Gadigi Mineral Mining Co vs State Of Karnataka Commerce & Industry on 28 August, 2009

[Cites 19, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Gadigi Mineral Mining Co vs State Of Karnataka Commerce & Industry on 28 August, 2009

Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 KARNATAKA 43, 2010 (1) AIR KANT HCR 221, 2010 A I H C 1276, (2010) 3 ICC 292

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, A.S.Bopanna

I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

'R
DATED THIS THE 3.3% DAY OF AUGUST, 2009..___

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF   to

THE HON'BI..I-E MR. JUSTICE:-V;'G~;.SA--EIIaIAI*II"f   

ANo
THE HON'BI..E MR. JUVS"FI:C3E3 A.S.BOP.A_I'§INA4iii'V 

WRIT PETITION NO: 1""'828/=2'OO7'jCi/'N 19330/V2007,
19332/2007,563/2oo8.88aj2oo3,1221/2008,
4275/2008,6960/2005;7850/2ooe;9go4/2008,
30924/2008,30929/2O08Lﬁ83/QOO8,
c/w W.A. 1438/;2O'QZ;W1m4j;70«'2OO7, "1471/2007, 984/2008,
977;42oio3'i 82 953,/o2oo8e {GM--MMSl

IN w.1-mo. 1t_7.éi2Ss;.{2.o:o7 '(r.3j1vs_gMI\2;s)

BETWEENESA   -

._,(}adigi.,1':§JAIiir1era1  cg,
 A "Private Igtd. ,'~-- Compariyi incorporated
'Un.c1e'r.. the provaiis-ions of the Companies Act

An.d'h_avin_g registered office at
Gadi-gi '--Pa1a(;e"j,- ..Ce_r Street,

  Be11aI'j,:_583~ .1 Q1,' Karnataka

 Represented by its Managing Partner.

-- Petitioner
(Sri MR. Najk, Sr. Advocate
for Shivarudrappa Shetkar for Petr.)

A IANQF:

I 1. State of Karnataka
Commerce 85 Industry Department
Vikas Soudha, Bangalore 560 001

 



2. J SW Steel Ltd
(Vijayanagar Works}
A Public Limited Company 
Incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956  
having its registered office 
at Vidyanagar--583275, Bellary District
Karnataka by its Vice President.

3. Union of India 
Ministry of Mines
Through Secretary

New Deihi    A :
Having its Office at Shastri'-«Bhawan'--- _ '  
New Delhi 110 001.'   '  Respondents

(By Sri Basavarai for 12.1, D.L.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. for S~rr_1t.'fS.R. .-Anuiradha for R2, Sri Y.4P_Iar_ipras"a'd,.C.C},.S...C. for,i"R»3) This writxpe~tit;ion is'--.file'd~ undeé." Articles 226 and 227 of the Cori'stitution of*1Endi'a_,ipraying' to call for the records of the present case' 'a,n~diafteri"sciutinizing the same to strike down and i'c§ua_sh the.impiigned order dt. 21.9.2007 passed by R1 vide A'i1nex--l,"'ari"cli etc"; 4_ _,\?.\/.P.No..i:1i933O /200,7: :{GM'-MMS) ﬁedida Guruva Reddy 9 ConstructiOns'}?vt., Ltd, Rep. its--iMai*1aging Director <.S1'i. T.Gopal_a Krishna, o"Sir§,_Tarn Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy, "Aged abut 29 years,Class I Contractor, =R:/ojNo.1530, C and D Block, "'An,i_kiethan Road, Kuvempu Nagar, 9 ' A °'Mysore--56O ooi.

-- Petitioner (Sri D.L.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate for Smt. S.R. Anuradha} 'H"3' >= .. ..

AND:

1. State of Karnataka By its Secretary, (Mines, S81 85 Textiles) , Department of Industries and Commerce M.S. Building, "

Bar1galore--1.

2. The Director of Mines and Geo'1ogy"'e .. Department of Mines 8:, Geology,» Khanija Bhavan, 'D Race Course Road, Bangalore «»~ 560 001.

3. Government of India' ' By its Secretary u Ministry of Coal and 1\/firms,' , Department "

Shastri ,B'}1'avvai=1~,--'1'NewV----De~lhi"f ' .. 7.. D' ' 4. . : Respondents (By S--rilBasav:arajKaredoy, Prl. G.A. for R-1 85 2, "Sri*Yv.H'a_riprasa:d, C.G.S.C. for R-3) writ is filed under Articles 226 and 227 the» l'C.onsti.tution"""of India praying to consider the 'a,ppli'c»at1on*of._the petitioner in accordance with law; and etc... ' IN w'.p. No.~ r1 9;<s:3l2/2007 (GM--Ml\/IS] .Tarr1 Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy '-Cionstructions Pvt., Ltd., R¢.pf by its Managing Director "Sri T. Gopala Krishna, S/o Sri Tam Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy, Aged abut 29 years, WK Class I Contractor, .. . .

4 R/o No.1530, C and D Block, Anikethan Road, Kuvempu Nagar, Mysore--560 001.

-- Petiﬁoner (Sri D.L.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate for Smt. S.R. _ AND:

1. State of Karnataka By its Secretary, (Mines, SS1 8:. Textiles] _ _, V. , _ Department of industries ar«1d"iComrr1*erc'e M.S. Building, ' i * Bar1galore~1.

2. The Director of Mines .Geo1o.gy"'--.I',_*v __ Departmentof Mines'&'(}eo1ogy, V p Khanija Bfiiaviimg Race Co}.1rs"e__ R-9-a§~_C1," " '' Ban gaibx-eiéis. sec 001.

3. GoVei--'nment-- of I __ . _ By its Secietaiy » , Ministry of _Coal'-- and Mines, Department 'o.f,Min,es, , shasm Bghavan, """

e .,"NeW.Deihi£"'v v V r " ' :Respondents '(ray Sri Biasiavaraj Kareddy, Pri. G.A. for Rwl 85 2, , 7.,.Sri Yﬁariprasad, C.G.S.C. for R--3) , if V 'This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 _ of the -Constitution of India praying to direct the R1 to if-___"cor1s;ider and recommend for grant of 1,900 acres in _ T .,'_4Kur11araswamy Range, Yeshwanthnagar, Subbarayanahalli, Sandur Taluk, Bellary to the Central Govt. for approval; and etc. 5 W.P.N0.563/2008 (GM--1Vii\/IS) BETWEEN:

V.S. Lad 82; Sons, A Registered Partnership Firm, "Prashanti Nivas", Krishnanagar, Sandur -- 583119, Bellary District, Rep. by its Partner,"

Sri Vishwas Lad.

(Sri K.N.Phanindra, AdVoc'ate*~for AND: V V V

1. Union ofindia * _ 1 J_ Rep. by Secretary to"Govf:. o1"A.IV:::~'_ciia'. Ministry 0f"CO'%11'an6_ Miizes"

Departrrierit,of--M'ir1e$,.__ " » Sha:eitrii'B11:.§i\_Iaar:1:fjA§V Ne-fw Am,-1h1'p';"'1' '1 0 001 .

2. Statetof Karnata1--:a>, By its Secretaryfp' .-- _ Dep_artnie2r1t' o.fvCon1m'erce and Industries, \/ikasa Sounciha, 1SFF1oor, Bangalore ---- ssoom.

.3: The Secretary(Mines), '- A State of."Karf1ataka, By its» See-rotary, Department of Commerce and Industries, Vikavisa Soudha, 18': Floor, 2 Bangalore -- 560 001.

' 4, M/s. J.S.W. Steel Ltd., . Rep. by its Managing Director, 13.0. Vidyanagar -- 583275, Toranagallu Village, Bellary District.

-- I}'etitione*r it

5. M / s. Vijaynagar Minerals Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, P.O. Vidyanagar --~« 583275, Toranagallu Village, Bellaly District.

6. M/s. South West Mining Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, "The Estate", 3rd Floor, No. 121, Dickenson Road, Bangalore -- 560 042. 2

7. M/s. Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd, , " ' Rep. by its Managing Director_, " V V Bevinahalli Village, 2' P.O. Hitnal W 583234., e , Koppal Taluk 85 District. , . " ' i

8. The Director of"Minesjj&,"'G_e'L§logy>. ' Department-o"f,Miiie's Geoliogy, 'B.hf,aVai?;," 'Sir; Fl-ooi', ' ' Race Course'.Road,"~__"-...__ -- I Bangalore ----560f{)O~1._.2i"~ * »-- :Respondents it (By Sri Y_,l-lariprasad, C.G.S.C. for R-1, p V-i.lS'rii,_Basi-avarajlKareddy, Pr}. GA. for R--2,3 82; 8, » _ _ "~Sri D.L.N. Rao, Sr. Counsel _"».1_"or S.R. Anuradha for R-4 to 6, 2 '-_rSr'1' S_;Shadaksharaiah & 1\/LA. Vijay for R-7, A Sri. Pijamod N. Khatavi, Advocate for R-7.) ' it 'This Writ petition is ﬁled under Articles 226 and 227 of 'i1'J_.e,5 Constitution of India praying to quash the 'ﬁionimunication/Order _ dated 21.9.2007 vide Annx«»E passed by the 2nd Respondent and Proceedings dt.

",l4.9.2007 drawn by the 3rd Respondent vide Annex--F and all further proceedings thereto; and etc. W.P.NO. 888/2008 (GM--MMS) BETWEEN:

Sri P.R. Chenna Recidy, S / o P.Ve-era Roddy, Aged 50 years, Resident of # 2A, Thomas Ma-nor, ' 88, Richmond Road, Bangalore -- 560 025. A ., 3 ' .5 P_eti.ti"o'ner (Sri G. Gangi Reddy, Acivocate fo1=--Petr.) AND:

1. The State of Karnataka' ' By its Secretary to Govt, 'P ,_ Department o'$ffCo_m'merce 8i§'In(ii1st3¢ies, Vikasa Sou'fd.h:a,---';7_V .' ._ " ' ' Banga1oi1*e--5_6Q O0 ,_ °

2. JSW Steel 'Limited, ._ Vij ay'ana.gara W ,. __ ». .4 A Public Limited "Company Incorporated under? the Companies Act, 1956 Having Regd.»-.Office at:

A Vidyianagar ~ 58;3'2'75 _'Bel1ary, District, Karn ataka V ..i'3yice'---.P?'esident, * , Sri P. Krislj-.ne Gowda.

3. M/.s.i'Vijayanagara Minerals Pvt. Ltd, , Vidyanagar, JSW Township, V Torangallu, Beilaty District, A, ' 'Karnataka Rep. by its Director, 7 P. Krishne Gowda.

4. M/ s. Southwest Mining Limited, 111 Floor, The Estate, 121, Dickenson Road, Banga1ore--56O 042, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager «« Sri B.P. Pandey.

