 1996 Rules, which have been discussed hereinbefore, in the light of the principles of interpretation laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth (supra), Nelson Motis (supra), Nasiruddin (supra), Maulavi Hussein Haji (supra), Nathi Devi (supra) and Aravali Gold Club (supra), it is manifest that the Rules 6 and 7 of the 1996 Rules operate in different fields and they cover different minerals specified in Schedule I and II and even after reading the said provisions together with other Rules in the 1996 Rules, no likeness is established between the Mineral-G at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I and "Stone, Boulder, road metal Gitti, Rubble Chips etc." mentioned at Serial No.3 of Schedule-II. Under the entire scheme of the 1996 Rules, the quarries of Minerals specified at Serial No.5 of Schedule-I and Serial Nos.1 and 3 of Schedule-II situated in Government land alone are meant to be allotted by auction under Rule 7 of the 1996 Rules. A perusal of Column (3)(iii) of the Table appended to Rule 6 clearly goes to show that even the quarry of minerals specified at Serial No.3 of Schedule-II situated in private land is covered by Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules which prescribes the procedure for its grant and renewal by the Authority and not by auction as per Rule 7 of the 1996 Rules. The grant or renewal of quarry lease of Mineral-G at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I and rest of the minerals in Schedule-I and II (except Serial No.5 of Schedule-I and Serial No.1 and 3 of Schedule-II on the Government land) is governed by Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules and could not be by way of open auction. Since in the Table appended to the Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules, the grant of quarry lease of certain specified minerals on the private land has been specifically provided at column (3) e.g. at Column 3(ii) and (iii) at Serial No.(1) of the Table whereby Director is the Authority to grant the minerals and column 3(iii), (v) of Serial No.2 of the Table where the Collector is the Authority, therefore, it is apparent that except the minerals mentioned in the said Table which are on the private land, all other minerals could be on the Government or private land. Thus, under Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules, the nature of the land has not been mentioned. Accordingly, the Question No.(I) referred, is answered in the negative and it is held that the grant of quarry lease for Mineral-G at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I which is governed by Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules, on the Government land, cannot be by way of open auction.

34. Since the Mineral-G at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I is specifically held to be covered by Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules, which admits of the quarry lease for the said mineral by application for grant or renewal and not by auction, therefore, there cannot be two processes i.e. one by open auction for Government land and another by way of grant for private land in respect of Mineral-G. Thus, the Question No.(II) referred, is also answered in the negative.

....

39. Keeping in view the analysis of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Centre for PIL's case (supra) and Natural Resources Allocation's case (supra), the Division Bench in Prathvi Infrastructure's case (supra) has not correctly read the legal conclusions enunciated by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Natural Resources Allocation's case (supra). Thus, the Question No.(III) referred, stands answered accordingly.

40. As a necessary corollary, in view of the foregoing reasons, the Question No.(IV) with regard to correctness of the order passed by the Division Bench of Gwalior Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prabha Sharma (supra), is answered in the affirmative. Additionally, Division Bench at Gwalior in M/s Aman Stone Crusher's case (supra) has referred two questions, as reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment. In view of the above answers and the said questions overlapping with them, the same stand answered accordingly in terms thereof.

41. Consequently, we have no manner of doubt that the Mineral-G at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I governed by Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules cannot be taken for the "Stone, Boulder, road metal Gitti, Rubble Chips etc." mentioned at Serial No.3 of Schedule-II governed by Rule 7 of the 1996 Rules. Therefore, we regret our inability to concur with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Prathvi Infrastructure's case (supra) whereby it has held that grant of quarry lease for minor mineral stone for making Gitti by mechanical crushing (i.e. use of crusher) at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I would only be by way of open auction on the Government land and the said judgment is, thus, hereby overruled."