9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the State Government's appellate power to set aside the Collector's order. 2. Compliance with Rule 4(2) of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Vidarbha Region) Rules, 1966. 3. Proper identification and registration of the respondent society. 4. Applicability of the principle of priority in granting mining leases. 5. Validity of the State Government's policy to prefer cooperative societies. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the State Government's appellate power to set aside the Collector's order: The petitioner contended that the State Government, acting as an appellate court, had no power to set aside the Collector's order unless it was shown to be contrary to law. The Court clarified that an appellate court is a "Court of error" with jurisdiction co-extensive with that of the trial court. It can scrutinize the material on record independently and is not limited to correcting errors of law alone. The appellate authority has the power to review or reassess the entire evidence and come to its own conclusion. Therefore, the State Government was within its rights to set aside the Collector's order if it found that the order was not in accordance with law. 2. Compliance with Rule 4(2) of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Vidarbha Region) Rules, 1966: The petitioner argued that the respondent society's application was not accompanied by a certificate of financial standing from a competent Revenue Officer as required by Rule 4(2). The Court held that the provisions of Rule 4(2) are directory and not mandatory. The obligation to satisfy the competent authority about financial condition can be met at the stage of execution of the mining lease. The respondent society had submitted the necessary solvency certificate before the matter was considered by the Collector, thereby substantially complying with Rule 4(2). 3. Proper identification and registration of the respondent society: The petitioner contended that the application filed by the society was in a different name, missing the words "Audyogic Utpadak," which indicated it was a different entity. The Court found this argument to be highly technical and devoid of substance. The omission of these words did not cause any prejudice or difficulty in identifying the applicant society, which was duly registered and bore the correct registration number. The Court held that such technicalities should not invalidate the application. 4. Applicability of the principle of priority in granting mining leases: The petitioner argued that, based on the principle of priority, his earlier application should be preferred over the respondent society's application. The Court clarified that the principle of priority does not apply to minor minerals like clay. The provisions of Sections 4 to 13 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, do not apply to minor minerals. Therefore, the principle of priority was not relevant in this case. 5. Validity of the State Government's policy to prefer cooperative societies: The petitioner contended that the State Government's policy to prefer cooperative societies lacked legal authority. The Court noted that the policy was in line with the directive principles of State Policy as incorporated in Part IV of the Constitution, which, although not enforceable by any court, are fundamental in the governance of the country. The Court held that the policy was not irrelevant or extraneous to the controversy involved. The State Government's preference for cooperative societies, if all other things were equal, was justified and in conformity with the directive principles. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the State Government acted within its appellate powers to set aside the Collector's order and remitted the matter back to the Collector for reconsideration. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding compliance with Rule 4(2), the identification of the respondent society, the principle of priority, and the validity of the State Government's policy. The petition was dismissed with costs.
|