5. M/S. Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited, V Bevinahalli Viﬁage, 13.0. Hitna1~ 583234, Koppal Taluk, District --- Koppal. i Karnataka State, * By its DGM Corporate Material By Sri K. Ramesh. V -- "

6. Union of India, .

Ministry of Mines,' Through Secretary, i V New Delhi, ,_ . 1 '-

Having Officeaat - Sihastri Bhaiian, V New Delhii-;«« " ' :Respondents V'-.{Sri_ Bas'-av-araj Kareddy, Prl. GA. for 12.1, Sri Uday H.o:1.la',vSr~..,,(;.ounse1 for R-2 to 4, Sri Pran1odKhatavi, for R-5, _ Sri Si';~Shada-ksh_araiah 85 M. Vijay for R-5} , petitio"f1"iis filed under Articles 226 and 227 'of the.,Consti't1}.tion of India praying to quash the A1'11'1€XL1I'€-- A' dated' Annexure---B dated 25.9.2007; and etc. i w.P.ité,oi. 122'_i;f,(2ioo8 (GM--M1\/IS} ~ ; M 4. BETWEEN} 'I-

S'/ojN.Kenchappa, Aged 32 years, R/0. Bhujanganagar, i"Sandur Taluk, Bellary Dist:583 119.

-- Petitioner (Sri KB. Shivakumar, Advocate) AND:

. The Union of India Rep. by it's Secretary, Ministry of Coal and Mines, Department of Mines, Shastry Bhavan, New Delhi -- 110 001.

. The State of Karnataka Rep. by it's Secretary, Department of industries'i&.«--..Com'merce, A' Vikasa Soudha, I Floor, Bangaiore ---- 560 001.

The Additional _ To the State of Karnataka, :

Department of I_ndu,s'tries'A Cor,n.rner.ce,' it Vikasa So1;'di'1a,."I Floor, ~ A -.

Bangalore 1;. V . The!Dir~cCtoI";',C.ornrrii.ssi--onei", Department -of V&:_G-eoiogy, Khanija.aB13avan,"A, = Race Cotirse Road, B-anga_1ore--56».QA O0 1 V. ; / J Steel Ltd., V Rep it's._i\/ianaging Director,

-12.0. V\/'iCi3ta1;1agar W 583275, 'foranagailu Village, Bellary District.

ayanagar Minerals Pvt. «Ltd. , ' -Reap. by it's Managing Director, 13.0. Vidyanagar _ 583 275, Toranagailu Viilage, Bellary District.

10

7. M/s. South West Mining Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, "The Estate", 3rd Floor, No. 121, Dickenson Road, Bangalore -- 560 042.

8. NI/s. Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd.*,"'"~--

Rep. by its Managing Director} Bevinahalli Village, R0. Hitna1-- 583234, _ Koppal Taluk 82; District. " _ .__ Respondents (By Sri Y.Harip;__rasad_'; for R-1", 2' Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, <3.A..fj1"or 'R-2 to 4, Sri Udaya Holia, to 7, Sri S.Shadaksh§araiah, Ady-ovpatetyfor R-6.) This writ"V.peti't§on .:'g-ﬁled under Articles 226 and 227 of the VCo'ns'ti.ti1ti0n} of~.,I'ndia_"""praying to quash the Communi,cat_ion/Clrder -g"c1_ate_ci' -21.9.2007 vide Annx--L passed by the ~2fId':_t'~.Re.spondent and Proceedings dt. 12.9.2007 drawn by the Respondent vide AnnX--K and K-1 andail fu2*th_erp1*oc"eedings thereto; and etc. 42V,7s1,(200é{G'M--MMs) Sri BA. it 3/0 Sri G.V'Byrappa, W " 'T about .33 years, 'R./_'oVNo«--...,359, W1 Cross, Est 'Biock, Jayanagar, ___B'anga1ore W 560 011.

-- Petitioner (Sri KN. Phanindra, Advocate) AND:

. Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Govt of India Ministry of Coal and Mines, Department of Mines, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi -- 110 001.

State of Karnataka By its Secretary, ~ ~. _ , Department of Commerceiiand In--dL1'stries,i--"".'. , " ' Vikasa Soudha, 18* Floor, V V V Bangaiore -- 560 001. i . The Additional State of Karnataka, ' _ _ .. ~.

Department of Com1fne,rCe and InduVs'tri--e's, Vikasa Souvdhpa,--_1St§F1o,or',s A D ' ' Banga1orei56Q7O_O 1. ' A 1' V 'I'hei'-,Di1:»cctoI"' of. iviines '8:~__Ge~o1ogy, Department -of and Geology, Khanijai Bhavan,' 5th ,F'1oor, Race Co1§1rs_e R.o'ad',*_ B«anga1ore--56i--O, O0 ix./I, / s.niii.iiri West Mining Ltd, Rep its'n-Managing Director, * ,"'1".he Estate", 3rd Floor, 1'-J.o.1,,VI7Jickenson Road, Bangaiore -- 560 042.

. 'M,/,s.iiKir1oskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., by its Managing Director, Bevinahalli Village, i p.o. Hitnal M 583 234, Koppal Taluk 85 District.

: Respondents (Sri Y.Hariprasad, C.G.S.C. for R-1, 12 (Sri. D.L.N. Rao, Sr. Counsel for Smt. SR. Anuradha, for R5, Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, Pr}. G.A. for R«~2 to 4,. Sri Jagadish Patil, Sri Pramod N. Khatavi, for This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 a11d'?.i2'..7_,it of the Constitution of India praying .10" 'the Communication / Order dated 25.9.2007,._ Vide' E3,"the'1 communication/order dt. 25.9.2007 fvide An'n~_~E1, .:"tbo'th_' passed by the R2, and proceedings dated 14.9».2007"dr=aWnt'--.., by the R3, Vide Ann--F and the_p'roceedings dated_"2-2.91.07, v ' drawn by the R3, Vide Ann--G, and*a11 fui'thier--'pro};eedings thereto.

W.P.NO. 6960/ 2008 {GM4"MMAs"}- it A BETWEEN:

Radhakrishnefn, , Proprietor, Sri 'Krishna Iilriterprises, S / 0. Ram akrish.r£an,,"7fAge'd.40 yearsv, R/o.No.1'7__, Prakas}1"Co1o'ny,'~----._ ~ ~ Gadag Road, « Hub1i--58O 020. -

"' -- Petitioner K.B.Shivakumar, Advocates) 1'.g'1'he Un~ifo--ntof India, Rep. _ by . itfs Secretary, .V Ministry of Coal 85 Mines, A, Department of Mines, V Shastry Bhavan, ' New De1hi--1 10 001.

The State of Karnataka, Rep. by it's Secretary, Department of Industries 85 Commerce, Vikasa Soudha, 1 Floor, Banga1ore«~56O O01.

13

3. The Additional Secretary(Mines), To the State of Karnataka, Department of Industries 85 Commerce, Vikasa Soudha, E Floor, Banga1ore-56O 001.

4. The Director/ Commissioner, Department of Mines 8; Geology, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bangaiore~560 O01. 1

5. M/s. J.S.W. Steei Ltd., V 4% Rep. by it's Managing Diretctoré,

13.0. Vidyanagar-583 275, Torangallu Village, Bellaxy District. V V'

6. M / s. Ltd., Rep," by" itt'si5Mar;faging._Director, P. o .:,v_Vidyanagar 4 583 t 2.75,- Toranagailu -Vii1age,' ' -. __ ~ , seiiaryoisttict.

7. ms. southwest Mining Ltd, R-ep.?-by its Managing Director, » :""~The.E3statev",_ are Fioor, it No.' 1.:2..1.," Dickenson Road, 1' = .B'angaio'1j'e 560 042.

8. /.s:'Kirioskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., to Repﬁoy its Managing Director, Bevinahalii Village, D' I1'.-O. I-Iitnal -- 583234, Koppal Taluk 85 District.

" 2 Respondents (Sri Yllariprasad, C.G.S.C., for R-1, Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, Pr}. GA. for R-2 to 4, Sri Uday Hoila, Sr. Counsel for R6 to 7, iiA,.ND§"r 14 Sri S. Shadaksharaiah, Advocate for R6, H Sri Jagadish Patil, Sri Pramod N. Khatavi, for This writ petition is filed under Articles 2.26 ., of the Constitution of India praying to__ _i"qua-sh 4 the Communication/Order dt.14.9.200'?~ '-[V].-dtg VAn"ne:J:ure--C-._, ' passed by the R3 and proceedings {dated22'..,9f2GO'k'--..d.rayynf by the R3 vide Annexure~G1 and all :f_urther- p1*oceeL{ings.. thereto; and etc. W.P.NO. 7850/2008 (GM--1\/IMS) _ BETWEEN: i i it A M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., Earlier called as ; * _ ' M / s. Jindal Vijayariagiar Steé.=;1"Ltd';,._ "V 13.0. Vidyanagar ' Toranagallu vi1l,a§€i;f_ it ' .

Bellary Rep. by Pi,1ttaSWa*:ey,V_Gowda',-..._ . ' General Manager.-- V " V -- Petitioner (Sri«i§iL;N. Rao",'--.S,r_i_§:rJunse1 for Smt. S.R. Anuradha) 1'.' ,GoVernrrienit of India, By its Secretary, .V Ministry of Coal 85 Mines, ., Department of Mines, V Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.

.i State of Karnataka, (Mines, S81 81; Textiles) Department of Industries 62; Commerce, M.S.BL1i1c1ing, Banga1ore--56O 001, Rep. by its Secretary.

N9 15

3. Kumara Gowda, No.}25--B, L.B. Colony, Sandur Taiuk, Beilary 583 119.

(Sri Yﬁariprasad, C.G.S.iC.,'for'iR--1', _ Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, Pr1';,G.:A;..for'R--2, " ' ,1 ._ Sri K.N. Srinivas, AdvocateV_foi<,_C/R-3} ~ '~ This writ petition is_ filed under 'A_rti<:1es« .226_F~:ir1d 227 of the Constitution of Irid'ia prjayi_ng,ji;o_ quash the order of the Revisional Authority ' dated,' } 3'O.s,4,2tOO8 passed in Revision Application File No.23,' 1:) 20,07-{R_C.~--I) Annexed to this petition as Arm/E; ari'd"e'tc9}- " ; ., IN W.P.NO. 9i§Q4;f,i2,oioss- A BETWEEESE: _ Arihant Ispa'tPrivaite Ltd.., i (Formerly Arihant C,1fiern:o--VD"yes Pvt. Ltd) _S--7, 2§1¥{{ Floor, Esteem Arcade, Na.,26v-,-f<'ao-e Course 'I€o'a'd, "}3anga1_ore--5,oQV 00 1 , Director, Sri. Rajendr:2L."_Kui:riar Jain. » - ~ " A -- Petitioner (Sri Phanindra for Hegde and Rao, Advocates} , T ..-1; Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal & Mines, Department of Mines, Shastri Bhavan, New De1hi--1 10 001. : R'e__sp,on,den'ts_,'i V' 16

2. State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Department of Commerce 81; Industries, Vikasa Soudha, 13¢ Floor, Banga1ore«~56O 001.

The Additional Secreta1y(Mines), State of Karnataka, Department of Commerce 81; Industries, Vikasa Soudha, 13' Floor, Banga1ore--S6O 001.

. The Director of Mines 85 Geology, A' Department of Mines 8:; Geology, ' Khanija Bhavan, 5"' F1oor,'--v..u,i"*~..p H ' Race Course Road, I Banga1ore--56O O0 1 . M / s. South West Mining Rep. by its ManagingDirect'or;__ I "The Estat§3"',"3fd'F10_01",g C = No. 121,.Di.ck:%nso13 in V

4. .

