M/S Mukand Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009

[Cites 5, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Mukand Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit

EN THE HEGH C(_.)UR'I' OF' K.ARNA'?'AKA AT I:3AN('}A§,(.)RE§

DATED THIS THE 28'" SAY OF AUGUST, 2UU':} '*.T

PRESENT

THE H(')i\§'BLE MR. PD. DINAKARAN, cr%1E%?-.{JU;sjTiVCii' 

AND

"me: HONBLE MRJUSTICAEE._\/i'€}:SABfi_AR£vT'~ " "

WRIT PETIT:oN_:Ne:,48:5/2003 j;[:.e..}4 i¥?i'r'*i $3
BETWEEN: . ' A' I

1 M/S iVIUK.AND LzM:'T_E;3'L._V,':'» _ .. »
(}INI(}ERA,VH(.)SPEA1T_ROAD,  "
1»-\:(')PPAL DESTRECST.  _  - 
REP. 3y;"1T:e:;;.$;a1N to R: MANA<.3;E:--R'; 
 '  
A(}E:D_A;3<1VuT';-:4')Y:'":fiARs.-"  '  PE'I'IT1ONE3R

(£33., $1-s'.-"f P RAJE:§\1._};3_r'TeA.'K-aJ:Ex~:AR SUE\IGAY, ADV(f)CA'I'E3 )

ééﬁmﬂwg

 2  $TA1;E§'('}---.ﬁ'---«KARNATAKA

 I2"::'P.B2<_LtTs SECRETARY,
"  T:>.£3:PA¢1ir'M_ENT or? INDUSTRIES,
  c;><">jr~.4_:\x1:e":';~'3.r;:1?: AND MINING,
.  vi;-\;A~S; soumm, VEDHANA VEEZDHI,
 £3_ANc3ALc)RE.

  2 9r'v:~4,E DERECTOR AND C()IVIM1SSI()NER

 {)E3PAF~3'§'§\/IEIE\1T(.)§¥' MINES AND (':E()L()GY,
P{ANL.JA B}-1:-'\\-"/\%\3, RACE COURSEI ROAD,
FSANCEAL-{.)RE~(} E.



ORDER

This writ petition is fiied under Arti<':iesf226.V.éind 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the communication dated 21_.9..2'OO-7'.Aissue,di:ip§i_ :hei'rir".~:.; res (indent recommendinv rdnt i'--:)i"i' mininﬁ in. C: V_ 'V p. r, . .' 'V fax-'oLir of respondent No.5 issLieV._a' ciirecfivonmto the 0 first respondent to '"gT€iI'1tji'§;I'1iZ/i.:Ii"1g\.\~-18886?'ifO1""i'[h€ area sought by the petitiozrzeris---.iin:" i'1;s"«.ii'a.pp__iicati0n dated 10.5.2003.

2: it ..is"i.ave:iireCl 'i1'i"«.1:he"petiiion that petitioner is a PL1blie°--.'Li'mit:ed' _.incorporated in 1.937 and registered"ii:-'ider gthe, pﬁivisions of the Companies Act, .VC0rnpa'n--_§,--'««has groix-"n from a roiling mil} to one def 'ie§id.i4i"i1ginanufacturers of Aflqv and Special Steels i11"i}:i'E"'. (T§>.L'.}'1"i:.?:.3"_"Vi' 1n<>c=1.ing;_»; {he iieeds 0I'o1'igi11a.1.l I:'7'{.fLli}9IﬂC.'.1"1%' V._1'1'i£;1I"1L1°i".?V,1(i31LlI"("1'I'S (OEM). The company um 2*ViI1?.€}1"i'L1faC[UFiHg pfants, one at Cxinigera, Koppal District, V !{f.i:*i1.:~1i.;eska, The COl'I'E})EﬂI]»\-'KS ggross turnover dLiriiig the V _\-'ea.r 2()0€i--0'?'" is Rs.2078 crore and the ctinrnpanx-' r,_ . enfa . ll ii a 1"' ..i I t),--7l'rr_"I~1.o. e esentlx = 4 Ted 1 rats 1 nd ocessn '"_1 3_ V if in two of the mines in the State of Kar:~jlata§<a;'t-lllitt.is "

