Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Zubair vs The State Of M.P. And Ors. on 23 March, 2015
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
WP-1485-2004
(MOHAMMAD ZUBAIR Vs THE STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.)
23-03-2015
-HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
W.P. No.1485/2004
Mohammad Zubair
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & another
Present: Honâble Shri Rajendra Menon, J. &
Hon'ble Shri Alok Aradhe, J.
______________________________________________________
Shri R. S. Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Manoj Kushwaha, for the petitioner.
Shri K. S. Wadhwa, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents No.1 and 2.
__________________________________________________
ORDER
( 23-3-2015 ) Per : Shri Rajendra Menon, J.
Claiming that respondent No.3 without authority has refused to grant approval and permission for grant of mining lease, this writ petition has been filed in the year 2004.
2. Even though the matter was pending for more than 11 years, till date respondents have not filed any reply. However, considering the fact that a very short question is involved in the matter and for deciding the legal question involved, reply of the respondents is not necessary, with the consent of the parties, we proceed to decide the matter on merit.
3. Petitioner was granted a prospecting licence vide grant dated 29.11.2001 over an area 2.10 Hectare in Khasra No.109 of Bhaganwara, District Katni for the purpose of prospecting the availability of Dolomite and Lime stone mine in the area. The prospecting licence was for a period of one year. The grant was in an area belonging to a private Bhumi Swami of the petitioner. After concluding the prospecting, it is seen that petitioner applied for mining lease. The petitioner was directed by the State Government to submit the mining plan duly approved by respondent No.3 within six months. Petitioner prepared the mining plan and submitted the same to respondent No.3 on 28.7.2003. However, the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 7.1.2004 having refused grant of approval on account of the fact that the grant was not in consonence with the provisions of Rule 22-D of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. It is a case of the petitioner that petitioner had applied for prospecting licence in accordance to Rule 22-D vide application dated 18.9.2002 Annexure P/5. Petitioner applied for mining lease in the year 2003. However, now it is said that respondent contend that mining lease cannot be approved in view of the provisions of Section 22-D of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. According to the petitioner, the restriction in Rule 22-D came into force by amendment subsequent to the filing of application by the petitioner much before 10.4.2003. It is said that the amended provisions of the Rule which came into force w.e.f. 10.4.2003 will not be applicable in the case of the petitioner because the application by the petitioner was submitted for grant of mining lease much before the said date of 10.4.2003. In sum and substance, it was the case of the petitioner that refusal of grant of mining lease, now in view of amended provisions of Rule 22-D of the Mineral Concession Rules, is not permissible for a simple reason that the application of the petitioner was filed much before the said amendment came into force. Accordingly, petitioner wants this Court to hold that as petitioner's application was submitted prior to amendment to Rule 22-D, the application has to be processed in accordance to the provisions of law, as was applicable at the time when the application was submitted and not as per the provisions which came into force when the application was taken up for consideration.
5. Shri K. S. Wadhwa, learned Additional Advocate General invites our attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M/s Hind Stone â AIR 1981 SC 711 and argues that the law laid down in the aforesaid case clearly stipulates that the application has to be considered in accordance to the provisions of law as was applicable on the date of consideration and as no vested right accrued to the petitioner for grant of mining lease, merely on submission of the application. Shri Wadhwa submits that in view of the law laid down in the case of M/s Hind Stone (supra) no vested right accrues for grant of lease. He further invites our attention to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Brijendra Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union of India and others â 1995 MPLJ 710, wherein the learned Division Bench after considering the law laid down in the case of M/s Hind Stone (supra) and various other judgments of the Supreme Court, has laid down the principle that the Act and Rule only enable a person to apply for licence but when the application is submitted, it has to be considered and decided in accordance to the Rules applicable at the time of consideration. It has been held in these cases that the person concerned has a right to file the application but he does not have a right to have the application disposed of on the basis of the Rule that was existing when the application was made as he does not have any vested right for grant of lease. The law has again been considered by a learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of B. L. Nanda Vs. State of M.P. - 2011(4) MPLJ 83. Accordingly, Shri Wadhwa submits that the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable.
6. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that with regard to grant of mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules itself in the case of M/s Hind Stone (supra) similar situation has been considered and it is found that when the application was submitted under the Rules, a particular statutory provision governed grant of permission. However, during the pendency of the application, the statutory rules was amended. Before the Supreme Court also similar question arose as is in existence in the present case i.e. whether the application for grant of renewal of licence which was submitted prior to amendment of the Rules, has to be processed as per the unamended provisions or as per the amended provisions ? And after considering the legal principle, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no vested right accrues to a person for grant of licence on mere submission of the application and none can claim a vested right to have an application for grant of licence dealt with in a particular manner. It has been held by the Supreme Court that an application for licence has to be dealt with according to the Rule in force on the date of disposal of the application and only on the ground that there was delay in processing the application, the amended provision cannot be ignored. This principle laid down in the case of M/s Hind Stone (supra) has been followed by the Division Bench in the case of Brijendra Kumar Agrawal (supra) and again in the case of B. L. Nanda (supra). That apart, while considering the applications for registration of building plan and grant of permission under the M.P. Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 and the Rules framed therein, in the case of Paras Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd. And others Vs. State of M.P. -2012(1) MPLJ 690, similar question has been considered and it has been laid down by a Bench of this Court after taking note of various judgments in the said case that when a statutory procedure or rule is prescribed for grant of permission or approval, a application for the same has to be considered and decided in accordance to the statutory provisions as is applicable on the date of consideration. It has been held in all the cases that no vested right is available to the person to seek a permission or a grant in accordance to the rule applicable when the application was made. It has been consistently held that when a statutory provision governs the rules and regulation for grant of permission and approval, then the permission or approval can be granted only in accordance to the rules or statutory provisions as they existed on the date of consideration and not in accordance to the provisions that existed when the application was filed.
7. Once the law on the question is clear, in this case also when the petitioner submitted the application the unamended provisions of Rule 22-D was applicable but once on the date of consideration when certain prohibitions were enforced by virtue of amended provision of Rule 22- D and if respondent No.3 has rejected the application on such consideration, we see no error in the same warranting interference. By merely submitting the application for grant of lease, no vested right accrues to the petitioner and therefore, applying the law laid down in the cases referred to herein above, particularly in the case of M/s Hind Stone (supra), we see no error in the order passed by respondent No.3 as the provisions of Rule 22-D applicable after 10.4.2003 prohibits grant of lease to the petitioner and on such consideration if the application is rejected, the same cannot be termed as erroneous or illegal.
8. Accordingly, finding no ground for interference into the matter, the petition is dismissed.
( Rajendra Menon ) ( Alok Aradhe ) Judge Judge mrs.mishra (RAJENDRA MENON) (ALOK ARADHE) JUDGE JUDGE