G. Thimmappa vs The Director of Mines and Geology and Others

Budihal R.B., J.—Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside orders bearing Nos. GaBhuEi/GaGuSha/543AML2011/2011-12/6227, dated 28-1-2012 and GaBhuEi/GaGuSha/543AML 2011/12-2013/1600, dated 2-6-2012 (Annexures-Z3 and Z4), issued by respondent 1. Petitioner is also seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to grant lease in respect of land in Sy. No. 60 measuring 5 acres situated at Sirappanahalli Village, Holalkere Taluk, Davanagere. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that he had filed an application dated 17-12-1997 before respondent 1 for grant of lease in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 60 measuring 5 acres in the above said land for the purpose of mining of white quartz under Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Office of respondent 1 called for report from Tahsildar (Annexure-B). The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Forest Department and Pollution Control Board gave no objection to granting of lease in favour of petitioner. Thus, he had complied with all necessary requirements. Notwithstanding that, his application came to be rejected and lease was granted to respondent 4 for a period of two years. It is the contention of petitioner that he had submitted representations vide Annexures-G, H and J for grant of lease, but those representations were not at all responded by respondents 1 to 3. Despite all these efforts, respondent 1 rejected request of the petitioner on 1-4-2005 saying that he had requested grant of lease only in respect of Sy. No. 57 and not in respect of Sy. No. 60. Therefore, petitioner had filed W.P. No. 24438 of 2005 and this Court had, by order dated 2-1-2008, quashed the order of respondent 1 and remitted the matter for reconsideration, holding that claim of petitioner was to be considered in respect of Sy. No. 60. It is further contention of petitioner that he had also filed W.P. No. 36136 of 2009 seeking direction to respondent-authorities to consider his request. This Court, by its order dated 19-1-2010, disposed of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider request of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted one more requisition for grant of lease in his favour, which was again rejected by the said authority. Hence, the present petition.

Respondents 1 to 3 have filed objection statement denying allegations made by the petitioner that his application for grant of mining lease was in respect of Sy. No. 60. They contended that application was submitted in respect of Sy. No. 57 and therefore, it was not considered by them. As per direction dated 27-7-2011 in W.P. No. 41238 of 2010, respondent 1 had examined the application submitted by petitioner in his Application No. 543 AML 2011, dated 8-8-2011. It was stated by respondent 1 that since the prospecting licence had been granted to respondent 4 in PL No. 3350 of Sy. No. 60 of said village, only 1 acre 30 guntas of land was available for consideration and the minimum land required for granting lease was one hectare as per Rule 22-D of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Under such circumstances, the impugned notices dated 28-1-2012 and 2-6-2012 vide Annexures-Z3 and Z4 were issued calling upon petitioner to submit his explanation within 30 days as to why his application for mining lease should not be rejected as per the provisions of the Rule 22-D of Mineral Concession Rules. The petitioner, without submitting any explanation, had chosen to file the present petition assailing the said notices. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 have prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

On 12-11-2014, when matter was heard for considerable time, in view of the contentions raised by respondents 1 to 3 that petitioner has not submitted his application for grant of mining lease in respect of Sy. No. 60, the Court passed the following order:

"List on 10-12-2014 at the request of learned AGA, who proposes to keep the geologist concerned personally present with the entire record, related to the lands in question bearing Sy. No. 57 as well as Sy. No. 60".

We have perused original records produced by the geologist and perused the application filed by petitioner herein, which was in respect of Sy. No. 57 and not in respect of Sy. No. 60. The original records were made available to learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner to go through the same to make his submission. Accordingly, after perusing the original records and application of the petitioner, the learned Counsel fairly conceded that the application was filed in respect of Sy. No. 57 and not in respect of Sy. No. 60. Therefore, it is clear that inspite of filing his original application in respect of Sy. No. 57, for all these years, the petitioner has falsely contended before the Court, in various writ proceedings, that his application is in respect of Sy. No. 60. However, the original records clearly goes to show that the petitioner is making false submission in this regard. Unnecessarily, he had filed the earlier writ proceedings seeking direction to respondent-authorities as if they had committed mistake and delayed consideration of his application.

Subsequently, in the year 2011, petitioner filed another application in respect of Sy. No. 60. We have perused further proceedings of Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Bengaluru (Annexure-AA), wherein the said authority has, while considering application of the petitioner filed on 8-8-2011, furnished detailed reasoning that only 1 acre 30 guntas of land was available for consideration and the minimum land required for granting lease was one hectare as per Rule 22-D of Mineral Concession Rules and ultimately, passed order dated 4-1-2013 rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking lease for mining. Hence, considering the material on record, there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. On the other hand, the records would reveal that it is a frivolous petition which has to be rejected with exemplary cost. Accordingly, petition is dismissed with exemplary cost which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- which shall be paid within one month by the petitioner to respondent 1 herein. In view of rejection of the writ petition, all pending I.As. do not survive for consideration. They are accordingly dismissed.