further averreci that in response to _tis'c.»--..:n.oti~fic'atio_n'V dated 25.3.2003 inviting appliﬂ:latio:n' "Vf'I';l§')VrTt:l' public for grant of mining lease iriaresppect as many--~.as'.tV 36 areas, including the area*~._merlttione..Cll"_in'»vth'elsaidl notification at Sl.l\lo. 12 for of.l7"'98Vf'87JF}/zeetares situated at Donimalai..4_R.ra11ge,Sa;i1.c§tlr'«talul<:, application was filed on 10.5.2003. 'Thei'felornpanﬂretseiveci a notice under', Rt_,1l_ei'2.6[..1.):'«.ol'«..plVli.ne.sjand Minerals Concession Rules, l§.9ll€)() l('he'1*e'i;'1al7$terl called the Rules'; dated 3o.ps;r.:2'oo7/3.9.2007ii from the third respondent lliiﬁolrmillng the company,' to appear before the Additional lS_e'c.reta'1*§l?'_'vv..toil"'flovernment (Mines), Commerce and lndi;tstr---ies"llﬁepartment, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Bangalore, on l;2.9.i2007' to make a rtrspmresentation for the applied Mining lease by the N} Company. Accordingly, the compan_V's represe*i1----tati\4-'e appeared before the Authority and submissions along with the represen-tgitirionI 'rFiT'1{i_ i' highlighted some of the salient ifiaetvsjre'iat_ing._:tojV_its plants in Maharashtra and KarnAait'aka. [The V' C:()T'1"i:'}')E'.3{11_\'f".

referred to its financial ieisoiiirces "anCi't--Iitsi',adeqL1ate expertise in mining""~3eti.Viti_eS',--._inﬂresponse to the notification ciated appiications were receiveeiiiniihrespeot "of"t'heHiss;idV:«extent of ianoi at S1.No.12 respondent No.5 is who fiied appiication on "£8.4.2{A)iO~7L,T after the notification. \Ar'h1'lje"'rhe appIi_cati<)ns fiieti for the period commencing A"t._ivi1 31.3.2007 were kept pending, shortly i"a_ft'e_ip-p.thefieppiiieiétion of the fifth respondent was made, respect of fifth respondent though, nearlx,--' 60 1"ec:o'nirriendétion has been made for grant of mining Aappliications have to be processed and therefore, the M} act.ior2 of the Governmeiit appears to be inexplicable and totally lacking tram sparency. Being aggrie\'eciV}q_i\_-' .{h'e"s2i'iti recommendation, the instant writ p€11'i"'i'{)V1"}':VA_'i'Si. .*"ii1e--d_'i' E'i\-"(:'1"I'i1'E§_§ that the application of the';:ie't_iti-ioner--.haé'iiioi?; been considered on merits thetigh the:.:peititioiier¥'a compaiiy stands on a better"footirigiiithiéinigthe fifth I"t'SpOi1(i€1'1L

3. We hegiie__ heardii ieoiinsel appearing for the €p'eii"i.t_'io. ::(_+'(}t.111SC'i appearing for appearing for respoiiderit Government Advocate 'c-1ppETE'i'I'i11gi%ii:(J1"V?€€i3}:*_()i'i'-fiiié1iiitiS I to 3. 4: .i'Leeir.ijed counsel appearing for the petitioner ii'i'.Ci"t'.'3;'i'Eiii(i'(i'_'=.I:_}T<ij."gI'(')L.lI1dS urged in the writ petition and sL2bi'nitt5ed"%ihat the procedure prescribed for ex-'aiuat.ion 2'~.3h'é1~;:§...i"1(J'{Hi1{)@(?13 followed in accordance with law, inasmuch 'cii{S',ithE.'. a licaziorz filed by res ondent i\io.5, which is E - P we i"

subsequent. to the date of application of the peti.ti_oner, has been recommended for grant of mining lease---ii:'n.iiivt.s fax-*ot1r, withotit considering the merits of theiipet'it:.iione~1'_;_s V' application and therefore, the jsainie'.isl.1ia.b1_ei"t0 set aside.

