CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 1996 › Dharambir Singh v. U O I

Dharambir Singh v. U O I

Supreme Court of India · 19 September 1996

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
19 September 1996
Case no.
SLP(C) No. 18150 of 1996
Bench
K. Ramaswamy, Faizan Uddin, G.B. Pattanaik
Length
3 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

PETITIONER:
DHARAMBIR SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/09/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT

HEADNOTE

JUDGMENT

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made on July 9, 1996 in CWP No.9624 of 1996. The petitioner had applied for mining lease and the prospecting licence claiming that he had discovered limestone minerals in Bhemdemti Dostpur, Mohindergarh District in the State of Haryana. The Government has notified that area under Rule 59 of the mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The petitioner challenged the reservation of the area in revision before the Central Government and prayed for grant of the lease in his favour. The Mines Tribunal of the Central Government while setting aside the notification issued by the State Government, declined to grant mining lease to the petitioner stating that the State Government had done so in its discretion and that the Central Government would not curtail the said discretion as it is its property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine. Hence this special leave petition.

Shri Rohtagi, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on sub-section [2] of Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals [Regulation & Development] Act, 1957, contended that the petitioner having filed an application for mining lease has got preferential right and the Mines Tribunal and the High Court were not right in rejecting his prayer. We find no force in the contention. Section 11 of the Act reads as under:

"(1) Where a prospecting licence

has been granted in respect of any

land, the licensee shall have a

preferential right for obtaining a

mining lease in respect of that

land over any other person:

Provided that the State Government

is satisfied that the licensee -

(a) has undertaken prospecting

operations to establish minerals

resources in such land;

(b) has not committed any breach of

the terms and conditions of the

prospecting licence; and

(c) is otherwise a fit person for

being granted the mining lease.

(2) Subject to the provisions of

sub section (1), where two or more

persons have applied for a

prospecting licence or a mining

lease in respect of the same land,

the applicant whose application was

received earlier shall have

apreferential right for the grant

of the licence or lease, as the

case may be, over an applicant

whose application wasreceived

later:

Provided that where any such

applications are received on the

same day, the State Government,

after taking into consideration the

matters specified in sub-section

(3), may grant the prospecting

licence or mining lease, as the

case may be, to such one of the

applicants as it may deem fit.

(3) The matters referred to in

sub-section (2) are the following:-

(a) any special knowledge, of, or

experience in, prospecting

operations or mining operations, as

the case may be, possessed by the

applicant;

(b) the financial resources of the

applicant;

(c) the nature and quality of the

technical staff employed or to be

employed by the applicant;

(d) such other matters as may be

prescribed.

(4) Notwithstanding anything

contained in sub-section (2) but

subject to the provisions of sub-

section (1), the StateGovernment

may for any special reasons to be

recorded and with the previous

approval of the Central Government,

grant a prospecting licence or a

mining lease to an applicant whose

application was received latter in

preference to anapplicant whose

application was received earlier."

Sub-section [1] of Section 11 envisages grant of a prospecting licence in respect of a land and a prospecting licensee has a preferential right for obtaining a mining lease in respect of the land over any other person; provided, however, that the conditions enumerated in clauses [a] to [c] in proviso thereto are satisfied. Further, subsection [2] states that subject to the provisions of subsection [1], where two or more persons have applied for a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of the same land, the applicant whose application was received earlier, shall have a preferential right for the grant of the licence or lease, as the case may be, over an applicant whose application was received later. It is also, again, subject to the conditions enumerated in the proviso. Sub-section [3] is not material for the purposes of this case. Sub-section [4] further provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section [2], but subject to the provisions of sub section [1], the State Government, may for any special reasons to be recorded and with the previous approval of the Central Government grant a prospecting licence or a mining lease to an applicant whose application was received later in preference to an applicant whose application was received earlier.

Thus lt would be seen that while granting a prospecting licence or mining lease, the area of discretion has been circumscribed by several factors enumerated in Section 11. In grant of mining lease of a property of the State, the State Government has a discretion to grant or refuse to grant any prospective licence or licence to any applicant. No applicant has a right, much less vested right, to the grant of mining lease for mining operations in any place within the State. But the State Government is required to exercise its discretion, subject to the requirements of the laws Therefore, the Tribunal of the Central Government has rightly held that it being in the area of discretion of the State Government, merely because the applicant had applied for, the State Government was not enjoined to grant the mining lease. The petitioner had taken the plea that since he alone had discovered the mines, he has got a preferential right over any other person. The Tribunal of the Central Government and the High Court rightly rejected that contention of the petitioner; that contention has not been pressed before us. We find no illegality in the order of the Tribunal refusing to grant mining lease to the petitioner nor is their any illegality in the order of the High Court.

The special leave petition is dismissed.

Ask CaseMinister about Dharambir Singh v. U O I

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp