S LAL AND CO PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application at the instance of M/s. S. Lal and Company Private Limited having its registered office at No. 15, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta-13, in which the petitioner-company has challenged the validity of an order passed by the Union of India, respondent No. 1, under their letter No. 5 (4)/68-MII dated 28th July, 1968, as indicated in paragraph 44 of the petition and the grant of lease in favour of respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 2 in pursuance thereof. It appears that on 30-9-1969 under the direction from the government of India (respondent No. 1), respondent No. 2 has granted a lease in respect of an area of 12 square miles being a part of the area referred to in Annexure 1 to this petition which is a notification in respect of 280.62 acres in Mouza Balki and Surngi and in the Forest Block within Thana No. 481 in the district of Singhbhum falling within the aforesaid notification, for the purpose of working apatite which is a matter specified in the first schedule as mineral, being item No. 1. Mr. B. C. Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has attacked the validity of this lease on various grounds which I propose to deal with later. In order to appreciate and examine the correctness of the contentions and the points raised, it is necessary to state, in brief, the facts leading to this impugned lease and to this application in this Court.

(2.) It is stated that sometime in 1965, the petitioner learnt of a Notification issued by the District Mining Officer, Singhbhum inviting applications for lease from persons holding certificate of approval for mining lease in respect of certain area included in the Notification. Annexure 1. This Notification was purported to have been issued under Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). In pursuance of this Notification the petitioner filed an application dated 22-3-1965 (Anncxure 1/A) for the grant of a mining lease over the area of 280.62 acres in the villages named above. The application, it appears, was not disposed of within the period prescribed under Rule 24 of the aforesaid Rules and, therefore, it was deemed to have been rejected. The petitioner consequently filed an application in revision (Annexure 2) under Rule 54 of the Rules to the Central Government on 14-1-1966. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 appears to have called for comments from respondent No. 2 as contemplated by Rule 55 of the rules. It is said that on 17th March, 1966, respondent No. 2 sent their comments to respondent No. 1 (Annexure 3) a copy of which was forwarded by respondent No. 1 on 26th May, 1966 and received by the petitioner on 28th May, 1966 for further comments, if any -- vide Annexure 3/A. The State Government appears to have taken a decision to work the phosphetic area departmentally and, therefore, they seem to have recommended the rejection of the petitioner's application to respondent No. 1 on this ground. On 23rd June, 1966, the petitioner also sent their comments to respondent No, 1 which is Annexure 4 to this application. The Government of India by their letter dated 7th August, 1966, rejected the petitioner's application on the following grounds:--

(3.) Now, I propose to deal with the material part of the petition which is devoted to the manner and the circumstances in which respondent No. 2 at the instance of respondent No. 1 has granted the impugned lease to respondent No. 3. It appears that after the passing of the order contained in Annexure 5, respondent No. 3 took interest in the lease in question and first of all tried to obtain a certificate of approval necessary for obtaining a mining lease, It is said that respondent No. 3, being an influential member of the Parliament, had very important contacts with the Government of India and applied for certificate of approval on 3rd May, 1968 to the Government of Bihar. It is alleged in paragraph 20 of this application that on that very day, this application for certificate of approval was granted by the Government of Bihar to respondent No. 3 in violation of the normal procedure of obtaining the approval of the Central Government prior to the granting of the certificate. This was, however, done by respondent No. 2. On the same day, namely, on 3rd May, 1968, respondent No. 3 armed with the certificate of approval granted to him, applied for the lease over an area of 12 square miles to the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum. It is alleged that no Notification had been issued by the Government of Bihar making any other area available for the grant of mining lease under Rule 58 of the Rules nor was there any Notification relating the area previously notified under Annexure 1 in 1965. In spite of these difficulties in the way of respondent No. 3 for getting his application recommended to respondent No. 1 for approval, respondent No. 2, recommended the application of respondent No. 3 for grant of the mining lease for the entire area applied for. This was also done on 3rd May, 1968.