5. Learned cowﬂiseli'iiiiiaipfiearing "the fifth respondent submitted that o.pp.or}3.,i_nit}.: of hearing has been gi:;rei'i'o;v.i.o the ap-eititioi9ie.i"vvva_S:iadmitted by the petitioneri _itse1'f.in' p'evt.:tio'»ni'i a.nd the notice at A1"1I§€".'>{L.l§"Cf~H.i'til'; .sc5«.fa'r.._as.._the comparative merits of the petitioner, and the"fiIth"*-«respondent is concerned, since fifth;r'es.ponden_tidoes not hold any mining lease in .ii'\'arna.tt§11i<ya.and they tiave established an integrated steel iii'p_1aii§_tA District, the mining lease is reeo'rrm"ien'd"ed for its captive use and therefore, there is 2 v,ii'o<i:zi:e1'it in the writ petition and the same is liable to be d~ivsn'iissed_ K}

6. Leameci Government Advocate appe_a~i7iif1«.grfor respondents l to 3 submitted that the re<:o--mmiefiéiatiioti~ made in favour of 5"' responé_e.11t_hasi bee:ﬁ';v»i2'i':1Vé'e in ii E'i.CC'{')I'ClE-1I7C€' \\'llh iE1\'\'.

7. We have hearé the_ii'e.arne"<il VeoupriaeI""._;i_'p'pVeari1ig"' fot" the parties and scri,1tinisje--d th--eiii<1Aate1'ialvon..i*eco1*d.

8. The material an e1'AeCoifir,:l&:vvx-roltiildwpClearly Show that the petitioner ahc_i_ the'ii*iftl1~1reepio-noerr:are applicants in respect" 1'? the notification dated 1f"5.3.2iQQ3_iSiSilea_i"L.1Vri'C§e}"«-,'R§_y1le 59 of the MC Rules, The petiticmei'°~..maCle~. application on lO.:"5.2OU3. 'V..,_ARef§.l5loz;den_t Noii5"*'*miade an application for grant of mihi1":g"%ea»:§eA.o_oij. i8.4.2oo-"7. In View of the provisions of Eietgicm_l.illg}'i(>l' the MMDR Act and the decision of this W.Court" W./--\.No.5026/2008 and connected appeals of on 33.6.2009, it is clear that all the \r/' 10 12--ikC'11 {or aetcttive co1"isiCierati01i once the not.il'ic;;tt.ion is pubiished under' Section 11(2) of the I\/EMDR Act in orcicr to give c.'iTcct to tho Fir:siti"h aimci :'sCt't)nCi pI'()Vit-3(.) to Scéctiuti 1]{2) of MEVIDR Act or otherwise, t.h<:_y _i'«Jt:":(I()'t;1ii"l'(;_:i""

r'<:dL1nda'mt. By this i11{c:"prc''ie-1ti(Jn,---»..et:i'1_ . }3I'{")ViSi{)l'1S of the Act aiid" ._ RL2l~:Cs-- 'arcf he-1§'113{)11i(')L.1Si\' 1'c2ac.i and gi\~'et1 C'a'."_l"c;¥'<ét tt.>'~ t.=t*i«t}it:>..Ltt__i". emy i11COf1SiS1'.€'f2CC' €itI"=._'C{)I"lfiAi'('1 fxt-'1"i'év1{iSs':i:)(;=x.I_<;;tfV, becatisc, it" is sctticd 1a\,vi'i'th;:t the 1i*i3o1&11t,1'L"CiSg b:()I.h pmvisions of Lh€'r' Act 2.-tz1'i:.'1" P.Lil'if3,ii"-Si"l()LEiC.i "tjv "i'c*2-ad i'1é:lI"TTl(Jl1i(}L1Si_\,-' a1I'tCi' the p_I"()if=:'ii:SSi()iii"i.:-ii of 'tiflt' ACE. and Rules should be it1.1.(:r_}':tfct.cCito'iéi'chiC'i1c'iithc object of the 1<3--gi'3«l.;tfi(i>n=:a1"id ~1'=F1C"C(iji'L~Jif'1v.vShfJ'§,1i(i avoid an j'iittér1jmt5:«itioiii; it.h_eit't',i.\-'t)t.iiti be irictiiisistctit. with (in C' 11 (J t it C r " ~ *' "i26.';2().'--_ \'n?c¢--t"rc, therefore, of Com:-:.id<:rccl op"i~ni<.m t}"m1_thc'-1.applications Filed either i)eforC }Ji(,1Vi,J]i'(TéE¢;1.i(J11 of'1"t0tificat'i0n or bcf'or<' thc trxpirjx; of =1i'i1iit'.?, [3f,i'VI"'i{_)iiC:i.. specified in thc noti:"i<:ati0n, oven t:ii(J'L.t;§j}j am pI"€-'Ina-1[.L1I'C 2'-mcl shall not be c=1"€tc:1*té31incd, from 1i"t{,' moment the :'iot.i{ic:ati(.m is-:. ;)"L1.§,3ii.*3i1(.'Ci; stttth appii<':ettit'ms 2:11':-.'. tmtitlccl to bc "gte::I<:cti For active ctonsiderzztiori. In short, such applicatitms applied belbrc-3 the notilkration \/°~ 11 remains pzmssive and bec:.ome active when the'--.. 1mtit'it*a.1tir>1i is isstiecii or whet": the :~s2.1me is ta_.§'t't:7_1i'~,_ {or c(msiciem:.ion under Rule 59(2) of :_. R'u]es.'"

9.}. In the instant case, "t«he;'_i_irr;'ate1*ia'iea woutd Show that notice \»\»'as_ i1'S.SLt€d.i'€0 they V-petitioner on"

30.8.2007 affording iOf~...heie1rir1g to present its case anet"ete'cijr_ci'iijigi%ei.':_thepetitioner has presented %t s..t;:ase iiriiesporadent and theref"o:"e, git vi'ti}:i:tjb<)rttznit_t-' of hearing has been gfaih ifeiépoihdent to the petitioner in exe1;iCisie.i_of on it under Rule 26(1) of the MC' LR-.2 .11é:-ts.._ 9.2.. E.h'"thi:~3 regard it is relevant to extract. Rule 265 of' i";'t3e.._t\/I(fi"titulgéea.Etvhich deals with the power of deiegation 2inct"'E.he=.iAsa1i*§.e reads thus:

Deiegation of powers: 3) The Central ('i()\-'{"l"l'lITlCI"l[ ITl2--1_\-", by m:)ti£'ic.'2.ttio1"i in the 0tTiei:-:1] g.{a:':t'rtt<2, direct that a-thy p(}\-'£-'(?I' exerciseible by it \_)> 21 ()¥Tic'er, there is no division c)T*, 1*es;'J<)1'isil}i§it\f of l'}e'e.3t'iI'}gg and wliiie. deiegatiiig the power of ¥.i1Q..S2;-rte V (}m='ernment." it

37. in View of our a;.:1isi\\-'e«_r? to ti_7t('."i'c'.-iii_)'t)\"C',"~V' C']L1C-S?.i()I'1f-3, we hoiri that C?C'i=i]?g&-.l:ti'()i'i: <)i'~_.t){_mf'e;* <)».§'~..,,,ii State under Section 2,F:}{;2_) 0? 1°h_e"'MML?»R'"Ar';t to the Director of Mines £1n(}e4i,Ge:c)iog_y-' ii)-W.\_f Ii'c2ii-1ficti;t.ioi1 detect 18.1 3.2003 is valid---irﬁi"lé1W:..__." 9.5. In the ibroceedings of hearing 26(1) of the MC Rules, Secretary to Industries Department.

discloseitriiat has given an 0§3I3Ortunit_\- of Vlqieiiing healrdﬂuto the petitioner and also to other ,Aappi1cairavit.s,}5efore recommending the grant in favour of 'the-_§:c>n'tesf.__iz'rg'irespondents. Therefore, in View of the .V deciiisierigirheridered in Writ Appeal N0.]O95/2008 and 'ig:e"m1r;.eetVed appeais disposed of on 26.8.2009, the e'c'}1'1ter1t.i0n raised by the petitioner in this regard fails \} 23 obtaining a. prospecting licence or mining lease;-.__ as me case may be, in respect of that land any ofi'1erper'scm.' (2) Xx XXX xxx V _ (3) Tfze matters referTe(f*fc..1'n su_ib--seeI'~:;:0'r'1.(2) are Ihefollowingrw 1 ii i V V' i ii {(2) any specials _know-ledge 'or*;

experience ' 'r*.econ_naisSa'ncVe operations, prospecting Operations or mining operatiQns;~(:zsV.;_he case _r'_nay9 be, possessed the (1pp.Zl"Cafii'I,,f " "

(b) the finci;~".'cTi--al'a i';re}eso'tci'ces»»_ of the applicant; i __ [C] rag' ._nat;ure"zand«..j--.guai-;«:y of the ;tec~7??nicaVE. Staff "em'p'i'cyed or to be em;i=I_oyeCi fkae a.pp--?ican.f,-

.. e.(d)_ u"~t_F:.z"e"< :1:-,2'z.:e».s'm1_erczif "-«--.7J.2}2'ic}z the agnlicrcmr Av;'2»3io[)o'se?s .:o'«::{1.i1ke m the mines and in the .indi1-.sAtf_:,1b .based on the minerals; and "(.e)i' _suC%_1 oih'er "m_c2:t1.ers as may be prescribed, {4} ,xf_,i=<5.I\9 ;xi.x'.><;'.