M/__s. Kir1os1<a1f'F éméoué Industries Ltd., by its Managirig Director, Bévinahalli Village;

C ' =P_.O._II.itnVa;1-,-- 583234, __I.(opp'a.1_piTaIuV1{.. 85 District. Sri MA. Vijay, Advocate for R-6, Sri Y.I-Iariprasad, C.G.S.C. for Rwl, Basavaraj Kareddy, Prl. GA. for R-2 to 4) : Respondents Sri . Rfao, Sr. Advocate for Smt. Anuradha for R5, Sri Pramod N. Khatavi, Advocate for R-6, This writ petition is filed under Articies 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Communication/Order dt.25.9.2007 vide Annex~»H, the 17 Communication/Order dt. 25.9.2007 Vide Annexwl-11 both passed by R2 and proceedings dt. 14.9.2007 drawn b"y_R3 Vide Annx--J and the proceedings dated 22.9.2007...draVIn by R3 vide Anne-x--K, and all further proceedings_'thereto';« V. and etc. __ W.P.NO. 30924/2008 (GMWMMS) BETWEEN:

M/s Saurashtra Ferrous (P) Ltc?.,'~.._V Lakhapur Vil1age,, Mundra Taluigg "

Kutch District, Gujarat, And also having ofﬁce at.

D.No.24, "D" Block, _ Rajivnagar, 1st Main, 3rd Cross, }:*1ospef%;,., Rep. by its Deputyxhnenerali ' _ Sri K. Rarnagupta' Sf;Q- K. S30meshWara--.Rao.,§ Aged about 52. " Q ~ » 1 2 * _ g_ -- Petitioner (S-rid)" Anilku'rnar, Ad-vo.c'ates for Petr.) AND:

_ 1 Ut_:§1iior1.ofIndia,,' V ' . Re'p.a,'e._V itfs Secretary to Government of India, : 'M_ini._St::y- .of'~-Mines, "Depai't;n'1'ent Mines, '-- ASh,astri.'13ha\}an , New ' " ~ "2, The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore.

V 3. The Additional Secretary(1\/lines), Government of Karnataka, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore.

18

4. The Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bangalore.

5. M/s. J.S.W. Stee1Ltd., Rep. by it's Managing Director, P.O. Vidyanagar--583 275, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. 1 (Sri Y. Hariprasad, for 13- 1., Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, for"P.._-2' to 4}, Sri D.L.N.Rao, Sr. Advocate for..tSr:1t._[S.E_. Anur'adh"a for R5) This Writ petition is filed 1iI'ider_.AI'€iC1E'$ 226 and 227 of the Constitution of'-In:ci~ia'-- _praying" {to quash the recommendation.» or "_'Con1mL1ri.icatioi1y*'.Qrc§'er dt. 21.9.2007 vide AnneX'1ire---_i}":;pass:ed by«"2"d respondent; and etc. W.P.NO. é;o9"2.9 /V2.(§iG€3j_~(C}'1\/i}'Mi\/I.S) BETWEEN:

"M s Ferro.1.1s' (P) Ltd., ' V Lakhap ur V Ai11_.'g1'g-'.3 J Mundra Taluk, Kwitch Districtgﬁtuj arat, Anidalso having. office at ' D.No'.,2_-4, "of13i'tick, Rajiv Nagar, 15* Main, Cross",_H~ospet, by itsislleputy General Manager '-S'ri_ I{.»Rarnagupta, .S_--/ 0-K. Someshwara Rao, about 52 years.

~-- Petitioner (Sri J .M. Anilkumar, Advocates for Petr.) Respo-nidents "

19

AND:

1. Union of india, Rep. by its Secretaiy to Government of India, Ministry of Mines, Department of Mines, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. I

2. The State of Karnataka, _ Rep. by its Secretary, V . V _ Department of Commerce and_iiindust1'ieps,' Vikasa Soudha, D' Bangalore.

3. The Additional SeCre,tar.y{Mine.s},'i 1 ~--

Governmentoaf Karnatakag, _ ' vikasa ,' i

4. The:'Dir_eeto'r;.,--~.__'"a -- . Depalrtment of ' Mines. Qeoiogy, KhanijaaBhaVan,i".Ai .-- D Race Coiirse R,o',ad,'=_ ' Bangalore.

s,,iii\ifija.y'an_agar Minerals Private Ltd., " Rep, it"sr.M.anaging Director, '- P.-.0. \i/'id,y.a'r;:agar, Sandur Taluk, Beiizary District.

- _ " : Respondents (Sri Y.Hariprasad, C.G.S.C., for R1, Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, Prl. G.A. for R-2 to 4, Rao, Sr.Advocate for Smt. SR. Anuradha for R-5) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the 20 recommendation or Communication/Order dt. 25.9.2007 vide Annexure--J passed by 2nd respondent; and etc. W.P.NO. 483/2008 (GM--MMS) BETWEEN:

M/s Mukund Limited, Ginigera, Hospet road, Koppal District, Rep. by its Senior Manager, Sri M.V. Badgandi, -

Aged about 50 years. -

-- Petitioner (Sri T.P. Raj endra 'AiAsci1»_yfocate) AND:

1. The state'oifigiﬁatakai,F t Rep. ~ 'by , A Depéirtnient -~I_nd.u's.t_ri-e_s,- I Commerce 85. Mini h ,, 4' Vikas Soud ha,'--Vi'dhana Veedhi, _Banga1orf:- 560, 0.0 "

. Director Co'n1Vmissioner, 'Departrn-en't, of Mines 85 Geoiogy, s I{,h'ari:ij».si ahavan Road, = Race Cofursev'Road,BangaEore--56O O01. 'V 3. Tbe.UVnde4r Secretary, A Statieof Karnataka, A Department. of Commerce 85 Industries(Mines), ' "Vikas Soudha, Vidhana Veedhi, ",BangaIore ~-- 560 001.

it Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi --~ 110 001.

5. M/s. J.S.W. Steel Ltd., Earlier called as M / s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd., PO. V1dyanagar--583 275, Toranagallu Village, Bellary District, Rep. by its Vice President, Sri P.Krishne Gowda. A -- _ --. _ , ._ :"Respondents (Sri Hemant R. Chandaiiagoudar,-for 12-5,; Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, VP-ri... for R--1"to~3, Sri Y. Haripra_s"ad, C.C}.S."(};,.,,fo.r'R--4) This writ petition 1'3 filied, 'un'd.er.._Arti:ci'es 226 and 227 of the Constit_i1ti'o,n" of, India praying to quash the communication' 2,1Q9._2__OO.7_ issued by the R1 vide Annexure L in _,soii.far as it«.,re§é;o.rn'rr1eri§ds the grant of mining lease by R4 WRIT APP.!;3Ai,'*NO.' .i_.43.8Q"}:?E£;'0'O7 (GM--MM--S} Between: ..

State <of*7'Kafn.atakaii iiiii it ' rs , W _, by its SveC'retvary--.,..

A tDep~artm'ent oifvhidustries 85 Commerce, M;S§"Bui1dinjg,e:'Vidhana Veedhi, Bangalore ~. 560 00 I. ;--. V'"i'he,Direetor of Mines and Geology, _ '~fDepai*tment of Mines 8.: Geology, ' Khianija Bhavan, ' Raise Course Road, ' i]_,: * Bangaiore -- 560 001. .. APPELLANTS ( Sri. Basavaraj Karreddy --~v Pr1.Govt.Adv. for Appellants) /'"\.

22 And:

M/s. Sri Jai Santhoshi Matha Mining Enterprises, 913, Teachers Colony, Near South Indian Church, 14 Ward, Sandur, Bellary District, Partnership Firm, 1 Represented by its Partner Sri B.I\/Iazxjunath, S/0 B. bhimanaik, Aged about 40 years, ' _ '_ Residing at Sandur. . RESPGNDENT (Sri D.L.N. Rao, Sr. 'fo'17.,El3n'1t.:Sl;.R.,LAnuradha) This wri:;?ip;5}ea1. filed iU)s.ii'4-5y¢r"the Karnataka High Court Act prayingto'l-.set'--asiidelithe order passed in Writ Petition No_.p__v19'3f9'4f.;2yDOT5_y dated WRIT APl?EA_L_iNC)_--;_V_}.fl37O '(,ll'?".2_OO7 [GM~--MM--S) Between: 8 it 8 it 8

1. The E'>e<:retary., * Co_m'me_rce 85 ln'dus_trives Department, Btiilding,

2. Mines 85 Geology, _ De'part1_nent" of Mines 85 Geology V "Khanij a;_ Bhavan", Vyy'5"?5Floo'r, Race Course Road, " « . "'Ban"g.al0re. . . APPELLANTS ' Sri. Basavaraj Karreddy -- Pr1.Govt. Adv. for Appellants) 5 .2"! 'X:

1 5' V .

23

And:

Ujjwala, W/0 Ravi V. Daghe, Age: 42 years, R/a. C/0. Dattajirao Nikkam, Kalarnma Street, Sanciur, Bellary Taluk 85 District.

(Sri S. Krishnaswamy, Aeiv,oea.te) This Writ appeal filed U/S_._4_C:ii--.,of--..the .KatnataF4a High Court Act praying to setuasidet the jéorder passed" in Writ Petition No. 20661 /2005 da'ted'--O9{,O_2 _ WRIT APPEAL NO. 1471 Between:

1. The safe:-:»:'tar,xf;, , Commerce 8:, VIndustries_Dep'artrr1ent, M.S. Building, BVangaIor_e"~~, 560 001.

2. The Directof iVIinee':an'e1 Geology, Department of Min_es,& Geology, '=F'Khanija:BhaVan", 'S31 Floor, ":2 »B,a'ngaI.ore. = "= And:

...APPELLANTS (Sri-.7j:BaIsavara} Karreddy ~ PrI.GoVt.Adv) '' " " iU.d'ayasingh-- Abasaheb Padatore, 'S Abasaheb Padatore, A/a.' 45-years, R/at Ward No.2, ' _Mudho1, Bagalkot. ...RESPONDENTS _ﬂ=(Sri Mahantesh C. Kotturshettar 85 Jayakumar S. Patil, Advocates) at f1..."RI394S'PO'N3?I§'__;NfE_A' " 403 591 .

