Devendra Singh Dangi vs State of MP

Both the present petitions bearing W.P. No. 7047/2014 and 7048/2014 involve common question of law and therefore have been heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

The question of law involved in these petitions is as to whether on filing of an application for renewal of quarry lease pertaining to minor mineral of Flag Stone under Rule 17 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules 1996 (in short ''Rules of 1996''), the deeming clause contained in Proviso to Rule 17 becomes operative despite the power to grant quarries in respect of Flag Stone having been restricted to be exercised only by auction w.e.f. 30.5.2001 under amended Rule 7 of Rule of 1996.

For the sake of clarity detailing of bare facts is essential.

3.1. In W.P. No. 7047/14 petitioner was granted quarry lease w.e.f. 16.8.2004 to 15.8.2014 for extraction of Flag Stone within survey no. 43 admeasuring area of 2.00 hectares situated in Village Bichloni Tehsil Kurwai, District Vidisha.

3.2. In terms of Rule 17 of Rules of 1996 an application for renewal of quarry lease vide P-4 was preferred by the petitioner one year before the expiry of the original lease period. It is contended that the said renewal application is pending till date thereby entitling the petitioner to deemed extension of his quarry lease for a period of six months by virtue of the deeming clause in proviso to Rule 17 of the Rules of 1996. The cause of action is said to have arisen to the petitioner due to issuance of Annexure P-1 which is an auction notice putting the area of quarry lease in question to auction, thereby foreclosing petitioner''s right to renewal.

3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on various provisions of Rules of 1996 and the decision of this court rendered by single bench in a bunch of three writ petitions including Writ Petition No. 4682/2010 (Kalyan Singh v. State of MP & Others) decided on 30.8.2011, assail the impugned notice of auction (vide P-1) and correspondingly seeks direction to decide the renewal application as per law on its own merits.

The petitioner in WP No. 7048/2014 was granted quarry lease for the period 19.02.2003 to 18.02.2013 for extraction of flag stone within Survey Number 88x2 within an area of 1.900 hectare situated at Village Ramgarh, Tahsil Kurwai, District Vidisha.

4.1. In terms of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1996, application for renewal of quarry lease was preferred by the petitioner well before one year of expiry of the original lease period. The said renewal application was rejected vide Annexure P/4 dated 01.06.2012 on the ground that allotment of lease in regard to flag stone can now be done under the amended Rules only by way of auction. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director Geology and Mines at Bhopal, which is said to be pending till date. It is alleged that notice for auction of leasehold rights over various quarries was advertised vide Annexure P/1 including area held by the petitioner under the aforesaid original lease deed (vide Annexure P/3). This has given cause to the petitioner to file WP No. 7048/2014.

This Court while entertaining both these petitions by an interim order restrained the respondent from finalizing the auction proceedings commenced by the impugned auction notice.

Learned counsel for petitioners by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Single Bench of this Court on 30.08.2011 in Writ Petition No. 4682/2010 (Kalyan Singh v. State of MP & Others) and the statutory provisions contained in Rule 17 of the Rules of 1996 contends that the area in question cannot be put to auction by the impugned notice of auction in view of the quarry lease having been renewed by operation of deeming clause under proviso to Rule 17. It is submitted that since the petitioner had sought extension within the prescribed period, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of deemed renewal for atleast 06 months if not more. It is, thus, contended that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to exercise leasehold rights of extracting minor minerals of flag stones over the quarry in question till 17.08.2013, for which the lease was originally granted to him vide Annexure P/3.

From the above factual matrix, it is evident that no adjudication is necessary in respect of the grievance raised in WP No. 7048/2014, since even the extended period of 06 months has expired in August 2013. Further the petitioner in WP No. 7048/2014 has preferred an appeal before the Director, which is said to be pending. As regards WP No. 7047/2014, the extended period of 06 months is yet to expire since the original period of lease was till 15.08.2014 and, therefore 06 months'' extension period, which petitioner claims by way of deeming clause will expire in February 2015.

Per contra, the learned counsel for State placing reliance upon the Gazette Notification Annexure R/1 published the 2010 incorporating amendments to the Rules of 1996, specially Rule 7, contends that for the minor minerals of flag stone mentioned at Sr. No. 5 of Schedule-I to the Rules of 1996, the grant of trade quarry has been prescribed to be made only by way of auction and not otherwise. It is, thus, contended by the State that in view of the amended statutory provisions of 2010, no renewal can now take place and the only mode, by which the right to extract flag stone from a trade quarry, can be leased out, is by way of auction. It is further contended that the deeming clause under the proviso to rule 17, as sought to be invoked by the petitioner, is of no avail in view of the amendment of Rule 7, which restricts the grant of trade quarry in respect of flag stone only by way of auction.

It is settled principle law that grant/renewal of mining lease/quarry lease cannot be claimed as of right. Based upon this principle, this Court as well as the Apex Court have laid down in categorical terms that the rule position prevailing at the time of consideration of an application for grant/renewal of a mining/quarry lease, shall apply for deciding the same and not the rules prevailing at the time of making of an application for grant/renewal of mining/quarry lease. Some of the relevant paragraphs of the decisions are extracted below:-

9.1. Relevant para in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Hind Stone and Others, reads thus:

"12. The next question for consideration is whether Rule 8-C is attracted when applications for renewal of leases are dealt with. The argument was that Rule 9 itself laid down the criteria for grant of renewal of leases and therefore Rule 8-C should be confined, in its application, to grant of leases in the first instance. We are unable to see the force of the submission......... It must be remembered that an application for the renewal of a lease is, in essence an application for the grant of a lease for a fresh period. We are, therefore, of the view that Rule 8-C is attracted in considering applications for renewal of leases also."

9.2. Relevant para in the case of Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, reads thus:

"124. Where an issue arises before the Court whether a statute is prospective or retrospective, the Court has to keep in mind presumption of prospectivity articulated in legal maxim nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis, i.e., ''a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past''. The presumption of prospectivity operates unless shown to the contrary by express provision in the statute or is otherwise discernible by necessary implication."

9.3. Relevant para in the case of Brijendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, reads thus:

"9. The decision in M/s. Hind Stone is applicable to the facts of the present case. The Act and the Rules enabled the petitioners to apply for mining licence. The Act and the Rules prescribed particular procedure for the application and the disposal. The procedure has been altered by subsequent amendment during the pendency of the applications. The petitioners certainly have a right to file applications before the appropriate authority but they cannot have a right to have the applications disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of making applications; that is because they have no vested right to the grant of a mining lease. Since there is no such vested right, it must follow that all applications pending on the date on which the amendments came into force, should be disposed of under the amended provisions of the law. The amendments, no doubt, introduced certain additional conditions and restrictions which are intended for public good and due regulation of the mining activity in the light of vital concerns with regard to protection of environment and the like."

9.4. Relevant para in the case of B.L. Nanda Vs. State of M.P. and Others, reads thus:

"6. I have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and have also perused the provisions of law. From a narration of the facts in the preceding paragraphs, it is clear that the petitioner applied for grant of mining lease on 11.03.2003. It is also undisputed that Rule 22-D of the Rules of 1960 was introduced in the statute books w.e.f. 10.04.2003 and that the petitioners application filed under Rule 22(4) of the Rules of 1960 seeking approval of mining plan, which also indicates the area of the mining lease, was rejected by the respondent authorities by the impugned order dated 15.01.2004. In the circumstances, it is abundantly clear that on the date the petitioner''s application under Rule 22(4) of the Rules of 1960 for approval of mining lease was considered, Rule 22-D of the Rules of 1960 was very much in existence in the statute books and, therefore the authority was bound to consider the same.

xxx xxx

From a perusal of the above, it is clear that the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hind Stone (supra) has clearly held that no person has as vested right to the grant of or refusal of a mining lease and that in the absence of such a right, the application for mining lease has necessarily to be dealt with in accordance with the Rules in force on the date of disposal of the application. Admittedly, the petitioner''s application for grant of mining lease was filed on 11.03.2003 and the same could not be processed any further as the Government of India, by the impugned order dated 15.01.2004, refused to grant approval to the mining plan submitted by the petitioner under Rule 22(4) of the Rules of 1960 on account of the stipulation contained in Rule 22-D of the Rules of 1960 which was introduced on 10.04.2003. It is, therefore, clear that on the date of disposal of the petitioner''s application under Rule 22(4) of the Rules of 1960, I.e., 15.01.2004, Rule 22 D was very much in force and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order of rejection by applying Rule 22D of the Rules of 1960."

Before adverting to the consideration of the case on merits, it would be appropriate to detail the prevailing rule position when the cause of action arose to the petitioner. Madhya Pradesh Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 framed under the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, have undergone frequent and widespread amendments. In WP No. 7047/2014, the petitioner has placed on record Annexure P/5, the said Rules of 1996. Pertinently, the Rules appended as Annexure P/5 are amended till 2010 only and do not contain amendments made thereafter. The Rules of 1996 have further undergone widespread amendments by Notification No. F19-1-2013-XII-1 dated 23.03.2013 published in M.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 23.03.2013. The amended Rules 7, 17, 18 and 36 are reproduced below for convenience and ready reference:

"Rule 7. Power to grant trade quarry.-(1) The quarries of minerals specified in serial number 5 of Schedule I and serial numbers 1 and 3 of Schedule-II, situated in Government land, shall be allotted only by auction:

Provided that quarry lease of minerals specified in serial number 1 of Schedule-II may be granted in favour of the Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corporation Limited (Government of Madhya Pradesh Undertaking).

(2) The quarry of minerals specified in serial number 5 of Schedule-I and minerals specified in serial number 1 of Schedule-II shall be auctioned for five years:

Provided that if contractor establishes cutting and polishing industry or crusher for making gitti by mechanical means, within a period of 1 year, for minerals specified in serial number 5 of Schedule-I and serial number 3 of Schedule-II respectively, then period of contract shall be extended upto 10 years instead of 5 years and in such condition annual contract money shall be increased by ten percent every year, excluding first year. For extended period contractor shall submit approved mining plan/approved environment management plan or environment permission as the condition may be. The contractor shall maintain separate account of gitti and mineral while establishing crusher.

(3) The auction of quarries mentioned in sub-rule (1) shall be conducted in a transparent manner by the Collector/Additional Collector (Senior IAS Scale).

(4) The power to sanction and control the quarries mentioned in sub-rule (1) shall vest with the Collector/Additional Collector (Senior IAS Scale):

Provided that where the bid in continuously two auctions is less than the upset price fixed by the Collector, then Collector/Additional Collector after making enquiry of the area, shall revise the upset price. The revised upset price shall not be less than the maximum dead rent specified for that minerals in Schedule-IV:

Provided further that if any declared trade quarry is not auctioned in any period then quarry permit from that quarry for government work may be granted under sub-rule (1) of Rule 68.

Rule 17. Renewal of quarry lease.- Every application for the renewal of quarry lease shall be made atleast one year before the date on which the lease is due to expire. In case of delay on submission of application, sanctioning authority on the basis of satisfactory reason may condone such delay and dispose of such application, imposing penalty of Rs. 1,000/- per month:

Provided that, on any condition, submission of renewal application, three months prior to due date of expiry of lease, shall be mandatory.

Disposal of applications for the grant or renewal of quarry lease.-(1) On receipt of an application for the grant or renewal of a quarry lease, its detail shall be first circulated for display on the notice board of Zila Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Gram Sabha concerned of the district and Collectorate of the district concerned. (1-A)-Addition to in sub-rule (1), the details of quarry lease application, received for any area shall be published in leading daily Hindi newspaper in the form of notice for general information within fifteen days from the date of receipt of application.

(2) The sanctioning authority shall make such inquiries as he may deem fit. The sanctioning authority, may take decision to grant of quarry lease or refuse to sanction it or renew the quarry lease or refuse to renew it before the expiry of quarry lease already sanctioned, after receiving the enquiry report. Information of in-principle sanction, shall be given to applicant. Applicant shall furnish approved mining plan/approved environment management plan, within six months from such information. Provided that if in-principle sanction is of five hectares or more area, then applicant from the date of such information, shall submit environment permission obtained under notification dated 14.09.2006 of Ministry of Environment and Forest within a period of six months. After completion of all formalities, sanctioning authority shall issue grant order or its renewal of quarry lease. On the basis of satisfactory reasons, the sanctioning authority may permit to enhance the time period, if all formalities are not completed in prescribed time period:

Provided that no new quarry lease shall be sanctioned without obtaining opinion of the respective Gram Sabha:

Provided further that if the application, is not disposed of by sanctioning authority within the period of six months then application shall be disposed of by senior authority as mentioned in rule 6.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), all pending applications for the grant inclusive of such applications on which agreements have not been executed on the date of commencement of these rules shall be deemed to have been refused by the sanctioning authority. Fresh applications in this behalf may be made according to the procedure laid down under these rules.

(4) Where an applicant for grant or renewal of a quarry lease, dies before the sanction order is passed, it will be deemed to have been filed by his heir and if the applicant dies after the sanction order of grant or renewal but before execution of lease deed, it will be deemed to have been granted or renewed to the legal heir of the applicant.

(5) Mineral concession to Minerals specified at serial number 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule-I may be granted as per the provisions of Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 and Marble Conservation and Development Rules, 2002."

Rule 36. Auction of quarries.-

(1) The quarries of minerals, specified in serial number 5 of Schedule I and minerals specified in serial numbers 1 and 3 of Schedule II situated in Government land, shall be allotted only by auction:

Provided that quarry lease of mineral specified in serial number 1 of Schedule II may be granted in favour of the Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corporation Limited (Government of Madhya Pradesh Undertaking).

(2) Notice of auction shall be published in Form XV atleast 15 days before the auction at the notice board or any conspicuous place by way of fixing the copy of such notice thereon in the office of the concerned Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat, Zila Panchayat, Development Blick, Tahsil and Collectorate and the village where the quarries are situated.

(3) Every bidder shall execute an agreement in Form XVI before he/she participates in the auction.

Form bare perusal of the abovesaid amendments carried out in Rule 7 and Rules 17 and 18, it becomes evident that the concept of deemed renewal, earlier contained in proviso to Rule 17, has been given up. While amended Rule 7(1) continues to prescribe that quarry of flag stone mentioned in Sr. No. 5 of Schedule-I shall be allotted only by auction.

11.1. Further Rule 7(2) also continues to prescribe that the quarry of minerals in regard to flag stone shall be auctioned for 05 years; whereas Rule 17, which has been completely substituted by a new Rule, provides that every application for renewal of a quarry lease shall be made atleast one year before the date of expiry of existing lease, with discretion to the authorities to condone delayed filing of such applications by imposing fine of Rs. 1,000/- per month, provided the renewal application is filed atleast before three months of expiry of the existing lease period.

11.2. Similarly Rule 18(2) has also been substituted by new rule. The requirement of obtaining environmental clearance has been made mandatory. This sub-rule (2) provides that on receipt of an application for renewal, the sanctioning authority shall make enquiry to decide the question of grant or refusal of renewal application before the expiry of the quarry lease. The sub-rule further provides that information of in-principle sanction shall be given to the applicant, whereafter the applicant shall be required to furnish approved mining plan/approved environment management plan within 06 months of receipt of the said information. This sub-rule also provides that if the lease pertains to an area of 05 hectares or more, then environment permission ought to be obtained under the Notification dated 14.09.2006 of Ministry of Environment of Forests within 06 months. On completion of the abovesaid requisite formalities, the sanctioning authority shall issue the order of grant or renewal of quarry lease. This sub-rule further bestows discretion upon the sanctioning authority to extend the period of 06 months in case formalities are not completed by the applicant. Lastly, this sub-rule has two provisos. First being that no new quarry shall be sanctioned without obtaining opinion of the concerned Gram Sabha and that if the application for grant/renewal is not disposed of by the sanctioning authority within 06 months, then the said application shall be placed before the senior authority as mentioned in Rule 6 for proper orders.

The other provisions of the Rules of 1996, which have also undergone widespread amendment by the abovesaid Notification dated 23.03.2013, are being ignored due to their irrelevance to the issued involved herein.

A careful scrutiny of the abovesaid amendment brought into effect in 2013 clearly brings to light the intent of the rule making authority. This intent being that whatever little concept of grant or renewal of quarry lease as of right, which was contained in the Rules of 1996, has now been excluded thereby bringing the said amended Rules of 1996 perfectly in-line with the settled principle of law that grant/renewal of a mining/quarry lease is the prerogative of the State and thus cannot be claimed as of right. In this respect the decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court are worthy of reference:

13.1. Relevant para in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Hind Stone and Others, reads thus:

"13.....No one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions......"

13.2. Relevant para in the case of Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, reads thus:

"104........It goes without saying that no person can claim any right in any land belonging to Government or in any mines in any land belonging to Government except under 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. No person has any fundamental right to claim that he should be granted mining lease or prospecting licence or permitted reconnaissance operation in any land belonging to the Government......... "

13.3. Relevant para in the case of Brijendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, reads thus:

"9........ The petitioners certainly have a right to file applications before the appropriate authority but they cannot have a right to have the applications disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of making applications; that is because they have no vested right to the grant of a mining lease......... "

Testing the factual matrix attending this case on the anvil of the amended Rules of 1996, the fact, which gets revealed, is that after 23.03.2013, the deeming clause contained in proviso to Rule 17 having been deleted, no one can claim grant or renewal of a quarry lease as of right, solely on the basis of efflux of time or/and inaction of the authority to decide the renewal application.

In the instant case (WP No. 7047/2014), the original period of quarry lease expired on 15.08.2014. The claim of the petitioner for automatic extension of 06 months in the quarry lease period till 14.02.2015 can arise only if the proviso to Rule 17 existed and prevailed on 15.08.2014. Incidentally, the said proviso containing the deeming clause was deleted w.e.f. 23.03.2013. Obviously, now the application for renewal filed by the petitioner vide Annexure P/4, which continues to be pending will have to be dealt with under the amended Rules 17 and 18, which have become applicable from 23.03.2013.

The claim of the petitioner for quashment of the auction notice is unsustainable as the same has been issued in-line with Rules 17 and 18 r/w Rule 7 as amended w.e.f. 23.03.2013.

The case of Kalyan Singh Vs. State of M.P. passed in W.P. No. 4682/2010 relied upon by the petitioner is of no avail since in the said matter the scope and impact of 2013 amendments to Rules 7, 17 & 18 of Rules of 1996 was not considered and the case was decided on the basis of law prevailing prior to 23.03.2013.

This Court before parting, expresses distress and pain in regard to the indifferent and callous attitude of learned counsel for the rival parties of not bring to the notice of this Court the wide spread amendments to the Rules of 1996 w.e.f. 23.03.2013, despite the same being relevant.

In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner under the Amended Rules of 1996.

The amendment to Rules 17 and 18 is further based upon a larger public interest. Any kind of mineral, whether minor or major, is the wealth of the nation, which belongs to the people of the country. The State is the custodian of this wealth and natural resource and holds them in trust on behalf of the people of the nation. The State and its functionaries are, thus obliged to act in a rational, reasonable and bona fide manner while granting rights to extract the natural resources to an individual or a body of individuals or any juristic person. While doing so none of the actions of the State or its functionaries should fall foul of the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The vice of irrationality, unreasonableness, nepotism, discrimination, etc. should not come in play while distributing the right to extract natural resources. The amendments carried out in the Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 are steps in the right direction of minimizing these vices from coming into play by adopting the mode of auction which ushers in transparency and accountability. Thus, the said amendments appear to be in public interest and for preventing natural resources of the nation from being squandered and wasted for personal gains. The following extracts of two recent judgments of the Apex Court are worthy of reference:-

20.1. Relevant para in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, reads thus:

"96. In our view, a duly publicised auction conducted fairly and impartially is perhaps the best method for discharging this burden and the methods like first-come-first-served when used for alienation of natural resources/public property are likely to be misused by unscrupulous people who are only interested in garnering maximum financial benefit and have no respect for the constitutional ethos and values. In other words, while transferring or alienating the natural resources, the State is duty-bound to adopt the method of auction by giving wide publicity so that all eligible persons can participate in the process."

