- (1.) ALL the three petitions have been filed with a similar prayer and therefore are being decided by a common order.
(2.) THE facts in the case of Rajendra Kumar Jakhar Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4486/2012) are being taken as the leading case for determination of the issue raised by petitioners in their respective writ petitions. The case of the petitioner is that he submitted an application on 11-11-2010 for a mining lease for the mineral i.e. iron ore and other subsidiary minerals for the mines situated in village Dughati, Tehsil Hindaun, District Karauli. It is submitted that after submission of the application the department issues priority number reflecting the area and seniority of the applicants. The petitioner was allotted ML-58/10. It is submitted that under Section 11 (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 (herein after "1957 Act') it is mandatory that where the State Government has not notified in the official gazette the area for grant of reconnaissance permit or prospecting license or mining lease, as the case may be, if two or more persons have applied for a mining lease in respect of any land in an area, the applicant whose application was received earlier shall have a preferential right to be considered for grant of mining lease over the applicant whose application was received later. It is submitted that law also provides that if the State Government has invited applications by notification in the official gazette for grant of permits/ licenses or mining lease, all the application received during the period specified in such notification shall be deemed to have been received on the same date for the purpose of assigning priority but counsel admits that such a situation does not obtain in the present case. The further case of the petitioner is that contrary to the provisions of the 1957 Act, the Director Department of Mines and Geology Rajasthan issued an order dated 25-4-2011, by which it was directed that all the applicants for mining lease or reconnaissance permit in the area including the area in respect of which the petitioner had applied should be present in his office on 10-5-2011 for the purpose of determination of the priority or preferential right qua the applicants detailed in the letter with reference to the letter dated 8-4-2011 sent by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Rajasthan where under priority amongst the applicants seeking leases in the concerned area was to be assigned with reference to provisions of Section 11 (5) of the 1957 Act. The case of the petitioners is that the state government has no authority to determine preferential rights of the various applicants for the grant of mining lease or reconnaissance permit outside the date of respective applications under Section 11 (5) of the 1957 Act, because no prior permission has been sought from the Central Government. Counsel for the petitioner submits that no prior approval having been obtained from Central Government with reference to proviso to Section 11 (5) of the 1957 Act, the entire proceedings for determination of preferential rights of competing applicants initiated in letter dated 25-4-2011 with reference to the letter dated 8-4-2011 are without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. It has been prayed on the aforesaid submission proceedings with reference to Section 11(5) of the 1957 Act be quashed and that a writ, order or direction be issued to respondents to grant the mineral concession applied for by the petitioner in accordance with his preferential right under Section 11 (2) of the 1957 Act.
(3.) MR. Zakir Hussain, learned counsel for respondents submits that the writ petition is grossly misdirected. He submits that in any event of the matter vide order dated 15-2-2011 the Deputy Secretary, Mines and Geology Department has conveyed to Director Mines and Geology department that the State Government had sought permission from Central Government for grant of mining lease to Kalyani Mining Ventures Pvt. Ltd. giving to it priority/ preference under Section 11 (5) of the 1957 Act. Counsel for respondents further submits that entire proceedings before this court are based on a misconstruction of Section 11(5) of the 1957 Act and thus premature, inasmuch as prior approval of Central Government has to be obtained only before the grant of reconnaissance permit/ mining lease under section 11 (5) of the 1957 Act and not before determination of priority itself under the said provision. He submits that any order under sub-section 5 of Section 11 of the 1957 Act for the grant of mining lease/ reconnaissance permit to a person contrary to priorities in terms of Section 11 (2) of the 1957 Act can no doubt be passed only subsequent to prior permission of the Central Government, but that in the instant matter no such grant has yet been made and only the State's proposal has been referred to Central Government. Counsel submits that the cause of action to petitioner if at all would arise only subsequent to grant of mining lease in terms of Section 11 (5) of the 1957 Act after disturbing the priorities under section 11(2) of the 1957 Act. On the merits of the case, counsel for the respondent submitted that the order dated 15-2-2012 (where under the matter has been referred to the Central Government for prior approval under the proviso to Section 11 (5) of the 1957 Act) sets out good reasons as to why the mining lease is to be granted to M/s.Kalyani Mining Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and that the matter will now be considered by the Central Government and only after approval is obtained from the Central Government, the State Government will issue an order of grant of mineral concession to the company. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record of writ petition. ;