V ' ' {_5)xxx.x'.x' xxx ".

i"ii1O.i4.V;"s:'I__:5:Ru1e 35 of the M.C.Ru1<--:-s reads as 'V._»hereund'er:

"35. Preferential rights of certain persons.~ Where two or more persons have K) 24 applied for CI reconnaissance perrnit or a___ pr'Ospe>('Fi?lg Eic:er1c:e> or (2 zrunirlg lease? in re?sp<3t;:I_r"._ ojfhe sczme land, the State GovemmerlZ_..53f;':2l;ﬁ':1.

for the purpose of subvseczion (2) of se({I':i:or'zV (*on.side.>r besides the rr1aVt»t§?:fs rne*ii.fi<3-:"i::é_€1_' 'iz'1 érlauses ("(2) to {d} of sz,ab--.'éec:'Z'1'b»;::»'};A Z I, the end use of t}2a e>.__ fr'3_1:rn1eraZ.'V_-fry' ». tﬁié appIz'Cam"".

10.5. The mandatgry 17<43'{i'1'L1'£zfE'r11\"c:*1j1t. 0fé§O1':'1"p§iance of Section 11(3) of the 35 of the MC Ruies has a!.z'e'a_d;\-' béjeni Court in Writ Appeal of on 51" June, 2009.

Writ -'disposed of on 11"' June, 2009 an«d=\_f_\/1"ifEv ~66/2009 dispcmed of on 8%",..l%fg§Ey;~2OO9'."V. _ A:

Appeal No.5026/2008 this court has hsiid-.33 Vf'u-Rio vVx;';-si ' j'2'E3:4.VTbc? w(>r(_§s cmp§0ycc.i by the Par'1iamc=n1 zmdcr S'0sti()11 §}(3}(C] \-'iz., 'such. cnziecar maifcrs as rmw be H , ' '_«,0rc=%_<~:{'r2'}.J{?(.'J'5 i11<?iLzdC the 1"r1attcrs p1'cscribod zmcicr K?' 28 making any allegation against the policy decisions nor challenging the same, but all th8.'€":V:lL'I}.£:','i'.,..V"'. petitioner seeks is, only to give effect to tghe l"

decision of the State which is ...9.cl_fn.ittetlIy implemented by the State.

19.3. The Apex. _cour4t,.A;in SHRHLEKHA-:i"' VIDYARTI-II (KUMAR1} STATE ' PRADESI-I [(199141 sco1_2"1t2] held t.hat;__ "27. Unlike a"'-private acts uninformed by_...re:asori..qﬁ;d_--'mflue.ncecl by persorzat ' -- predilectfons in a ..._.contractual matters if .- __ "?"_esu_lt:,: adverse corcsei;u1encesi_. to alone uiithout affecting 1§fz;b1i£§'§_'ir;:¢4ra}._si;. any" such act of the State even in this ﬁeld 'would adve:*se--lyi'_affect the public interest. "holder of a public office by ofwzihich he acts on behalf of , the._iState or public body is ultimately it "'v'iE.f;coii4jrt'table to the people in whom the vsovgzreignty vests. As such, all powers so 'vested in him are meant to be exercised for "public good and promoting the public interest. This is equally true of all actions even in the field of contract. Thus, every D 32 wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what wouid' otherwise have been the legitiin.atevvV.'V:'*--..it ~'-' expectation of the claimant. A I decision of the public authority rizachediii this manner would satisfy the ~.*"'equ'irementu of non--arbitran'ness.*and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doct'ri:ne of legitimate expectation gets assiniiiated in the--..n.iie of law and opeiates iinvlegal system in this manner and "

