N.K.SUD,J - (1.) THE petitioner, a Government Company, prays for quashing of the orders, Annexure P-12 dated 27.5.1994 and Annexure P-24 dated 23.8.1999, passed by the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana and the Tribunal constituted by the Central Government, respectively, before adverting to the controversy. The relevant facts may first be noticed.
(2.) THE respondent No. 3 had submitted an application dated 19.11.1990 to the State Government for grant of lease for mining of Silica Sand and Quartzes in 178.25 hectares of the area falling in the revenue estate of village Mewla Maharajpur, District Faridabad. The petitioner, which was already having a 5 year lease for mining of road metal and masonry stone in this area, also submitted a similar application on 28.11.1990. The application of respondent No. 3 was rejected by the State Government vide letter dated 30.12.1991 on the ground that there was no good quality Silica Sand existing in the area for which mining lease had been sought. The State Government also pointed out that similar applications of other persons had also been rejected earlier on this very ground. However, no order was passed by the Government to carry out a prospecting of the area to determine its potential for mining of Silica Sand etc. The State Government was given 3 months time for this purpose. Both the parties consented to this interim measured. The State Government also agreed that the future leases in this area will be granted on the basis of the outcome of the prospecting which was to be undertaken. It also undertook to refrain from making any long term commitment involved in renewing the existing leases before the completion of the prospecting. Copy of this consent order dated 16.3.1994 has been produced as Annexure P-10 with the writ petition. The State Government after prospecting the area found that Silica Sand did exist in the area and, therefore, vide its letter dated 27.5.1994 issued a Letter of Intent for Silica Sand in respect of 162.905 hectares of land to respondent No. 3. However, since respondent No. 3 had applied for grant of lease for 178.25 hectares of land, it filed another revision petition before the Tribunal claiming that the lease should have been granted in respect of the entire area applied for by it.
(3.) IT is, therefore, evident that there were three revision petitions of respondent No. 3 pending before the Central Government, against the following orders : (i) Order dated 30.12.1991 rejecting its application for lease in respect of 178.25 hectares; (ii) Order dated 2.2.1993 granting Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner in respect of 15.65 hectares from out of the total area applied for by respondent No. 3; and (iii) Order dated 27.5.1994 whereby Letter of Intent has been granted to it only in respect of 162.905 hectares against 178.25 hectares applied for by it. All the three revision petitions were disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.8.1999. The Tribunal observed that the Letter of Intent dated 27.5.1994 in respect of 162.905 hectares of land granted in favour of respondent No. 3 had not been contested before it and, therefore, it did not comment on the same. Thus, the only dispute in the three revision petitions was against the grant of Letter of Intent to the petitioner on 2.2.1993 in respect of 15.65 hectares out of the total area of 178.25 hectares. This Letter of Intent was set aside by the Tribunal on two grounds. Firstly, it observed that during the revision proceedings the Government itself had taken the stand that there was no good quality Silica Sand existing in the area and, therefore, it was not viable to grant mining lease for Silica Sand. It had further observed that the action of the State Government in granting this lease without any prospecting of the area could not be sustained as there was no material before the State Government on 2.2.1993 which could justify the change in its earlier view. Secondly, it was held that the application of the petitioner dated 28.11.1990 for grant of mining lease stood rejected in view of the deeming provisions of Rule 24 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'The Rules'). Reference was made to sub-rules (1) and (3) of Rule 24. A conjoint reading of the two provisions makes it absolutely clear that the application filed on 28.11.1990, in the absence of any order, was deemed to have been refused on 8.11.1992. The petitioner not having preferred any revision petition before the Tribunal had allowed the deemed rejection to become final. Thus, on 2.2.1993. no letter of Intent could be issued on the basis of the application dated 28.11.1990 which stood already rejected. ;