1997 (4) TMI 515 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice dated 31st March, 1995.
2. Preferential right of the appellant u/s 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963.
3. Legality of the District Magistrate's order dated 6th May, 1995.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Notice Dated 31st March, 1995:
The appellant was granted a lease for a plot of land in 1977, which was extended periodically. Upon the lease's expiration, a public notice dated 31st March, 1995, was issued by the District Magistrate for a fresh lease. The notice, issued u/r 72, did not specify the seven-day period for accepting applications, which was deemed mandatory by the High Court. The Supreme Court, however, held that non-mentioning of the seven-day period did not invalidate the notice, as Rule 72(ii) itself specified this period.

2. Preferential Right of the Appellant u/s 9:
The appellant claimed a preferential right to the lease u/s 9(1) of the Rules, citing his long-term investment and experience. The Court noted that while an earlier application generally has a preferential right, the State Government can grant a lease to a later applicant for special reasons recorded u/s 9(2). The Court emphasized that all applications received within the specified period (2nd May, 1995 to 9th May, 1995) must be considered, and the District Magistrate's premature decision on 6th May, 1995, precluded this consideration.

3. Legality of the District Magistrate's Order Dated 6th May, 1995:
The District Magistrate approved the appellant's application on 6th May, 1995, before the seven-day period for receiving applications had elapsed. The Supreme Court held that this premature decision violated Rule 72(ii), which mandates a seven-day period for receiving applications. The Court reasoned that a more deserving applicant might have applied by 9th May, 1995, and the State Government could have preferred such an application for special reasons u/s 9(2).

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the notice dated 31st March, 1995, was valid, but the acceptance of the appellant's application on 6th May, 1995, was illegal. The respondents were directed to issue a fresh notice for the grant of the lease in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made.