1995 (11) TMI 440 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the first application dated October 20, 1982, submitted by respondent No. 5, was premature.
2. Whether the second application dated January 19, 1983, submitted by respondent No. 5, was premature.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Prematurity of the First Application Dated October 20, 1982:

The primary issue was whether the first application by respondent No. 5 was premature. Rule 19(1) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977, mandates that a formal lease must be executed within three months from the date of receipt of the sanction by the applicant. If not, the order granting the lease is deemed revoked. The Central Government erroneously counted the three-month period from the date of the grant (July 12, 1982), concluding that the deemed revocation occurred on October 12, 1982. However, the correct date of receipt of the sanction by Babulal Modi was August 16, 1982, making the three-month period expire on November 15, 1982. Consequently, the application dated October 20, 1982, was premature and rightly rejected by the Mining Engineer on February 24, 1983.

2. Prematurity of the Second Application Dated January 19, 1983:

The second issue was whether the application dated January 19, 1983, was premature. This depended on whether the area was available for grant on that date. Rules 56 and 57 of the 1977 Rules were examined. Rule 56 specifies that an area previously held under a mining lease is not available for re-grant until an entry is made in the register and 15 days have elapsed. Rule 57 states that applications for areas without such an entry are premature. The Central Government and the High Court's Division Bench ruled that Rule 56 did not apply since the area was not held under a formal executed lease. The correct interpretation, as per the court, was that the area became available for re-grant only after January 20, 1983, following an administrative order dated January 4, 1983, which declared the area available for re-allocation after 15 days. Thus, the application dated January 19, 1983, was also premature.

Conclusion:

Both applications by respondent No. 5 were premature and rightly rejected. The Central Government's order dated March 18, 1987, the single judge's judgment dated April 4, 1991, and the Division Bench's judgment dated July 18, 1994, were set aside. The State Government's order dated July 3, 1984, was restored. The appeal was allowed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.