24

This writ appeai filed U/ S. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No. 20662/03 dated 17.01.2007. WRIT APPEAL NO. 984 OF 2008 (G1V1~MM~S} Between:

1. The State of Karnataka by its Secretary to Government, A_ A Commerce and Industries Depart;ne:'nt,.

M.S. Building, Bangalore. _ 7 "

2. The Director, v Department of Mines 85 Geo1o_g}};»v.._ Khanija Bhavan, I A Race Course Road, , Bangalore-- 560 001. H" V' A ., * 2 1. 1: p I '...APPELLANTS (By Sri. Basjavaraj Kafredidy '--'-'Pr1.Govt.Adv) And:

M/s. Sesa LirnitedA,:1 = _. it 1. Sesaghor, 20, ED_C»Com"p1e'X,

4...Potto, Eanjim, Goa'-.403 001, Rep.' by itsj'tDire'ctor Sri» Art1.1'1 Kuma_r"--Rao, st'/9 Jagad "Prashad Raj, Aged about i years, R/o H'o_use.~No..iB--282, Alto Betim, Pate} Estate. Reis Magos, ...RESPONDENT Sri KN. Phanindra, Advocate for M/s. Hegde 8:. Rao) This Writ appeal filed U/ S. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No. 3128/2007 dated 26.2.2007. 25

WRIT APPEAL NO. 977 OF 2008 {GM--MM--S) Between:

1. The State of Karnataka by its Secretary to Government, Commerce and Industries Department, EVLS. Building, Bangaiore.

2. The Director, Department of Mines 85 Geology, Khanija Bhavan, V Race Course Road, 0 Bangalore.

...APPELLANTS (By Sri. Basavaraj...Karred.di? 'ii\'¥'ri1i.'(ii'$rio--*.7it.Adv) Sri J. M. Vrtis'ha.1§iendraiah ,. S / 0 Sri M:,VMa1iyaip}:aipai1w,7-._'"~--.__ -- 0 Aged about--.6 years, R/ o BDCC Employees "Co»1o'n»y, M.J.Nagar, IrIospet,_':-- "

_.Be11ary,;District. ' A V " ssss ...RESPONDENT filed 11/8. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act pr'a3rin:g to set aside the order dated 20.12.2006 passed.__in W';E',,1 8360/ 2006. " TAPPFAL NO. 983 or 2008 (GM-~MM--S) B.etW'e»ez:':

State of Karnataka V by its Secretary to Government, Commerce and industries, Department, M.S. Buiiding, Bangalore.

26

2. The Director, Department of Mines 85 Geolog/, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bangalore. _ . . .APPELLAN'I'S (By Sri. Basavaraj Karreddy ~ Prl. Govt. Advocate») And: i i Sri J.M. Vrushabendraiah, ' S/0 Sri M.Maliyappaiah, Aged about,:61,-yearis,ii...' 4' V R / o BDCC Employees Colony, M.J. Nagar, ' I-Iospet, Bellary District. * A. ' This writ appeal filed U / S_.:'1*--"r-.,:of.,_theKarnataka High Court Act praying to set'a.side.'*t'he" -oider,_dated"'19".12.2006 passed in Writ Petition No~..

These writ petitions" having been heard and reservedgby the F'g'z.11l'B'en"ch'fo_r,.its opinion on the point of Reference nj1.agr:le it, the[jFull Bench pronounced the following? _V .;:_ 'igggﬁlow Theifo~]lowinge--_op;estions have been referred to the Full iiB_ench»iiV.*§§:,""-.No.17828/2007, by Order of Reference datiectit-5.o7:ii2'QO§5iii A i' In View of proviso to Section 11(2) of MMDR Act, 1957, whether the applications tiled prior to notification made under Rule 59(1) 'T of the MC. Rules, 1960 require preference over the applications filed pursuant to the _,..,.,§ notification ? and V" .;.hREsi5o'NDeNT '' 28 sketch enclosed to the notification; issue a writ of prohibition restraining respondents l and 3 andﬁtheir agents, servants and subordinates from taking' * of any description, directly or indire_ctly,_ in pursua1jce.or to 0 give effect to the impugned order' dated 21.09.2007 passed by respondent No'. l.piiand~-direction 0' V to respondent No.1 to consideri-the'_:'petitionersapplication for mining lease in accordanceiuiith giving a fair and reasonable Qpggéﬁ.-tunity§to}tl'1eAipiéjtitiorter. 2.3. Aeenniing petitioner, the State Government _ 'noti.fic«ation dated 17.02.2003 No.c1.33/MMM..1994' statiftgééthat the mining area set out therein'.coIn.priset1..in an extent of l l,620.56 Sq.krns. in the Kvarnataka, which was reserved for exploitation of variou's_V.rni'I1e"r-a1's."in the past, stands dewreserved and in pursuaunee""l.of de»~reservation, the said area would be open for consideration of grant of mineral 0*-.,_cenc'essions as per Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession ' _ 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.C. Rules') by V' the competent authority in due course. Thereafter, on 29 15.03.2003, notification bearing No.CI.16.MMM.2003 has been issued by the State Government informing the public that the area noted in the annex_u§rel"'to~g--... notification was available for grantigunder ,the 3"

M.C. Rules.

2.4. In response to *-the l11.otification§vbearing-.33' No.CI.l6.lVIMM.2003 dated V}A;:-La-titioner submitted application grant of mining lease in respect of_ii:on Hectares of forest area. Taluk, Bellary District, in the annexure to the notification; <,lThe 'E'~ta'te .«0{e.3i/lernment also issued another _notificai§§ilone».dated 15.03.2003 No. CI.33.MMM.1994 under Rules. Petitioner submitted an applicatieon 'ii4i05.2003 for grant of lease for an area n1easui*ing"'i79.8l:87 Hectares. The above said notiﬁcations dated 17.02.2003 ill"'and__il5.03.2003, were challenged in WP. No.18445/2003 connected writ petitions on the ground that the writ petitioners in those writ petitions, prior to amendment of 5 ;:/5} iWgw,§},...

30 Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the MMDR___Act') by Amendment Act No.38 of 1999, had made app-iji'ca.tpions for grant of mining lease in respect of the 1' were notified and in View of the provisions of Section 11 C51"; the MMDR Act, as it stood prior in they were entitled to preference' hasisee.c_f= of it their applications and they had"v'ested:i"right ofllpreferential treatment and the said preferential consideration on the basis of,~vsenibrit}:f ag11c17 p'refe--r"er1C2.€':l has been taken away in View 'of':?,he};Vrovi'so"to seetien 11(2) of the MMDR Act after arnendment which requires that all the applications receviV'ed..'-pllirsiiant to the said notification and also Atheel:'ap'plications,"vvhich were pending in respect of the the date of the notification shall be A deemed to been received on the same day. Therefore, 1'":1i.","'p_re*ferentiaE. rights of the petitioners, which had accrued to lthlerri' having made applications prior to the amendment llmlof-»e8ection 11(2) of the MMDR Act, by Amendment Act iil"'«.ii"No.38 of 1999 is taken away and wherefore, their 31 applications should be considered on priority in preference over the applications filed pursuant to the notification. 2.6. The petitioner further submits that the»s_eoo*;:vd respondent submitted application for mining lease ~ 18.04.2007 i.e., about 8 years afte_r....tl,'_1_e Ki was made to Section 11(2) of the there were several applicationvisg_which__ were 'iong " d before the said amendment. single Judgevv order dated 27.11.2006, allowed _1'wri_t trio. 1844572003 and connected _petition_:s:: the foilowing order:-

i'''{ij 4' , filed by the petitioners in en meee petitions shall be considered by the __:G'ovvemrnen.t_...1mder Section 11(2) of the Act _ "«zoith.ont.refe.rence to the first proviso to Section 21(2) of iiridthe impugned notiﬁcations in the light i the obsertiations made above. . [ii] Only in the event of not granting the " tease in favour of any of the petitioners as referred to inﬂiclause {i} supra; the applications received in pursuance of the impugned notiﬁcations in respect of land covered in these writ proceedings, may be considered in accordance with law. i""';:

32

(iii) All the applications pending prior to the impugned notifications and the applications received' in pursuance of the impugned notifications, respect of lands excluding the lands covered..iinderV:'---.. --1-

these writ petitions, the State Governrne_nV_t'~--..is' at _ liberty to consider them in accordance the proviso to Section 11(2) ofthe Actiﬁ ' '

(iv) In the circumstances as aforesaid, is no necessity to quash the___iinpug.ned notifications at the instance of the petitio.nersi ~ (12) All these =.Pe disposed of accordinglyj' ' i ' _ * 4.1. V"'abo§rei said order dated 27.11.2005 eeeeerieee3445/em, the State Government preferred lthppeaieigifJoI$i)ll/20_O7 and connected Writ '_.appea1s_%ii iHoweve1",w--.iI:1o order of interim stay was granted by :DiVisi..on.pBeI1ch and wherefore, the direction given by V the Judge and also the legal position laid 'down the judgment continued to hold the field and \izasiiVbi12.ding on the State Government. Since the order of ___"thei1ea.rned single Judge was not complied With, Contempt iiV"rA.]petition was ﬁled by some of the writ petitioners for enforcement of the judgment and order of the learned {,,.l_,i:,,§ L,::.;,i .

33 single Judge dated 27.11.2006 made in WP. No.18-445 of 2003.

4.2. In the said Contempt Petition, Government of Karnataka filed a reply on wherein it was expressly statevdmthattnone.' applications for mining lease in respectiof the a;"ea coviered by the notifications impugned connected Writ petitior_is._ up for consideration aftergthe filed by the State Governmejr1ti,i':A:vij'zV. and connected writ appeals. _i ii A' 4.3. E-1o'W._ever,i d_espiitei5the specific statement made by V..-'the Se*ci:etaryVVp_to th'e.G.overnment before this Court in the said.t.i"coAnt.ernpti'proceedings, the State Government ___proceed'ed order dated 21.09.2007 recommending caseﬁoif:. the second respondent for grant of mining ..1ea.se.,lvvhich is contrary to the affidavit fiied by the i '---Siecrtiztary to the Government in the Contempt petition and Viu"~.,contrary to the directions issued in W.P. No.18445/2003 and connected writ petitions.

.5 34 4.4. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said recommendation made by the State Government forgrant of mining lease in favour of the second respo_n'd'erit*,--...j:vvr.it'*_ petition No.17828/2007 was filedw before"V-th5$=_.:COVurti contending that the impugned order grant of mining lease in favour lot". the 'sectioned respondent is illegal in the eye of law as it is iugngdiiertaking given by the Secretary the contempt petition as referred' to to the judgment of tl'ie"ilearngedi.:_§invgle*-."_VJudge"dated 27.11.2005 passed in" and connected Writ petitions. it 0 it 0 it 0 0 eAppe'al'""No.80?/2007 and connected I-':'Viap'pealisi:ﬁIed againstﬂthe judgment passed by the learned siingle._c-'Judge'iiiin:_.~~W.P. No.18445/2003 and connected ""petition__s 27.11.2006 were disposed of by the "".'::.".'ADiivision Bench on 12.03.2009, confirming the Judgment ipaissed the learned single Judge dated 27.11.2006. 4.6. Meanwhile, writ petitions were being filed before this Court for grant of mandamus directing the 3,, M"

E '\"» 'f ; if E -E 35 respondents to consider the application of the writ petitioners for grant of mining lease in the light. judgment passed in W.P. No.18445/ 2003 and petitions dated 27.11.2006 and Von prefe'1'en:tia1"w:basis notwithstanding the provisions ol"-._ Sc§ction'ee..l'1i{l2) MMDR Act amended in 1999"ai;d writ. of manda__tnus--5Was issued by this Court.

