- (1.) By means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned letter dated 11-4-1996 (Annexure-21) sent by the Government of India, Ministry of Mines to the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Mines, Jaipur conveying the approval of the Central Government under S. 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and Rule 27(3) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 to the grant of prospecting licence for limestone over an area of 15.226 sq. kms. in villages Kotal and Kundal, District Sirohi in favour of M/s. DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. for a period of 2 years. The approval is subject to the imposition of special conditions at Sl. Nos. 1 to 3 as mentioned in the State Government letter dated 7-9-1995. The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition, are as under: - Petitioners applied for grant of mining lease over an area of 396.00 Hectares in Gariya village and over an area of 385.00 hectares in Gopeshwar-Kundal villages in pindwara Tehsil, District Sirohi on 28-7-1994. The petitioner No. 2 is also alleged to have submitted an application for grant of mining lease on 7-11-1994 over an area of 115.87 Hectares in village Malap and over an area of 422.25 Hectares in village Gariya. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners have already been granted mining lease for limestone in Amli village. It has been averred by the petitioners that they have been making representations to the Ministry for Mines as well as to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan for grant of mining lease for limestone to the petitioners-Company in the villages namely; Malap and Gariya, but the respondents instead of granting the mining lease to the petitioners, the Mining Department, Government of Rajasthan decided to grant prospecting licence for limestone over an area of 15.226 sq. km. in Kotal Kundal villages, including Malap and Gariya villages to the respondent No. 5 i.e. M/s. DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited who had applied for grant of prospecting licence for limestone in villages Kotal Kundal. It has been further averred by the petitioners that petitioners application for grant of mining lease for limestone has been rejected without complying with the mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 which provides that an application filed by a person for grant of mining lease shall be rejected only after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The petitioners feeling aggrieved against the order dated 11-4-1996 (Annexure-21) passed by the Central Government granting approval for prospecting licence to the respondent No. 5, have approached this Court in the instant petition. When the writ petition came up for admission before this Court, a notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why this petition may not be admitted and in the meantime the operation of the order dated 11-4-1996 (Annexure-21) was stayed. In pursuance of that show cause notice, counter-affidavits on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have been filed and an application under Art. 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ex parte interim order dated 24-4-1996 has also been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Sudhir Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kamla Kar Sharma for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Mr. Shanti Bhushan senior counsel for the respondent No. 5. Mr. Shanti Bhushan senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 has raised preliminary objection that the petition filed by the petitioners is wholly premature and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. He contended that the application of the petitioners for grant of mining lease has not been rejected till this date as neither a copy of the same has been communicated to the petitioners nor any final order in this regard has been passed by the respondents. He further contended that petitioners have hurriedly approached this Court only against the correspondence made between the Central Government and the State Government. In support of his contention that this petition is premature, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Bacchhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395. In the case of Bacchhittar Singh (supra) the Apex Court has held that before an order could be termed by an order, two essential ingredients have to be satisfied, firstly; that the order must be passed by the State Government, and secondly; that the decision taken by the Government must be communicated to the person concerned. In the instant case, both these essential ingredients are lacking. After careful perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the said case is wholly applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case inasmuch as, no order has been passed by the State Government rejecting the application for grant of mining lease submitted by the petitioners nor any order to this effect has been communicated to the petitioners. In view of the said fact, I am of the opinion that the arguments advanced by Mr. Shanti Bhushan Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 5 has sufficient force and deserves to be accepted. In so far as grant of prospecting licence to the respondent No. 5 is concerned, it is admitted to the parties that no order has been passed by the State Government granting prospecting licence to respondent No. 5 and as such the petitioners can have no grievance on this count also and the petition appears to be premature. In fact the petitioners have tried to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India merely on the basis of the correspondence made between the Central Government and the State Government without waiting for final order to be passed.
(3.) Mr. Shanti Bhushan has also canvassed that the petitioners have statutory efficacious and alternative remedy of filing a revision petition before the Central Government under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 against the order of the State Government, if any. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently refuted this contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and submitted that the availability of statutory efficacious and alternative remedy is not a bar for entertaining a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.;