9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (1) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 17(1) part of village Palade, Taluk Supa Petha, North Kanara District which was then in the territory of the State of Bombay. It was granted a certificate of approval by the Bombay Government on 27th October, 1961: Thereafter, as a result of the Re-organisation of the States the area mentioned above became a part of the territory of the State of Mysore. The appellant made an application to the State of Mysore for renewal of the prospecting licence but the State Government did not renew the same. The appellant thereupon made an application for revision to the Central Government for the purpose of obtaining a renewal of the prospecting licence but the revision application was not allowed. On October 25, 1962 the State of Mysore, respondent No. 2 herein, notified the grant of mining lease of an area of Ac. 774-00 in favour of one L.K. Suthankar out of an area of Ac. 1770-00 mentioned above. It is claimed by the appellant that without notifying the area for regrant as required under Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules (sic). The appellant thereupon filed an application on November 19, 1962 for revision of the order of the State of Mysore in favour of Suthankar. In spite of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Government of Mysore to reject your application for grant of mining lease for manganese and iron ore over an area of 774 acres in village Palade, taluk Supe Petta, District North Canara. Your application for revision is therefore rejected. 3. The contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that the order was not a speaking order inasmuch as it gave no reasons for the rejection of the revision application and gave no indication as to why its claim to preferential rights under Section 11 was ignored. 4. It Is now settled by decisions of this Court that a speaking order Is necessary In the case of a decision under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules where the State Government has not given any reasons for rejecting the application of a party because such a decision affects important rights of parties and if given in a summary manner without a hearing being allowed deprives a party of his right to know why the decision had gone against him. In Bhagat Raja v. Union. [1967]3SCR302 the appellant who was an unsuccessful applicant for a mining lease filed an application in revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 read wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a's case are also present in the instant case. 6. The State Government made no order on the application of the appellant dated July 27, 1968 claiming a preferential right under Section 11. In its comments on the revision application of the appellant to the Central Government dated 27th May 1966 the following points were said to be brought out: 1. The appellant who was holding a prospecting licence over an area of Ac, 1770-00 could not conduct any prospecting operations since the Central Excise Department authorities did not permit the licensee, to cross the Goa border and to prospect the area. Their revision application to the Central Government was rejected by the Government of India by letter dated March 18, 1959. They therefore had no claim for any preferential right over the area. 2. L.K. Suthankar made an application for the grant of a mining lease in respect of Ac. 774-00 and a mining lease was granted to him by notification dated October 5, 1952 which was however cancelled by the Government of India on the application of the appellant. 3. In the meanwhile Suthankar had filed an application for the issue of a writ of mandamus in the High Court of Mysore agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land, the licensee shall have a preferential right for obtaining a mining lease in respect of that land over any other person. This is however subject to a proviso that the State Government must be satisfied that the licensee had not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the prospecting licence and was otherwise a fit person for being granted the mining lease. Sub-section (2) provides that: Subject to, the provisions of Sub-section (1), where two or more persons have applied for a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of the same land, the applicant whose application was received earlier shall have a preferential right for the grant of the licence or lease, as the case may be, over an applicant whose application was received later: and under Sub-section (3) the matters referred to in Sub-section (2) are as follows: (a) any special knowledge of, or experience in prospecting operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant; (b) the financial resources of the applicant; (c) the nature and quality of the technical staff employed or to be employed by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