4.7. Aggrieved learned single Judge granting applications of the writ decision of the learned jisinglei7.;g_Iudge'«.,:'I*eferrcd to above in W.P. No.18445/i2OQ3i aﬁd4si.'¢'¢'tq't:e&ted Petitions, the State vGoverni;nent has..V_l_Vllpreferred W.A. No.1438/2007 and in contending that in View of the proviso to Sectio'n__«1 the MMDR Act ,as amended by if'etmendii'nent. No.38 of 1999, writ petitioners would not errtitledii to premium or preference in consideration of

--t}ﬁ.ei1'§ application before consideration of applications ' "'received pursuant to the notiﬁcation issued Rule 59 of the M.C. Rules. Proviso to Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act as 36 amended in 1999 would clearly state in unambiguous terms that all the applications received in response notification within the time prescribed in such _ and the applications which had beenjiled prior the '(late "' of notiﬁcation and had not been disposed thcfdpeitiei of the notification, shall be deemed tohave on the same day for the purpose of passigning pri'ority.J§

5. The Division by order dated o5.06.2oo9;:««At.in \I¢i,A.i§o'15od:d',k"2o.0:s and connected appeals filed 07.08.2008 passed by the No.21608/ 2005, has narrated thei.._provisi.on*si oioiefeetiion 11(2) of the MMDR Act and hasiheld that the applications received within the in the notification and applications filed before'i...t_he"d'at_e'~iof" notification and which have not been disposed of, shall be deemed to have been received on the and wherefore, the question of granting pref:-thence or priority to any of the applications filed before the' notification would not arise and recommendation should be made having regard to the factors mentioned in

1)' 38 for respondent -- State in other writ petitions submitted that the minerals vest with the State and the State is the owner of the minerals and it is open to th_e..Vi_iState Government to issue notification and grant mining leafs-ell .

accordance with the provisions of thJe...M_§VIDR"Actiianld S"

Rules.

7.2. The mere fact that'iitl1"e..applications"have...Been ﬁled prior to the date of the notipficia'tior1._vwonld -n_otVpreclude the Government from Rule 59 of the M.c. Rules. injvigw g;tfithe.§:;g:gvigggris of"Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act; proviso to the sub--section (2) of Sectilonpll1vl,l ":t.he47a.ppllications received within the time prescribed . _ in the notification and also the inVapiplicationsﬂled,'before the date of the notiﬁcation pending asilonfthe notification, shall be deemed to have been receivedon the same day.

V. The finding of the learned single Judge in WP. H 'iii"--ll\lVop5l8445/2003 and connected petitions disposed of on . 1 1.2006, to the effect that if the applications filed before the date of the notification are considered on priority and axe 39 the State Government decides not to grant mining lease in respect of those applications, then only, the applications ﬁled pursuant to the notification have to be concsid'ere~d, which has been confirmed by the Division ' No.80?/2007 and connected appea1s~'dated'_: is Ki erroneous as proviso to Section the states unambiguously that all the~~..applicationsv_:re-ceived in ii response to the notiﬁcation u.nde.r_fRul._e 5000f the MC. Rules and the applications.'ifiled' date of the notiﬁcation and. not: of, shall be deemed tohave .:l5:een:§t'i1ed'ori the"s'arne day. 7.4. any priority or preference in respect of the"*a_pplicat:ions filed prior to the date of the iflotiﬁcatiori contrary to the provisions of proviso to Sec'ti._o'n_yli MMDR Act and Wherefore, the decision of the i3ivisigondBench in W.A. No.80'?/2007 and connected Appeals dated 12.03.2009 confirming the order dated 2i7.isti2oo6 passed in W.P. No.l844S/2003 and connected petitions by the learned single Judge, requires V ' reconsideration.

40 7.5. The questions referred for reference to this Bench by order of reference dated 15.07.2009 are ret;"L1._ired to be answered in accordance with the provis_c3._to ~ 11(2) of the MMDR Act as amende_d...J'.n__41999"ito:'.the" e_l'fect_V 1' ' that all the applications receixied notification and also the applications prior 'date " 0 of the notification and ...pendingl...asl"on of the notification, shall be on the same day and the on the basis of the circum'slta:11-ces'l3i'entirnera.teldlliri,Section 11(3) of the MMDR auies.

8. "learned senior counsel appearing for't1<1e'reVs'por:_de'nit No.2 in W.P. No.17828 / 2007 and other 2;ff121lZ'1.'.¢I'S su'b'n'1its:

(i)' passed by the learned single Court dated 27.11.2006 in WP.

pp No.'1S445/ 2003 and connected petitions iii-..V"cor1firrned by the Division Bench in WA. No.80?'/2007 and connected appeals, disposed of on 12.03.2009, have to be considered in the _: 3 ' "'"

light of the facts giving rise to points for determination that arose in the said writg petitions and writ appeals;

that the petitioners in those writ petitio'ns--:ljefo'i5e '-- _ it the learned single Judge were the.:' iif who had filed applications'--for ofieivlnivigning lease in respect of 'area in two notifications 2" dated 17.02.2003 and dated tinder the MMDR Act for reserving exploitation of minerals State to 1980 and reservation of i .=lll"c13T1._(A31"v.,"L:,'1'1T|:vlCl"f3:i'V athe notifications issued in 1959, it i965 was wholly without jurisdiction and Wherefore, the dewreservation of the said V.re's_erved area under Notification dated __l517.02.2003 was of no avail and was inconsequential;

42 that no notification could be issued under Rule 59 of the MC Rules, 1960 and wherefore, to Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act ooe:gtooipio;il apply;

that so far as the applications iim_ad_e. purstjani /cc; the notification dated 15.oé§t;v2o03 rvoopooiiofi the area, which concerned, since the issued under Rule" applications received. prescribed under the applications received prior to the i Jinotification, which are pending, it 'be deemed to have been '.receii7ed_on._ the same day;

it that of the proviso to Section 11(2) of the Act, the question of giving any preference ,tof_the applications filed prior to the notiﬁcation Hover the applications filed subsequent to the date of notification would not arise; X' J E:-->~"'é?V 43

(vii) that since both the second respondent and the petitioner in the said Writ petition had applications for grant of mining lease to the notification issued under Rule_-E39-

M.C. Rules and they did noti=.clai_mA,, or preference as app1icants--.._V prior. the',:date.,_,of the notification, the the the learned single and connected corifirmed connected writ ;idif?3l30"si§§l:iiof ' "on .o3.2oo9 would not V1333 of the notification issued; ., (iziii) i:hati..,in r-espect'of"land, which had been reserved he exploitation by the State, no under Rule 59 of the MC Rules could n he zissiued, as the same was not available for Q' of mining lease and licence and therefore, the applications for grant of mining lease received prior to the date of notification needs to 44 be considered on the basis of seniority of the application;

that the order of the learned single WP. No.18-445/2003 and J"connected:'ii'_'Wi*itv*_ appeais dated 27.11.2006 Appeal No.80'?/2007 andiico-npnectedi writ' dated 12.03.2009, tfherefo:r_e.id'oes"not re--consideration; V ii i that in "representing the order passed by the ioeen challenged and since in the said writ petitioii is n'o"t«.p_asvsed in accordance with law, ' ;.ithe_ of granting any priority to the filed prior to the date of the notiﬁcation in respect of land did not arise, and the applications received pursuant to the notification dated 15. 03 .2003 and the applications ﬁled earlier to the date of the notiﬁcation and are pending consideration, have /jaﬁ-'-V-:'é4n-'»',r,\f";)§"\-L 45 to be considered by treating them as having been received on the same day in View of the factors mentioned in Section 11(3) of the Act and Rule 35 of the MC Rules and the of the Tribunal is made subject to that would be rendered No.80'?/2007 filed against theyorder?V:lofj:thV¢ learned Single Judge date_df';2.':7_.l_l.20'O5f_ N0. 1 8445 / 2003 and lliivritilppetitions; that the said .__appealV,' b an 1\fo;807/2007 haS3.:l3C€1'lA 12.03.2009 and to that extent,..V_in_ notification issued on 1§.'03...2009; lrespect of area which had been 'iihleldlbearllier is concerned, all the applications ._ 'recei'v'e'gi..__sub'sequent to the notification within timer'-.pres.cribed and applications filed before the Vdatellllof the notification had to be considered 'together and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be quashed; and 46

(xii) that the question as to whether the State Government had power to reserve any area mineral exploitation by the State prior to pending consideration before Supreme Court in Special Le__aVe"P:eti=tion against the Division Court. Therefore, pendingiqyiithe said question before" Court, the matter girlay the said question. into for answer'ing; irelferred to this Bench.

9. counsei appearing for the respondent _:Vl\Ioe.".3 hind"W.P.No.7850/2008 argued in (if: the orderiiiipassed by the Mines Tribunal " said writ petition and has taken us through order passed by the Tribunal and submitted the order is passed in accordance with law and the 4i'or:de_r'»paissed in W.A. No.80'? / 2007 and connected appeals ..i_d'o~»-not require any reconsideration and since respondent i"No.3 had filed application for grant of mining lease prior to 47 the date of notification, his application is to be considered on priority in preference to the applications response to the notification dated 15.03.2003. ii if V

10. Sri MR. Naik, learned senior cou'nsel.:app'eaIing "

for respondent No.2 in WP. No.1782~8/200;?

(i) that the order impugneiﬂ.:V:311_pthe recommending gravnstppof favo1,1r of the second respondent been set aside by subject matter since the Writ petitioner respondent have filed applications. to the notification, he d0i'es__?not claim....._any preferentiai right over the ' .V.Vap;o1icatiVori"filed by the second respondent;

=».(ii) of proviso to Section 11(2) of the Act, the order recommending grant of if 'vrnining lease in favour of the second respondent impugned in the writ petition may be quashed and the competent authority may be directed to I 48 consider the application of the petitioner and the second respondent for grant of mining leasevpinla. accordance with law;

that the applicant beforeﬂm the it (Respondent No.2 in WP.

entitled to preferential treatnientv. or per the decision of__ the leVarned"wsingle in W.P. i\Eo.18445/ iiiicloininiccted writ petitions dat:ed.__ in Writ Appeal Vconij1ec_t:eid Writ appeals by c-ird¢riasad:edpV_.os'.*2doo9;~ and that it by the second r,e_§spiondent¥a.piplicant before the Mines Tribunal :'«anCl_ﬁapp1Vic-ations filed prior to the date of the .*--notiiicationf'shall be considered simultaneously to have been filed on the same day it it View of proviso to Section 11(2) of the h}MMoRAa. §?x 49

11. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel submitted that no relief is sought for Central Government and the Central Gove:'n1nen.,t_l'l.%_ arrayed as a formal party in the writ p€'tltl01'1_S'.'" .-- 'if.

12. We have given careful7oonsideratio*n «.to,i'the'._ contentions of the learned coiiiasel i.appeari_n§--,ulfo'rthe ll parties referred to above" and the"n1a'terial on record.

