9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short 'BIFR') provided rehabilitation package under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The petitioner claims to have revived production from December, 1994, as per the rehabilitation provided by the BIFR. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioner has applied for a prospecting licence in respect of limestone (major mineral) over an extent of 2011.77 acres in Kesavapalli and Alugumallipadu village in Dachepalli Mandal, Sankarapuram village in Karampudi Mandal and Gogulapadu village in Gurajala Mandal of Guntur District vide its application dated 19-10-1994, addressed to the first respondent. The petitioner is enjoying the mining lease in respect of certain other areas from which the petitioner is already extracting mineral. It is, however, stated that the petitioner has not been able to extract high grade limestone from the existing mining leases and in the circumstances, the petitioner is stated to be in search of high grade limestone mineral and accordingly certain investigations and searches were conducted by the petitioner and in that process found high grade limestone in the said villages and accordingly submitted its applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it fit to reject the application of the petitioner for grant of prospecting licence. 7. The first respondent in the impugned order states that: 1. That the petitioner-company has filed five applications for renewal of their existing leases in Nadikudi, Gamalapadu and Alugumallipadu villages, Guntur District covering an extent of 511.091 acres; 2. It had also submitted a mining plan for the area of 300.97 acres in Sy.No.611/18 of Gamalapadu village which has been recommended for renewal, as per the report prepared by Retired Deputy Director General, GSI and Chief of Industries (Planning Commission), proved reserves in the said area are 126.69 million tonnes, probable reserves are 24.39 million tonnes and possible reserves are 24.35 million tonnes. Thus, the total reserves works out to 175.41 million tonnes. 3. The Technocrat Engineering (P) Ltd., has also prepared a prospecting report with reference to another renewal application of the petitioner; wherein the total reserves have been estimated at 60 MTs. in various Survey Nos.710 to 716 of Nadikudi and Sy. Nos.58, 717 and 718 of Alugumallipadu villages. It is observes that these reserves covered in the renewa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... improve the quality of the cement and hence the petitioner is in search of areas, where it can exploit high grade limestone. The finding that the quality of mineral available is 235.41 million tonnes is totally incorrect and it is exaggerated by twenty four times as to what is actually available for mining. There is no basis whatsoever for making such assumptions about the available mineral in that area covered by the present mining leases granted to the petitioner. The petitioner would have given an appropriate explanation to the first respondent about the reserves of limestone available to the petitioner out of the existing mining leases, had the first respondent given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The impugned Memos, are violative of principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of personal hearing has been provided to the petitioner, by the first respondent. 11. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner company is in arrears of huge amounts towards mineral revenues, its financial position is worsened and the unit has become sick. It is also submitted that M/s. Duncan C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. It is further stated that M/s. Gujarat Ambuga Cement Limited, has also applied for grant of prospecting licence vide their application dated 12-12-1994 over an extent of 19 square kilo metres in Topo sheet No.56 P/14 falling in Kesanupalli, Nadikudi, Alugumallipadu villages of Dachepalli Mandal, Sankarapuram village of Karempudi Mandal, Gogulapadu village of Gurajala Mandal of Guntur District and proposals were sent to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, through the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur. The applications of the petitioner and M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited were taken up on merit and a detailed report has been submitted by the Director of Mines and Geology to the first respondent-Government recommending for rejection of the application of the petitioner to avoid monopoly, and blocking of the limestone area, and recommended the application of M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited for grant of prospecting licence for a period of thirty years over an extent of 4440.28 acres in Alugumallipadu, Nadikudi, Kesurampalli, Gangavaram, Sankarapuram and Gogulapudi of Dachepalli Mandal, Gurajala Mandal and Karampudi Mandal in Guntur District, subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts to obtain mining lease. However, the fourth respondent made an application on 12-12-1994 for prospecting licence and subsequently on 16-10-1995 has filed mining lease application over an extent of 711 hectares in Alugumallepadu, Kesanupalli, Gogulapadu, Sankarapuram Siddaiah villages in Dachepalli, Gurazala and Karampudi Mandals in Guntur Districts. 18. In the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, it is further stated that the first respondent has considered the claims of the petitioner, as well as the fourth respondent company, and after considering the pros and cons and also the capacity of each company to utilise the raw material, the case of the fourth respondent has been accepted by the first respondent and accordingly recommended to the Government of India. It is submitted that the first respondent invoking its power under sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, recommended the case of the fourth respondent to the Central Government and accordingly rejected the case of the petitioner. Neither the order recommending the case of the fourth respondent, nor the order rejecting the case of the petitioner su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the mining leases in its favour and it is an effort to prevent healthy competition among the industries. 23. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court, as it has suppressed the relevant material facts. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, acts as a Court of equity and would not interfere with the orders of the statutory authorities, unless such orders have resulted in substantial injustice. It is contended that no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed and even if there is any irregularity in the decision making process, the Court may not issue a writ as prayed for in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also contended by the learned senior Counsel that affording an opportunity of personal or oral hearing is not a mandatory requirement in each and every case. 24. Before adverting to the questions that arise for consideration in this case, it would be appropriate to have a look at the statutory background relating to the disposal of the applications for grant of prospecting licence. 25. The Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence or mining lease to an applicant whose application was received later in preference to an applicant whose application was received earlier. Section 13 of the Act, enables the Central Government to make Rules for regulating the grant of prospecting licence and mining leases in respect of minerals and for the purposes connected therewith. In particular, we may notice, that Section 13(2)(a) of the Act empowers the Central Government to make Rules providing for the persons by whom, and the manner in which, the application for prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of a land in which the minerals vest in the Government may be made and the fees to be paid therefor. Section 13(2)(f) enables the Central Government to make Rules providing for the procedure for obtaining a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of any land in which the minerals vest in a person other than the Government and the terms of which and the conditions subject to which, such licence or lease may be granted or renewed. 26. Pursuant to the power vested in it under Section 13 of the Act, the Central Government has made the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules'). Chapter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , if the area was previously held and worked under a mining lease, be disposed of before the applications for the grant of prospecting licence are considered. 28. The natural resources, including the mineral wealth vest in the people of Sovereign Democratic Republic of India. Such resources constitute nations natural wealth. Public interest is the paramount consideration in all matters concerning the regulation of mines and the development of minerals. The Government of the day holds such wealth as a trustee on behalf of the people. Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other resources constitute nation's natural wealth. These resources are not to be fettered away and exhausted by any one generation. Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best possible way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in the interest of the nation. (See : State of Tamil Nadu v. Hindu Stone, .) 29. Every decision of the Central or the State Government as the case may be under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, is required to be taken with the sole object of the conservation and the prude ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven by the State Government. Whether an opportunity of being heard means personal and oral hearing. 34. In F.N. Roy v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1957 SC 648, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Central Board of Revenue after expiry of period of limitation and the same has been dismissed without providing any personal hearing to the petitioner. The question that has come up before the Supreme Court was as to whether there is any requirement to give personal hearing. It is observed that there is no rule of natural justice that at every stage a person is entitled to a personal hearing 35. The Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 671, while interpreting Rule 55 of Mineral Concession Rules, observed that Rule 55 of the rule recognises the principle that quasi-judicial authorities cannot make any decision adverse to a party without giving an effective opportunity of meeting the relevant allegations levelled against him. But, the said opportunity need not necessarily be by personal hearing. It can be by written representation. Whether the said opportunity should be by written representation or by personal hearing depends upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applications for recognition of the educational institutions were required to be considered by the District Committees in the first instance and the educational authorities were to take a decision based on the recommendations of the District Committee, either to grant or reject the application for recognition of the educational institutions. It is under those circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that if all the relevant circumstances have been taken into account by the authorities, there would be no violation of the principles of natural justice, even if the applicants were not provided with an opportunity of oral hearing. 40. In Union of India v. G.R. Prabhavalkar, , the Supreme Court held that there is no obligation on the part of the Central Government to give a personal hearing to the officers concerned while acting under Section 115(5)(b) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The Supreme Court held that it would be enough if the Central Government considers the representation. 