High CourtsDivision Bench

Praveen Tyagi vs State of M.P.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 18 June 2014 · Citation: (2014) 06 MP CK 0124

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Palo, J · S.K. Gangele, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
W.P. No. 6592/2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 333 words
1.

Heard.

2.

The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dt. 05/10/2010 (Annexure P-1).

3.

The petitioner submitted an application for grant of quarry lease of flag stone of two hectares of land of survey No. 306 situated at village Khirka, Tahsil Sabalgarh, District Morena. No order was passed on the application of the petitioner and it was deemed to be dismissed after a period of one year. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order. The Director, Mines and Minerals vide order dated 12/08/2010 remanded the case back to the Collector, Morena to decide the application on merits. The Collector informed the petitioner that there was amendment in M.P. Minor Mineral Rules 1996 and in accordance with the amended Rules mining lease can be granted by auction, hence, the application of the petitioner cannot be considered.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner''s application had to be considered in accordance with the old Rules.

5.

It is an admitted fact that M.P. Minor Mineral Rules 1996 have been amended and in accordance with the amended rules, mining lease could be granted by way of auction. A copy of the amended rules has been filed alongwith the petition.

6.

A mining lease was not granted in favour of the petitioner. The application deemed to be rejected after a period of one year. No right accrued in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the rules, hence, in our opinion the authority has rightly held that in accordance with the amended rules, lease cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner without auction.

7.

Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed in Reference reported in In Re : Amendment of First Schedule of CrPC by CrPC (M.P. Amendment) Act, 2007, .

8.

The judgment sited by the petitioner is distinguishable on facts.

9.

Consequently we do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed.

10.

No order as to costs.