13. Before':a(iver'itingl.:'to of the rival contentions, we the threshold contention of the lea'rr1e'd' that the matter is to be kept in abeyance ltillithelldisposalof the Special Leave Petition by

1..-"the H_on.'bEl_e: S_uprerne....Court. At the outset, we are clear no dispute whatsoever regarding the legal positlolnlennnftiiated in the cases of CHHAVI MEHROTRA a.f,y...,yDxREoroR GENERAL, HEALTH SERVICES [(1995)3 ".S.#'l:':V"C'V%L3."'-f»£) and D.K. TRIVEDI AND sons AND OTHERS v. C OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS (AIR 1986 so 1323) ll"~..rLited by the learned senior counsel. However, in the instant case, it is to be noted that primarily the legal f".*'"'a,~.

t 50 position to be answered by us is with regard to the effect of the amendment to Section 11 of the MMDR context of several applicants repeatedly . Court seeking for mandamus to the_a2.1thori_ties" if' their applications by providing prefepreritial t1*eatrr1e:1ﬂf%s..__s.ini this regard, reliance is being on'th,_e jiidgrriieritssdated * if 12.03.2009 passed in _\Z\.I.A. vg1\I0l.}§v07"/.20().?",'--..._S.iiHce the categorization made by has been confirmed in the has created ambiguity as contained in the first proviso Act. Hence, the legal position rsqdires as to consider the cases which are pen'ding.b'eforei'tbe Division Bench. Hence, We far-eAuriable:._*-to accede 't'o'"the contention of the learned senior coinisel.' _ "

considering the contentions of the .4_f_-A.g_.parties with: reference to the material on record to answer questions referred to this Bench, it is necessary to cull f the provisions. of Section 11 of the MMDR Act and '»»..i?§uies 59 and 60 of the MC Rules. Section 1 1 of the MMDR Act reads as follows» (1) Where a reconnaissance permit or prospecting--",:'*._lV.

licence has been granted in respect of any l"

permit holder or the licensee shall have a 4. right for obtaining a prospectingHlicence'x_or' lease, as the case may be, in respect thatlitancl Que? "1 1. Preferential right of certain persons-f--TT, 51 any other person:

that the permit holder'--orftheilicensee,'asthe case may be, --

(G) where the State Government has not notified in the Official Gazette, the area for grant of reconnaissance Provided that the State...Gloveri'imentl issatisfied has f;1ii's»t'ttndeitciken 4' "reconnaissance opera_tiCns*_V or4.p._r__ospecting operations, as the --ic_a;se may 'to' establish mineral ,,reseurcei:;=. in such' land;....

b' .__has not any breach of the terms ._ and conditions of the reconnaissance permit or the prospecting licence"; « _____ H ;

not become ineligible under the proiaisjions of this Act, and ii' .' not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, within three months (2) Subject to the provisions of sub»~section(1), after the expiry of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence, as the case may be, or within such further period, as may be extended by the said Government. 52 permit or prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, and two or more persons have applied'"----_ for a reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence mining lease in respect of any land in such area','"thf._'g--- :_. ' applicant whose application was receivedcieacrlieir, _ shall have the preferential right :t'o""b'e«con-_,sicl,ere'd', forﬁl grant of reconnaissance permit, p"rosp'_ecting" licence 7* A mining lease, as the case may be, over the applicant whose application was received[Zater.' Provided that vggherﬁ . available for grant of reconnaissance ,:je'~r~}4n,i.r," licence or mining lease,_:'as__ the State G0U8mm€W5--..:cha€é'a notiﬁcation in the Ofﬁcial permit, licence or lease," dz:-~;1:~Lj:2 apfgciicatiogn-s reéapeid during the period specifiediinv and the applications whichiihad» been h prior to the publication of sugch. notifica:tion.v'in respect of the lands within such had' lnot--...I:2een disposed oﬁ shall be deemed . :*to have -been received on the same day for the A . cifassigning priority under this sub--section:

further that where any such A applications are received on the same day, the State 3" _ Crovernment, after taking into consideration the matter speciﬁed in sub--section{3}, may grant the T reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit.

53 (3) The matters referred to in subsection (2) are the following-

(a) any special knowledge oﬁ or experience o in, reconnaissance operations, 3 prospecting operations or min_i:{tg"--i I operations, as the case may f._be,g»_ M possessed by the applicant;

{b} the ﬁnancial resources ojfithebapplic-ant;' 4'

(d) the investment whichtlie, applicant proposes to mal<Le_ in the minesnand in the industry based on thg. mineralsg

(e) such other be prescribed.

(4)3 of sub--section (1), 1v:whereil'lvthge..,V_S'tate:"GoverIiment notifies in the Official GaZette"angare_a"for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting'._lice_n"ce or mining lease, as the case may be, the applications received during the _a:* ..speciﬁediiin such notiﬁcation, which shall i b--e_i'less£than thirty days, shall be -considered . '-- as if all such applications have been receiz.ge<ii-oh the same day and the State Government after. taking into consideration the matters speciﬁed , in'»,sub~section (3), may grant the reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem ﬁt.

54 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2), but subject to the provisions of sub~;--"=. section (1), the State Government may, for special reasons to be recorded, :_. reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or ' lease, as the case may be, to an""'applicant_.whose L"

application was received later in p:%efe'rence"tol' an applicant whose applicationfwas received earl'ier.= .V l; Provided that in respectpoflrninerals--specy'ied in the First Schedule;,4.'ji!.riorj'liapprovalvnqf the ceiirraz Government shall be obtainecl' ;befo"ref_'pas_sing any J) "

order under this sub-section;

15. Rule the as foI10ws:--

"59; Availability areaj for regrant to be notiﬁed :_- (Ll )_ Nofa real V' y "

(ajxuahich Apreviiously held or which is being held, under 'a reconnaissance permit or a ' prospectingylicence or a mining lease; or i " -. _y (b}'i«.pw'hich has been reserved by the Government orllanly}. local authority for any purpose other V ' fthanfrnining,' or (of) in" respect of which the order granting a " permit or licence or lease has been revoked under sub--rule (1) of rule 7A or sub-rule (1) of rule 15 or sub--rule (1) of rule 31, as the case may be; or

(d) in respect of which a notification has been issued under sub-section (2) or sub--section (4) of section I 17; or 55

(e) which has been reserved by the State Government or under Section 1 7A of the Act, shall be available for grant unless-

(i) an entry to the effect that the area is aL'ai'lable" "

for grant is made in the register reﬁerreditog in sub--rule (2) of rule 713 or si;1.bb--ra_le'(2)"'Qf'riile_ or sub--rule {2} of rule 40, as'.t_he__case be; it and

(ii) the availability the areainﬁrrllgrant is'ri--otzﬁed in the Oﬂicial Ga-Qetteg and "spja;:i;y:ng a date (being a date not Vearliehrltlianlthirtyvdays from the datepf the:;A_publicati«ori'vlojf notiﬁcation in the""-from which such area shall Pr*ovided'tihat nothing in this rule shall apply to the renewal oft: leaAsel:i'n._hfavour of the original lessee orghis legal notwithstanding the fact that the already-.e--9«:pired.' t. :V"Pfrovvid_ed.. further that where an area reserved "wider or under Section 17A of the Act is 1oi'opo*sedv'to be granted to a Government Company, x no notification under clause (ii) shall be required to V' _ beissued:

Provided also that where an area held under a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence, as the case may be, is granted in terms of sub--section ,. ll 57 Section 2 of the Act that it was expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its-'"---- control the regulation of mines and the development:.f"--«.V"'* of minerals to the extent provided in the Act. T --1- State Legislatures power under entry _ was thus taken away and it is not 'disputed.l5eforé: us that development had therejfo're° to 'be' accordance with the Act and-the R'u_z_e.'s. Thelitiiines and minerals in question {ba'uia'te) wer'e._lhowVeve':f' the territory of the State andfas was stated in the orders'--.wh,ich by the Central Government onlthe hreuibsioinvhapplioations of the appellants«,.._Vthe State the "owner of mineraigei qnd the minerals "vest" in it,' Act or the Rules to detract fact That was why the Central' further in its revisional orders State" (iouemment had the "inherent right to rese"rue_VlaVny particular area for exploitation in ¢ the p»ul9lic.sector.V" lllll 0' A*VAi8;.ii;f;'itfi'sst.:w.P_ No.18445/2003 and connected petitions, theipeltitioners have challenged the notifications "*l'l.-:iV"v*d_ated 17v.,02.2003 and 15.03.2003 referred to above l"'oo'1n'p1ai.ii1ing that their preferential right under Section if of the MMDR Act are affected by those notifications. A may noted at the outset that the constitutional validity of 59 disposed of, shall be deemed to have been received on the same day for the purpose of assigning priority said sub-section.

18.3. In our considered opinion,f_ the't-iI.fmVoin:en't.s V notiﬁcation has been issued in vievsixoftthe provi's:o._tio'r._ sub--section (2) of Section p the lithe it i petitioners would lose their prefe'1e.ntia"ls._right aiidtthey are placed on par with the appliicianits; applications in response to the n0ti.fic--atio_n.; 18.4. Oi; jjiwtassﬂalsou"co'ntended by the Writ petitioners.' thatthe?-vSitate-e._Croy*e'rnment had no power to reserve the rni.neralis._for_ iieigliploitation by the State prior to *'1.6v.O1.,_ii3.8QiiV'arid tries notifications issued during 1959, 1961 and.1963'vv.d'e~;notifying the said reservation and throwing ¢._the area for grant of lease by notification dated ..i_j_r.__li7,pO2.2OE)é"could not be passed.

it Though the applicant--writ petitioner had filed T -applications much prior to coming into force of the .A.I1'l€I'1d1'i1eI1t Act as referred to above: their preferential 60 right is given a go--by moment the notification is issued and they have to stand in a queue with the other applicaritsifor consideration of their claim and this would affect the preferential rights which had under Section 11(2) of the MMDR Therefore, the petitioners sought for, iiiquashi1:;g.A.._VoVf the notifications and for a _directiori"'-.to-..theiiresppondents to consider their application'si:i"Q_n'--.prii.orityiciba'sils in preference over the applicati'or1s filed' date of the applications o_fthe_ v§%r,i.t p'e4tit_io--ner.s.:f.' v .

19. A' 1844h/ 2003 and connected petitions vvere, the respondents therein contend;in'gi..that"' provisions of Section 11(2) of the and unambiguous.

the applications filed prior to the notificatioiiiphave not been disposed of, all the applications wperei filed before the date of the notification and the 'applications received in response to the notification within hiitheiprescribed period shall be considered together and this would not cause prejudice to the writ petitioners, who have 'V311.

61 no vested right for consideration of their claim for grant of mining lease as the State is the absolute owner of the minerals and as owner, it is open to the State togiissue notifications so that opportunity would be . to competitively apply for grant of painting l_e'as'eiiand-tl'1er'ev 1"' shall also be transparency and equal mining public, which weu1ci1a_ 'r;e_t be :_axrai11g1b'le""-eeif the = "

applications are scrutinized opn---p'1*iori.ty basis giving preference to the applications 'and Wherefore, notifications have..be.en fiialipdijyr issued in'u«accordance with law. In vi'eW' S'ec'ti1on 11(2) of the MMDR _Act, all the ._app1ieatio'ns'--»received subsequent to the notiﬁcation VtheV'app_lica'tions filed prior to the date of the no-tifiica-tionpp have t0"'b1e considered together. _ single Judge clubbed all the writ Vpetitioris, avvherein the above referred notifications dated 1if"1's:ﬂ02i;2«p003'end 15.03.2003 had been challenged and by order dated 27.11.2006, held that the State Gcivernrnent had no power to reserve the mining area for exploitation by the State prior to 16.01.1980, when the 62 power was given to the Government for reserving the land for exploitation by the State and therefore, the notifica:ti'ons of the years 1959, 1961 and 1965 were without _ and the order de--notifying the said land _b_'y*~ dated 17.02.2003 was inconsequential,-~'1lheii'leeu5n'ed"

Judge observed that in View ofilthe proviso to 121(2) of the MMDR Act, once a n0tifica:'At.i:o11.__has'been issued in the Official Gazette for grant of permit, licence or lease, all received during the period and the applicatiopns" haddpp"-beien'"'received prior to the publication.' in respect of the lands Within suuchla11ea' anti Ahad~"not been disposed of, shall be fiVdeemg;:r',t(;..rjhave bieetrreceived on the same day for the purposes priority under the said sub--section 1 and learned single Judge held that the point arosepwfor determination by the Court in the Writ was as to whether the provisions of Section 11(2) MMDR Act as amended by Amendment Act No.38 of 001999, which has come into effect from 18.12.1999, is prospective and it would take away the right of the /' '*~\ 0.,» rs.