20.2. Relevant para in the case of In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, reads thus:

"88. In 2G case, two concepts, namely, "public trust doctrine" and "trusteeship" have been adverted to, which were also relied upon by the learned counsel for CPIL, in defence of the argument that the State holds natural resources in a fiduciary relationship with the people. As far as "trusteeship" is concerned, there is no cavil that the State holds all natural resources as a trustee of the public and must deal with them in a manner that is consistent with the nature of such a trust. However, what was asserted on behalf of CPIL was that all natural resources fall within the domain of "public trust doctrine", and therefore, there is an obligation on the Government to ensure that their transfer or alienation for commercial exploitation is in a fair and transparent manner and only in pursuit of public good. The learned Attorney General on the other hand, zealously urged that the subject-matter of the doctrine and the nature of restrictions it imposes, are of limited scope; that the applicability of the doctrine is restricted to certain common properties pertaining to the environment, like rivers, seashores, forest and air, meant for free and unimpeded use of the general public and the restrictions it imposes is in the term of a complete embargo on any alienation of such resources, for private ownership. According to him, the extension of the public trust doctrine to all natural resources has led to a considerable confusion and needs to be clarified."

However, this Court hastens to add that in absence of any clause or provision in the amendments in the Rules of 1996, providing for automatic abatement of pending renewal applications in respect of quarry lease of flag stone, the respondents are obliged to consider the pending application for renewal of the petitioner preferred vide Annexure P/4 (in WP NO. 7047/2014) dated 01.08.2013. It is needless to emphasis that this consideration shall be made on the basis of the Rules of 1996 as amended since 23.03.2013.

Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that no case for interference in the impugned auction notice Annexure P/1 dated 03.11.2014 issued by the Collector (Mining Section), Vidisha is made out.

Accordingly both these petitions stand disposed of with the following directions:

The challenge in WP No. 7047/2014 to Annexure P/1, the auction notice dated 03.11.2014 issued by the respondent no. 2 is, repelled and the petition is dismissed to that extent.

The sanctioning authority is directed to consider the pending application for renewal, i.e. Annexure P/4 (in WP NO. 7047/2014) dated 01.08.2013, on the basis of the M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 as amended on 23.03.2013, as expeditiously as possible but before conduction of auction under the auction notice Annexure P/1 dated 03.11.2014.

Writ Petition No. 7048 is dismissed and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedy of appeal availed by him before the Director of Geology and Mines, Bhopal.

It may not be out of place to mention that frequent and wide spread amendments have been carried out in the Rules of 1996. Quite often than not the Rules of 1996 have undergone amendments several times in one particular year. Due to such frequent amendments carried out by the State in the said Rules of 1996 it is sometimes difficult to ascertain prevailing legal position, thereby leading to possibility of Courts, deciding the issue on the basis of unamended Rules. This further gives rise to unscrupulous litigants taking advantage of the loop-holes and lacunae created by frequent amendments. Moreso even the learned counsel are often not in the know of the latest amendments disabling them from rendering proper assistance to the Court. The Apex Court criticized carrying out of frequent amendments in any statute in Mrs. Asha Sharma Vs. Chandigarh Administration and Others, in the following manner:-

"52. The doctrine of certainty can appropriately be applied to legislative powers as it is applicable to judicial pronouncements. We must not be understood to say that the power of the legislature to amend the rules is restricted by judicial pronouncements, but we want to impress upon the legislature that the rules of the present kind should not be amended so frequently that no established practice or settled impression may be formed in the minds of the employees. Where the employer has limited resources, there the employee has a legitimate expectation of being dealt with fairly in relation to allotment of such government accommodation."

(emphasis supplied)

24.1. Thus the State Government is well advised to repeal and bring into effect fresh set of rules pertaining to minor minerals in the State of Madhya Pradesh. This would not only assist and aid the judicial and quasi judicial forums, but shall also prevent unscrupulous litigants from taking advantage of the nebulous situation.

Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the respondent no. 1.

No order as to cost.