2001 (2) TMI 1022 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of Rule 72 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963.
2. Validity of the lease granted without following Rule 72.
3. Direction to consider the application dated 4.7.1995 filed by respondent no. 4.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Rule 72:
The primary issue was whether Rule 72 applied to the grant of mining leases when the area was previously leased under Chapter IV. The Court held that Rule 72, which mandates notifying the availability of the area through a notice, applies even if the area was previously leased under Chapter IV. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Rule 72 is to ensure transparency and prevent favoritism in the grant of mining leases. The Court stated, "The object of notifying the availability through a notice by the District Officer is to bring it to the notice of the public at large, so that an interested applicant can make an application and such application could be considered on its own merit."

2. Validity of Lease Granted Without Following Rule 72:
The Court found that the State Government's order dated 24.9.1997, which sanctioned a mining lease in favor of the appellant without following Rule 72, was invalid. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the lease granted to the appellant, stating, "The High Court has not committed any error in quashing the order passed by the State Government sanctioning mining lease in favour of the appellant without following the procedure prescribed under rule 72 of the Rules."

3. Direction to Consider Application Dated 4.7.1995:
The Court disagreed with the High Court's direction to the District Magistrate to consider the application dated 4.7.1995 filed by respondent no. 4. The Supreme Court clarified that a fresh notice for grant of lease should be issued in accordance with Rule 72, and all applications filed pursuant to this fresh notice should be considered. The Court stated, "The authorities are now required to issue fresh notice in terms of rule 72 of the Rules and consider the applications for grant of lease filed pursuant thereto in accordance with law and no application filed earlier either pursuant to previous notices or otherwise shall be considered."

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in part. The Supreme Court upheld the quashing of the lease granted to the appellant but set aside the High Court's direction to consider the application dated 4.7.1995 filed by respondent no. 4. The Court ordered that fresh notices be issued in accordance with Rule 72, and applications filed pursuant to these notices should be considered.