19.53." 'I'n;,1;.':1¢ giasei Oi7'F:2(Jx¥AI;vVi.IQUIDATOR v. nA.YA§a:A§i'I3'-vorepo:*.i¢a 12903110 sec 1, the Avpexv _Co1irt71.:gyhiiei:c1eaIi¥.ng-.with the doctrine of Iogitimatev.t:xpéctaticohh...observed that:

'r'fI"0_2. concept of "due process of law" played a major role in the development of administrative law. It genszires " """ "fairness in public administration. The administrative . "autho.ri'ties who are entrusted with the T ofideciding iis between the parties or 'adjudicating upon the rights of the indiiiiduals are duty--bound to comply ~ with the rules of natural justice, which are multifaceted. The absence of bias in the decision-making process and compliance with audi alteram partem are two of these facets. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is K)'-

34

unionism among civil service. For this, the Civil Service Order in the 1982 Council was issued. The Court of Appeal declared that the Minister had acted unlawﬁxlly in abridging ﬁindamental right of a citizen to become'*,a'*<:'~l. member of the trade union. The House is approved the judgment of the Court of Appe.dl..and = held that such a right couldizhnot tie atalpen without consulting the civil seri;'ant.concerned;.V «. V K

105. In India, the 'courts have if recognised that while administering the a_,§fair.s5 of the State, theft" _G;ove;_rn.nzent"~t _ and its departments are expected the policy st:cite.merits i'treatV' the citizens ioithout'li'-angfvidiscriminlation. The theory of legitimate'e2i;r:ectation"first found its mention in Navjyoti Coops, (}rou'p;Housing Society 12. Union of India. thatv_case the right of a housing society to priority in the matter of registration recognised in the following words: (SCC Vpp. '4'§2--;z~95, paras 15-16) V \' ".15. In the aforesaid facts, the Group "Housing Societies were entitled to 'legitimate expectation' of following consistent past practice in the matter of allotment, even though they may not have ya» 33 a nascent addition to the rules of natural justice. It goes beyond statutory rights by serving as another device ford'-.2 rendering justice. At the root of the .. principle of legitimate expectation is§"th'e[f is constitutional principle of rule ofxlaw,-, in which requires regularity, predicta.bi'lity..V:

and certainty in Government's .dealings with the _public------J. Raz,[ Theg}iuthoriAty«._of..'~._gr,__gA Law [(1979) Chapter 1 1]. The "legal certainty". "

is also a basic principleg of European' community. European law is based upon concept of vertrauensschut"z (the honouring a trust or conﬁdence). fo'r__these "reasons that the e2cisten'ceV_&of a legitirnaieéexpectaiion may even in the a.bsAenceij_'of awfight of private law, justify its recognitionlin pu_blicVIau::.

103. In Halsbury---'s' Laws of Erigland (4th Edn.), "legitimatecsipectation has been€'des:cril5ecll._in thefolloiving words: _ _"}1".g--vuperson«.Vp "may. have a legitimate gxpectaiiogngofu being treated in a certain "way by._an '~adm_inistrative authority even thaulgh he._has"no7'legal right in private law . to receivevsuch treatment. The expectation "may a'ri'sev___eitl1er from a representation or C ifupromise made by the authority, including an, "'~-implied representation, or from

-- ;"'«.consis_tef,nt past practice. "

formal statement on the doctrine of legitiinate expectation can be found in the judgment of the House of Lords in Council of Civil in r jtfservice Unions v. Minister for Civil Service. In that case the Government tried to forbid trade- K/9* 35 any legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The existence of 'legitimate expectation' may have a number of different consequences and one of such»:

consequences is that the authority ougghtuyl not to act to defeat the 'legitimate"

expectation' without some overrid__ingj'rV.. "

reason of public policy to justify its""d*oing so. In a case of 'legitimate expectation_'"if V the authority proposes to defeat. personis " f 'legitimate expectation' it should afford ..him 2 V an opportunity to make representations the matter. In this connection rej"erence"may be made to the discussions on 'legitimate. expectation' at p.152' -of Vol. 1(1) Halsbury's Laws ~ of ..;3nglan*d,u{lt'h.p Edn. (re- issue). We may also"reji=3gr' to*a_ decision of the House of "Lords ;Counci~lfV.of Civil Service _ Unions' Av. Ministerifor Cit-.i3'V Service. It has beeii held €in'"the' said'=d.ecision that an. agg.rie.ve_d pe:r.<;_o'n.. wa"sV.entit'led to judicial review if he""couidy.sh'ow that a decision of .the'l'publis;._yauthoz7ityit(affected him of some benefit_ or ﬂadaiantage which in the past he had been}-perznitted.. to "enjoy and which he '-.legitimately_"~ .expected to be permitted to c'ontinue"to lenjoyijeither until he was given reasons for withdrawal and the opportunity V or to comment on such reasons.

