Jai Singh Thakur and Sons vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—The Petitioner was granted a certificate of approval entitling him to apply for a mining lease in respect of barytes under u'' the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, and accordingly he made an application for such mining lease in Paonta tehsil pa on May 31, 1967 under Rule 22 of the rules. On February 22, 1968 the Himachal Pradesh Government informed the Petitioner that it did not favour the grant of mining lease as the area in question was under detailed geological investigation for barytes. The Petitioner applied in revision to the Central Government under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, but the revision application was rejected by the Central Government by its order dated March 3, 1969. The Petitioner now prays for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The first contention on behalf of the Petitioner is that he was not afforded an adequate opportunity to represent his case before the Central Government and, therefore, the order of the Central Government rejecting his revision application violates the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has not set out in the writ petition the basis upon which he makes this allegation. There is no averment indicating in what way an opportunity was denied to him to represent his case. The revision application was filed by the Petitioner, and there is no dispute that a copy of the comments submitted by the Himachal Pradesh Government in reply to the revision application was also supplied to the Petitioner and that he filed his rejoinder thereto. The Petitioner was not entitled to a personal hearing before the Central Government, and no principle of law has been placed before me in support of any such right. The first contention is, therefore, rejected.

The next contention proceeds upon the allegation that a mining lease was granted in favour of one Shri K.K. Anand in respect of an area situated close to the area for which the Petitioner had applied for a mining lease and, it is contended, that establishes discrimination against the Petitioner. It appears from the material on the record that the decision to grant a mining lease in favour of M/s Himachal Mines and Quarries, of which Shri K.K. Anand is partner, was taken on December 16, 1966. It is asserted in the return to the writ petition that the Himachal Pradesh Government had decided not to grant any mining lease in the region in question after May 31, 1967. Apparently, that was for the reason that it was intended to have the area surveyed by geological investigation. The application made by the Petitioner fell within that ban whereas the application of M/s Himachal Mines and Quarries had been disposed of already. The circumstances that the lease in favour of the latter was executed later on October 13, 1967 and registered on November 7, 1967 makes no difference. Moreover, the application by M/s Himachal Mines and Quarries for a mining lease was in respect of lime stone, and as barytes was expected in small quantities in that area it was mentioned as an associated mineral. A mining lease on that basis was granted. The mining lease sought by the Petitioner was in respect of barytes, and it was in respect of that mineral that it had been decided to conduct geological investigations. I am not satisfied that the material on the record makes out any case of discrimination by the Himachal Pradesh Government against the Petitioner.

The learned Advocate General then urged that the order of the Central Government rejecting the revision application was not a speaking order and, therefore, offended the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bharat Raja Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, It seems to me that the contention is without substance. The order of the Central Government in this case refers to the ground taken by the Himachal Pradesh Government for rejecting the Petitioner''s application for mining lease, that is to say that the area in question was under detailed geological investigation for barytes, and it was mentioned that after carefully considering the comments of the State Government and the counter comments of the Petitioner it had come to the conclusion that the grounds for rejection of the Petitioner''s application were reasonable and fair. Having regard to the nature of the claim made by the Petitioner and the grounds taken by him, it seems to me that the reasons set out by the Central Government sufficiently disclose that the revision application of the Petitioner had been fairly considered. The order of the Central Government was an order affirming the decision of the Himachal Pradesh Government, and in the circumstances no detailed reasons were necessary. The reason affirmed by the Central Government was that detailed geological investigation for barytes was under way. No specific ground was taken by the Petitioner in the revision application concerning the grant of a mining lease to M/s Himachal Mines and Quarries and, therefore, no reference to that ground can reasonably be expected in the order of the Central Government.

Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.