41. In Union of India v. Jesus Sales Corporation, , the Supreme Court observed that: When principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the officer was familiar with the subject-matter so that he could decide the dispute without elucidation and merely on a perusal of the papers. The form in which the order was communicated is apparently a printed form. There is a bare assertion by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India in his communication that the Government of India had carefully considered the points made by the applicants , there is no evidence as to who considered the points and what was considered. The Central Government is by Section 36 invested with the judicial power of the State. Orders involving important disputes are brought before the Government. 43. In Schmidt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs, 1969 (2) Chan. 149, Lord Denning MR, observed that where a public officer has power to deprive a person of his liberty or his property, the general principle is that it is not to be done without his being given an opportunity of being heard and of making representation on his own behalf. But in the case of aliens, it is rather different; for they have no right to be here except by licence of the Crown. After referring to the earlier decision in Ridge v. Baldwin, 1964 AC 40, it is obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that object. That might be good advice for an advisory committee to give but I find nothing in the Act to require the Board to act in that way. If the Minister who now administers Act, acting on behalf of the Government, should decide not to give grants in respect of certain kinds of expenditure. I can find nothing to prevent him. There are two general grounds on which the exercise of an unqualified discretion can be attacked. It must not be exercised in the bad faith, and it must not be so unreasonably exercised as to show that there cannot have been any real or genuine exercise of the discretion. But apart from that, if the Minister thinks that policy or good administration requires the operation of some limiting rule, I find nothing to stop him. It is further observed that: the general rule is that any one who has to exercise a statutory discretion must not shut his ears to an application . I do not think there is any great difference between a policy and a rule. There may be cases where an officer or authority ought to listen to a substantial argument reasonably presented urging a change of policy. What the authority must not do is to refuse to listen at all..... The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other hand, nothing is being taken away, and in all normal circumstances there are no charges, and so no requirement of an opportunity of being heard in answer to the charges. Instead, there is the far wider and less defined question of the general suitability of the appellant for membership of a licence. The distinction is well-recognised, for in general it is clear that the Courts will require natural justice to be observed for expulsion from a social club, but not on an application for admission to it. The intermediate category, that of the expectation cases, may it least in some respects be regarded as being more akin to the forfeiture cases than the application cases, for although in form there is no forfeiture but merely an attempt at acquisition that fails the legitimate expectation of a renewal of the licence or confirmation of the membership is one which raises the question of what it is that has happened to make the applicant unsustainable for the membership or licence for which he was previously thought suitable. 47. In Regina v. Huntingdom D.C., ExP. Cowan, 1984 (1) WLR 501, the question arose is as to whether any oral hearing is requiring to given while considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his way. To Sum up: 50. Oral hearing is not an integral part of hearing, unless the circumstances or so exceptional that without oral hearing a person cannot put up an effective defence. The rule of audi alteram partem does not require full judicialisation in every case. An opportunity of being heard does not necessarily mean an opportunity of oral hearing is to be provided. It depends upon the nature of inquiry and the nature of right involved in a given case. An order or decision which may have the tendency to adversely effect the liberty to property rights may have to be preceded by a notice and oral hearing. In most of the cases where property rights or liberties are not involved, the type of hearing may depend upon variety of factors - whether oral hearing is necessary in such cases to large extent depend upon the view of the Tribunal or adjudicatory body. Oral hearing may not be necessary where there is no adjudication as such. Oral hearing as such may be necessary in cases where the decision takes away some existing right or possession. 51. In the instant case, no doubt, the petitioner in its reply dated 17-5-1999 to the show-cause notice dated 29-4-1999 requested ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on notice and gave an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The objections preferred by the petitioner have been taken into consideration and reasons were recorded in support of the decision. The requirement of Rule 12 of the Rules, are complied with. 53. It is, however, urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the State Government has rejected the application of the petitioner not only on the grounds stated in the show cause notice, but also on some other grounds. There are no new grounds as such stated in the impugned order. Further particulars and details with reference to the grounds mentioned in the show-cause notice are stated in the order. However, in the impugned order, it is stated that the petitioner has been granted one mining lease over an extent of 445.04 acres in Jayanthipuram village, Jaggaiahpet Mandat, Krishna District, through G.O. Ms. No.452, Industries and Commerce, dated 15-9-1983, in respect of which the lease deed has not been executed so far, against which the petitioner has filed a revision before the Government of India and the same has been heard and decided in favour of the petitioner. True this is a new fact stated in the order. But ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