_ _ It may be indicated here that theldoctrine of 'legitimate expectation' .--._"imp'oses in essence a duty on public 'authority to act fairly by taking into *=consideration all relevant factors relating to such 'legitimate expectation'. Within the conspectus of fair dealing in case of 'legitimate expectation', \/' 36 the reasonable opportunities to make representation by the parties likely to C aﬂected by any change of consistent past, policy, come in. We have not been sh_o'_wn'»f ' any compelling reasons taken *.i_nta9=._ i consideration by the '--Cen..t'ral"~, é Government to make adepartuzre gs-om the existing policy of=__all:otrrient reference to seniority in"registratio.n 'by; V' ' introducing a new.gnidelin_e.' "

19.6. The Apex Colman TA'miRoN AND STEEL co. LTD.vv.zUNIQ'I'l or iN;)_1A repel-tee in (1996)9 sec 709,:la.pptoi§ir;g"they.View of the Committee appointedvihby the Government pursuant t::.._t_he Court of Orissa,* ' =.sen'_'ior_' officers from the Ministrjytyyo-f Bureau of Mines and of India, that the National having been tabled: before both 'th_ellHvotis_els'.of iiiarliament, is a guiding factor _£u~the deci.sion'éma'king process of the Government both inth'e"'National Mineral Policy as well as , - ., 'vth&V'VI11'd't3:'étVria1 Policy of the State of Orissa, captive been recognized as a fundamental A determining the criteria for granting mining lease, held that the Committee made an " estirnate of the captive mining requirement of each of the parties appearing before it, after l";

Wh-

38 addition making it clear that mining as a stand---~__ alone industry needs to be encouraged provides large scale employment; new r;n'inera,l_' 5 based industries should be set up to ma.t_chjp"thVe h available raw material resources»; existing and'ne'w,:j_ industries should set up facgilitiesy:'to7.bring 'th:e..__ 'A available raw materials up Wtoﬂ the ,,vrt:ci_uiredl': 3 speciﬁcations by processes, like bene'ﬁciaVtion,l pelletisation and sintering; "and __these " industries will generate more. e5_mp1oyr:.1_ent>., and spawn auxiliary industries.

22,1.' are, therefore', 'satisﬁed that (1) the proposed.mine'r,als by the applicant; and(ii')'~, Vt}li£3'.::._ captive" 'congsufnption and value additionmine,ral«s,"-shou.ld be the prime criteria for 'granting_dmin'ing--~lease", because the steel plants coming-._up in-__a 'relatively under--developed areas, ,,._iwil1e*.ensurepfurther employment generation in V"l"e.stab]ishment "of roads, ports, transportation, " giwatcri ».resources, railway infrastructure, supply "--c'hain--.V.business domain and allied industries such has ».fpower plants, slag cement plants, ancillary units, etc., leading to improved infrastructure and it 'overall development of the lifestyle of the public at large of the locality and region".

\/3\.

40 the petitioner already owns two mines in the State of Karnataka. The evaluation made by respondent would clearly show that all including that of the petitioner in view of the provisions of _4Sectior_1iii'1 1(3) Act and Rule 35 of the reeqfnrneridation is made for grant of the fifth respondent. Itis well Court cannot make a and demerits of each of Court is mainly iollowed in arriving at the decision'. are that there is no error or illegality. in re'eornrner.ding the ﬁfth respondent for grant iof.1_fri1ir1iiig !.ea--se.

i'i11_. the reasons stated supra and applying the ratio ofrlecision rendered by this Court in Writ Appeal i V~:if"1\ipiSG.26/2008, Writ Petition No.5022/2009 referred to i above, we are satisﬁed that the recommendation made for \J--

41 grant of mining lease in favour of fifth respondent is justified.

12. Accordingly, we hold that there is-no in the 'v writ petition and the same is dismiséasedi.-.. i Chief. Justice ind<::»i:i 'Yes/No ~ V V V . / . .i_,j'N¢b..H0;St:Y::$'/NO _____

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court