9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (10) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain terms and conditions, the appellant submitted its tender which was accepted on December 30, 1950 and a notification in that behalf was made by the State Government on February 6, 1951, granting the mining lease for mica for block No. 6 (except sidries mine) in Bhilwara District on payment of the tendered amount of ₹ 1,55,000. The lease was for a period of 20 years with an option of renewal of the lease for another 20 years as per conditions prescribed in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 (briefly the Rules). A premium of ₹ 1,55,000 was deposited by the appellant and possession was also handed over to it on March 15, 1951. The area originally was 6021 acres but later on a dam, by the name of Meza Dam, was constructed ov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,616.36 for the period 1-4-1960 to 14-9-1965 on pain of legal action. The appellant preferred a revision application to the Government of India against this order. The Government of India by its order of March 19, 1966, set aside the order of May 15, 1965, demanding ₹ 1,27,616.36 as dead rent for block No. 6. This order is significant in more than one way. It is clearly stated in the order that the conditions under the Mineral Concession Rules 1949 under which mining or prospecting operation is allowed to be undertaken do not provide for payment of premium by the lessee except with the prior approval of the Central Government. It was also pointed out in the order that no such approval was secured by the State Government before accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rajasthan (being Writ Petition No. 691 of 1967) praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the aforesaid order, to restrain the State from revoking the licence and dispossessing the appellant from the mining area absolutely or in the alternative, till compensation along with refund of the premium of ₹ 1,55,000 and the dead rent realised in excess of royalty were paid by the State. As a last alternative it prayed for a direction to the State to grant the lease of the balance area of 3628 acres or such other area to which the appellant was entitled in law. The learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ application as infructuous in view of the offer made by the State in its application of April 20, 1970, repeated throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se conditions specifically mention royalty, dead rent and surface rent, but not premium. Again proviso to rule 41(1)(iii) states that the lessee shall be liable to pay the dead-rent or royalty in respect of each mineral whichever be higher in amount, but not both. Under subsection (3) of section 41, a mining lease may contain any other special conditions, subject to the prior approval of the Central Government. The Central Government, is, therefore, right in holding that the realisation of the premium of ₹ 1,55,000 was illegal, particularly because there was no prior approval under sub- section (3) of rule 41 of the Rules. When in this case grant of the mining lease was envisaged under definite statutory rules made in exercise of pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