63 preferential right provided in the first part of subsection (2) of Section 11 of the MMDR Act, of those applicanVtsei,.iyv1jio had filed applications prior to coming into force' amended provision.

20.2. The learned single Judge petitioners, in the absence 'iQf*~._the A"no_tificatio'n'""had a " if preferential right of consideration o.f-their applications over the applicants, who havemade'applicationssubsequent to the date of their_.appiiCati.:on;s;_:'V.::'l'1rie"~:e'ffec't the notification is that the 'izheir preferential right. Notwithstandingi'the__iact'that the petitioners are waiting in the queue' vvfor» complying with various requireriients of now they are made to stand along who may make an application in impugned notifications.

S2-.~O.3,__>N_o}~' doubt, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme in 'v..£lLMRITLAL i~zA*rHUBr-IA: SHAH (supra), no l_'peirs_o'n -has any right to exploit the minerals otherwise than if ':l_in-accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules 64 and the State Government is the owner of the minerals Within its territory and the minerals vest in it. 20.4. The State Government had the inherent' _ reserve any particular area for exploAitpation_."i'i'1" "

sector and the petitioners also claimed preferential rlig}1--tA.ii1I_:

accordance with the Rules on1y_v"a.nd the: 5not = 0' absolute. Sub-section (5:)of Seyctio'n_ of H lthe.,_MMDR Act provides that for any special rc_aVsovnsl"toA.ibe_precorded, the State Governmentﬂnay avlease an applicant, application receivedreiarlier'suhiect to the same, the Rules recognize a lpreferentialiyrightgi 4' The "learned single Judge accepted the eontentioriv--..tl*ir:1txthere was no provision for reserving the 0 it exploitation by the State prior to 1980 and notiﬁcations issued in the years 1959, 1961 and 1965 the land for mineral exploitation by the State are jurisdiction and consequently, the notification 17.02.2003 pertaining to de--reservation of the land mentioned therein, is also inconsequential and learned 65 single Judge further held that the vested right of preference over the applications filed according to seniority coiiidriiot be taken away by the proviso to Section 11(2) _ amendment Act, 1999 and the apetitioners challenged the provisions of thei'-._MMDl2 provisions of Section 11 of be construed and notification 'VV_y_atranls';3a1fenVriEy and opportunity to the ptiblicl to S'-rnaléiel."appli*cations and to compete.

the notifications'v.'vVand, issued directions that the applicationsilﬁliedi notification shall be _cor1sidae;%e"ciefwithoutiﬂreference to proviso to Section 11(2) of the impugned notifications; and in the everitﬁof of the lease in favour of the petitiori'ers',hath'e applications received in response to the inuotification' shall be considered in accordance with law and allowed the Writ petition and the same has confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. reﬁner:

-4 c 66 No.80?/2007' and connected writ appeals, disposed of on 12.03.2009.

20.7. The learned single Judge observed t_hat _ of proviso to sub--section (2) of Section 11;'of~ "= Act, once a notification has been i'ssu:e'd.,i'the_ qliesitiong ' giving any preference to the zipplications whiich»»[2ha.ve--~3not been disposed of and had date of the notification, will along with the applications receiVe:d.__in and all the applications haiieiibeen received on the same *day_. _i it i 20.8. i'1'h4_e" learned Judge further observed in _ para the orderiias fol1ows:~ -

« proviso to subsection {2} of Section " . the applications received prior to the publication of the notﬁication in respect of lands in AA suchudrea and' had not been disposed of shall be , :deemed to have been received on the same day for purposes of assigning priority under that sub- section. Thus, once a notification is issued under this proviso calling for applications, persons who have made applications prior to the notification ,5' V 1*' .7 ' <f;;:N...§,..

6'7 would lose their preferential right and their applications would be considered along with the""--- applicants who filed applications in pursuance of the notiﬁcation. It is interesting to note that -5 these provisions are under challenge q provisions are operating in thei'r"irespec'.five.ﬁelds. 7 Under these circumstances, it wouldf_'be'lapprépiiate to harmonize the conﬂictinqclaims and' givee.ejj'ectqqvto these statutory provisions."

20.9. The learned 'appreciated the advantages that would notification calling for lease and held that it is in as follows:--

throws open the entire e5ctent_of mlirii_ng::_larea for public participation, thel"l.1onai jidesl of" the Government cannot be A It public interest. It leads to V Every citizen would have an equal ._ blop[Jortui"r_~l'.;'ty'~i;f.(jli.the largesse of the Government. It is an to give equal opportunities to every one in so fanas public wealth is concerned. It is in tune 2 with equality clause, enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. It would not be proper to scuttle this attempt on the part of the Government by hyper technical interpretation of the provisions. The intention of the Parliament in enacting this provision is to be kept in mind, respected and given effect to.

fl/'w"2;~., H 30 of the order as fo110ws:--

But, at the same time, if these notifications were to affect the interest of persons, by taking away their preferential rights which is provided under Rules, Court should be slow in giving effect to such__ai*__1 5' on the part of the Government..." 20.10. The learned single linj paragraph, has further observed as follows: V A ' "...If the Government by its--_ino.ction,iilethargic attitude or for any otheri'reasor{g'b.een able to dispose of the applications grant'i~:ofi-i'lease for decades, the tipplicarlts to suffer. It would arrto'I;r_it5Ii.ii.t<';J7_ premium on the inaction on tihelAiiGo:§2emment. {f the applications'lvjarey_wairing~«in the queue for more than a decade and in for more than two -- three decadesaaind itheye complied with the legal requirements the matter is agitated in different of such 'applicants, for no fault of their's, is i A:to".stand along with the applicants who '-- applications in pursuance of the i'mpugned<:i"i notifications, it would be a travesty of justice} unfair and unreasonable. . .. "

if The learned single Judge further observed in 70 covered which is the subject matter of these writ petitions) the Government is at liberty to consider all the pending applications before the notification and applications received after notification together required under proviso to Section 11(2) and appropriate orders. This arrangement advance the cause of justice and equitable." "In: '-- circumstances, it would not be to' the legality of these notificationsilor the same at the instance'iiof~.the petiti'o.nersi'in:'"a.l.l. these writ petitions... "

20.14. Ultimately; "'~.til1ye' §m.g1e Judge has passed the following vQrd€:'f':"--" ~ if: V "(i)_' filedwby the petitioners in all writ: be considered by the State Cl?o.ver?1ntent'A.u'ndier Section 11(2) of the Act without reference toithe first proviso to Section 11(2) . V. ( 'of<th3e";Ac't..and theminipugned notifications in the light V ofitAhe.4o'bs"erva.tions made above. 4' the event of not granting the lease in favour,' any of the petitioners as referred to in S * clause. (i) supra; the applications received in " -pursuance of the impugned notiﬁcations in respect of land covered in these writ proceedings, may be considered in accordance with law. 71 All the applications pending prior to the impugned notifications and the applications received in pursuance of the impugned notiﬁcations, respect of lands excluding the lands covered these writ petitions, the State Governmentffis liberty to consider them in acc_orda_nce_-'ii)ith:'ft.hé'i proviso to Section 11(2) of the Act.f__

(iv) In the circamstancesos aforesaid, 1tvhe.1fe__i§ no necessity to quash the impugned notuificaitionsigat the instance of the petitioners;''''' A V

(v) All these Writ'Peiifioins.~..afefdisposed of accordingly. "l 4 _ 27.11.2005 W.A. No.80?'/2007 and connected Writ appeaisl 'the Division Bench of this _Court vdipsposed o.f"the_____appea3.s by order dated 12.03.2009 iiC'onﬁr'n1ing:_thce<.,ord_er passed by the learned single Judge in and connected writ petitions dated i"iiit.ggg_2i'.7V.311.2606.-L .ViThe Division Bench of this Court while of the said Writ Appeals, heid that the finding of learned single Judge that there was no proviso prior to iV""A.._1_6.01.1980 for reserving the land for exploitation by the State and wherefore, reservation of mining area for 72 exploitation by the State Government during 1959, 1961 and 1963 were without jurisdiction and notification 17.02.2003 was inconsequential. The Division "

order dated 12.3.2009 in Writ Appea1»No».so7getgiiéloot 1' further held that in VieW of the proviso"«to:'sulo--section (2)54. V Section 11 of the Act, once a notificjationh all the applications receiveéidurizig «specified in such notification and the had been received prior to oi and had not been considered together and thus o1:riserveld'lin the judgment as fol1ows:--

"20:g so .as'=._the second point for consideration. " _aV--. combined reading of the provisions of 'Section 11, Rules 59 and 60, it be-éoriiesgclear that~t--he' applications filed prior to the issue _oj'..._notification inviting applicants in . respectof areasuwhich require such a notification will be"p'i'*eVmaftu.r'e. if the State Government has not 'disposed such applications as premature, they 9-'ontiiiue to remain without being entertained. Then such of those applications

--.1uhich are not disposed of attaining maturity on

- p thehappening of the two events viz., relaxation of " _ ' xrequirement of Rule 59(1) by the Central ' Government under Rule 59(2) or issuance of do notification under Rule 59(1) inviting applications for grant of mineral concessions will have to be necessarily considered along with the applications received pursuant to the notification. "

73

21.2. The Division Bench in its order dated 12.3.2009 in Writ Appeal No.80? of 2007 etc., gppro§%orri'~..V the observations of the learned single Judge thatiri rvevspeictc' of non~Writ petitioners, the applicatisjnsiiiiled-«,prior"

notification have to be considered. along :,_wit11" '' applications ﬁled in response to no'tification:v,}2nmder proviso to Section 11(2) of the observed in para 24 of the judgment as "24. The learnéecigsingle' Judgegin' our view, is right in giving direc-tionsto consider.the._app.lications of non--writ petitioners, "whoseapp_licat£o'ns___are pending and not rejected as"o--pj-ema?fui'e, be _considered along with those ':applican'i9s."'r._,who"-have filed pursuant to the notification «as percthe' proviso to Section 11(2) of the Act." - .

21.3.' The oivrs1_orr Borroh in its order dated 12.3.2009 No.80'? of 2007 etc, in para 26 of the judgrnefit,,~i1§iI'tilie_:"observed as foi1ows:4 V ~~"2t':E. Since, the aforesaid core issues have Iﬁeenz rightly considered and answered by the V _ _i "learned single Judge based on the authoritative pronouncements of the Constitutional Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not ﬁnd any error having been cominitted in issuing the directions contained in the impugned order, which are nothing 74 but equitable and consequential directions, taking into consideration the individual facts and circumstances of each of the writ petitions. Since the core issues that fall for consideration have been considered and answered by the leamed_s'i'n.gle.i_i."~ Judge in the order dated 27.11;;2006,. the V i contentions canvassed by the learned czouriselfor the ' appellants, which relate to only the.con.seque'ntia'l directions, which have been iss'iiVed in the order, do not survive.' for VA,-cicns-ideration.ili contentions of the learned' counsel v_ fo}e_fhe"appellants would have survived forgcovnsideration;~.hadifwe found fault with conclusjiofn oflthef. leiamedvsinghleilgjdudge with regard to right rese.rua.tion. ifiaving found that no errormhasibeen:ffconimitted learned single Judgefin that hold' that the contentions with regard to the issued by the learned single Judge', do not for consideration."

;iee'd:»d,iJdgiyQiiheepivieiediseneh by order dated 12.3.2009 in of 2007 etc., confirmed the order vV'.;-ildated 2i'7--.11«.,;'20¢i"i"7i passed by the learned single Judge in i iiJ'i'llritigiPetitior1"'No.18445/2003 and connected matters. That apart, the Division Bench of this Court in No.5026/2008 and connected writ appeals by order "dated 05.06.2009, had occasion to consider the provisions '75 of Section 11 of the MMDR Act and has laid down that in View of proviso to Sub--section (2) of Section MMDR Act, once a notification has been issu_c'd',* applications received during the period spec*ified, notiﬁcation and the applications which:"h.ad3been'- prior to the date of the notific-ationl'-and' [r1o.tVVVl:léeen disposed of are to be consider_e:_icﬂ-.a_s=._having_ on the same day and the questioiiof .'<V'3i1'_';...':'ﬁp.f't',V'f€I'€1'1C€ to the applicants, who pad_filed'iappiieatipr;aipap;to the date of the notiﬁcatioril' had not been disposed 0 0 irom the above referred observations of V_:the..'-learned single Judge in the order ini llNo'}li5i3445/ 2003 and connected Writ 1.2006 and also the observations of the Division E§enc.h while confirming the said order of the single Judge in Writ Appeal No.80'?/2007 and 4l_l_corinet:ted writ appeals disposed of on 12.03.2009, that the 0 single Judge as also the Division Bench have held speciﬁcally that in view of the proviso to Section 11(2) of }\ 2 .

$A ,5 2' 76 the MMDR Act, which has come into force by Amendment Act No.32 of 1999 with effect from 18.12.1999, vallrthe applications received in response to such ri;o't'i«fication Within the period specified in such notific.atio:n~,v applications which had been received? uipr1ioir"- iitof-sr.___tlieii publication of the notification 'respect. of the such area and had not been dispuosed.._pof,i sliallvnﬁibevifideemed to have been received oniflie. the purpose of assigning priority uiider regard to the 11(2) of the MMDR "c1e'ar'iandltiiiambiguous, it was the only interpretation given to, for giving effect to first proviso to"~Se'ctiVo'n (i)_.~*]"iiiof the MMDR Act. of the first proviso to Section 1 Act, are clear, plain and unambiguous. 'They are reiasonably susceptible to only one meaning as aiso been held by the learned single Judge in WP. / 2003 and connected Writ Petitions disposed of "--o:ri"i27.11.2006 and confirmed by the Division Bench in 'WA. No.80?/2007 and connected appeals disposed of on '77 12.03.2009 that all the applications received within the time prescribed in the notification and the applivcatiorns ﬁled prior to the date of the notification disposed of, shall be deemed to have been '* same day for the purpose of assigning ij31'ioritj;_ and are bound to give effect to th..at~....mear'1ing. ir'res=p_ect.i.Ve of 2 0' consequences and the qi,1estiona..oifp"'con.strLictior1H of; Statute does not arise as the Statute has to be given effecptétio or not as laid down by the ,VinHi0:URUDEVDATTA VKSSS Allllailil 'Morgans v. STATE or MAHARASHTRA (AIR 2001 so 1930;.

22!}. ThatV_:apai'=t,i'itii"si clear from the above referred :,':'Vrn'ateria,l:' on record thiatinone of the writ petitioners in W.P. connected writ petitions had challengedv'thelrfirst proviso to Section 11(2) of the MMDR, whichrhas come into effect from l8.12.1999. They had llonljriichallenged the notification, which would affect their 0 lppiieferential right.' Learned single Judge has also observed "win his judgment, as culled out above, that none of the '78 petitioners had challenged the constitutional vaiidity of the first proviso to Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act . and wherefore, full effect has to be given to the provisionvs.of_.the MMDR Act.

22.5. As per the observationshiiade V"

single Judge, which has been confirmed 'the' respect of non--writ petitioners,' i._e".~»..the p'er_sonsV-vvh.o"'arie'°not " V parties in the writ petitions decided.b'y_ the 'learned single Judge and confirmed if v"»i:Ii'terpretation of proviso to Se(2tiC_),I1.ll 1(2) by the learned single Judge_ the Division Bench is to the effect that ialllthei received in response to the notiﬁca€;jio1'le..and theiiapplications received prior to the date llof and had not been disposed of, shall be received on the same day and shall be disposed.ofaccordinglyi Even in the operative portion .:'.j"idfe»iheie;~dei of the learned single Judge dated 27.11.2006, "has been confirmed in appeal, it has been V _ if "speciﬁcally ordered in clause (iii) of the operative portion of the order that all the applications pending prior to the

5. Z , j 7'9 impugned notifications and the applications received in pursuance of the impugned notifications, in respect,,Vof}the lands excluding the lands covered under _ petitions, the State Government isJatliberty'"to'_~consideru them in accordance with the proviso-.to 1 MMDR Act. However, the saidi_i'n1;erpre'tation to v S' Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act...:to'ipv.the,Aeffectthati once a notiﬁcation has been all received in response to the prescribed time and also had not been disposed been received on the same davfor assigning priority, has been given goeby or"dispen--seid_ and the directions have been 'ViilSS1.1€Ci:...l:'l1';{f~.I'iE'Sp€Clil""Uf'i the writ petitioners that the them shall be considered by the State Government'Zojninpreferential basis under Section 11(2) of ,AMMDiR.APic:t without reference to first proviso to Section

1.l{2}'»ofn5the MMDR Act and the impugned notifications and if 'only': in the event of not granting of lease in favour of any of the Writ petitioners, the applications received in pursuance of the impugned notifications in respect of land covered in 80 those writ proceedings, may be considered in accordance With law.

22.6. The only reasoning assigned by V' single Judge for excluding the applicability oiilltoo Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act to Altheyirrit pve_titi.oners*..iis"~_ that they had filed applicationgs.:rp'rior Vito-the the it notiﬁcation and they have in'°q'ueue for decades and notiﬁcations?"iii?1?i§.'.~writ Petitions would affect their had, prior to the oi the MMDR Act by equity and interest of justice requirediythatiisuchlari"order should be passed. r_nay"b'e.n..Qtved that the learned single Judge or the ._E(:3z1i'i*Cl'1 has not held that the notifications challenged writ petitions are liable to be quashed. Viii"'~..«._H0pWever; the learned single Judge without quashing the 'notifications dated 17.02.2003 and 15.03.2003, has 'the-procieeded to issue directions as referred to above for consideration of the applications of the writ petitioners in accordance with the preferential right, which they had, ':3? ' 81 prior to amendment of Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act in 1999.

22.8. It is Well settled that interpretation' provisions of a statute has to be co1fnplete_--i11'v--aIj1.. respects W it and interpretation would not depend upon factliasg 'to whether the parties have appr_oached"v.thoVCovurt'vorHnon-- parties to the writ petitions there be one interpretation in respect approached the Court and another of persons who have i._ei,iiiVnon--parties to the writ petition, learned single Judge in his order dated..tt27t.1i1v;t2i00e ltpd§tséd in w.p. No.18445/2003 and connected lwrﬁupletitions, which has been confirmed by lgench in WA. No.80'?/2007 and connected writ.appédié"'1§y dyad dated 12.03.2009. learned single Judge nor the Division confirming the order of the learned single have held that the application of the writ petitioners been disposed of when the notification had been issued on 15.03.2003. The very direction issued by the 82 learned single Judge as confirmed in appeal would show that the direction has been issued for consideration applications of the writ petitioners on priority""'ba'sis preference to applications received subsequ_e~nt.--.t:o.,th.e date"

of notification and that the ap:p_Vlicatioins'ei,.ofi"'th"e':~.ru,§Vi?itAi petitioners had not been disposed of.'-._ the absence of any challenge to to Section 11(2) of the fan.d""trl'lepi'interpretation of the said proviso t'o:"S_ectio'n"l Act by the Division of the learned single as the applications of the writ and not disposed of on the date of the"-no'tificati'0_n*and in View of proviso to Section 1(2) the? it is clear that the question of tre.atir1g¥ ~lapp.lications of the writ petitioners in prefereriCe_.~ 'lithe applications filed later and the ..,fiyj"ap'plication_s' received in response to the notification is °Clear'l§,r erroneous and cannot be sustained and the order 12.03.2009 passed by the Division Bench in W.A. ii""'Nio.807/2007 and connected writ appeals confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP. 83 No.18-445/2003 and connected writ petitions dated 27.11.2006 requires reconsideration as the samewsiiifers from error apparent on the face of the record as_1'eferi'e_d5 _ above.

23. In View of the above reasoni-ngl, we' .an-sWert.__theii questions referred for consideration'-._of Bench} as fol1oWs:--

(i} In 11(2) of the MMDR Act, 19r5?,»..me frpaptpiicsitiisns filed prior to no*tifi'ea.tior2__ 59(1) of the ''_'''''cannot be given preferential if the applications filed pursuant to' .- notification and all the apgplicatioinspp "'rece':EVed during the period svpecifiedg. in notification and the V .vifapp1'icati0n:s,--.which had been received prior to H '-- of such notification in respect of the within such area and had not been AA disposed of, shall be deemed to have been V.:ret;eived on the same day for the purpose of assigning priority.

(ii) In View of our answer to question No.1, the Judgment of the Division Bench dated 84 12.03.2009 made in Writ Appeal No.80'?/2007' and connected Writ Appeals requires reconsideration and the law laid down by Division Bench while confirming the the learned single Judge in :WV. " ~ 2 No.l844S/2003 and connected ,Writ_"i5et'iti§;.ris' disposed of on 27.11.2006 to the re-ffect'eethat"the'if-.,___ 7 applications received priorto th'eA_publicat'ioiri' of notiﬁcation shall be considered iby._Vthe"_: it Government under ,.SectioAn~~ (.2)'--»..of the 'Ml\/.{I§)R Act without referencep_'to_p i"fir'stpi'iproviso to Section 11(2)_ of thﬁ.e:.ACt'.i._V§l1;ld'i.i"thE:..lsiﬁlpllgnﬁd notiﬁcation*s'°a:nd only of non-

granting' of any of the applicants;*;&'ho:"had,i_ifi.1ed applications prior to the date' of' the applications rec_e_ivedi4"~ of the impugned rldtificat.i'onisha11....13,; considered in accordance ii not sustainable in the eye of law p 'is:"'o§/_erifuled.

"~--V1n"'i7iew of the answer to questions of law ;i5eferre€1.ptov"ithis Bench for consideration and in View of the *si1I:iI;j1ission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties . V the Writ petitions and writ appeals may be directed to be disposed of by the Division Bench in accordance with

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court