Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The allegations contained in these writ petitions in brief are as follows:

The 2nd respondent issued Annexure-A notification under Rule 31-A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, notifying the particulars of the land intended to be granted by tender-cum-auction to intending bidders. The last date of auction was 23-9-1995. The petitioner, being interested in item No. 1 in Annexure-A, made an offer of Rs. 60.10 lakhs with respect to Sl. No. 1 therein. Detailed description of Sl. No. 1 was provided specifying the minor mineral, total area and the specific boundaries. The said bid was the highest. As required, the petitioner had deposited Rs. 6,30,000/- by way of earnest money. The petitioner's bid was accepted and he deposited the balance amount of Rs. 53,80,000/- within the period prescribed. As per communication dated 13-11-1995, the tender-cum-auction was confirmed in favour of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent called upon the petitioner to execute the lease deed in Form-F within three months thereof. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 14,000/- being survey and demarcation charges and 50% of the dead rent payable under Rule 18(2). The dead rent is fixed with reference to the mineral in the area covered (vide Rule 31-F(2). Treating 29 acres as the area covered by mineral, the 50% dead rent was fixed at Rs. 2,17,500/-. Thereupon, Annexure-B was written by the 2nd respondent on 20-12-1995, calling upon the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Mysore District, to conduct joint survey along with Revenue Authorities and demarcate the area as per the enclosed notified sketch and submit a report on the exact deposit available in the granted area with specific reference to the boundaries and check bandhis. Annexure-C is the report submitted by the Senior Geologist on 16/19-2-1996 showing that in the total extent of 29 acres sold, granite deposit was found only in 5 acres. The petitioner thereupon submitted Annexure-D wherein, after referring to Annexure-C report, he, inter alia, submitted that as the area sold contained only 5 acres of black granite, the 2nd respondent may hand over 29 acres of area having black granite. He submitted Annexure-E representation to the Minister for Mines and Geology. The petitioner claimed that item No. 1 in Annexure-A for which the petitioner submitted tender-cum-auction was described as an area of 29 acres of black granite and his bid was made on the said representation made by the respondent accordingly. Because it was represented to him as such, his bid amount was fixed at Rs. 60.10 lakhs for 29 acres of black granite. In his representation, he also stated as hereunder:

2. It was pointed out that various representations had been made to handover the entire 29 acres containing the black granite to the petitioner. It has been pointed out that the petitioner acted on the representation held out by the respondents and offered his bid of 60.10 lakhs. As per Rule 8-B, the quarrying leases to quarry the specified or non-specified minor mineral in an area belonging to the State Government and available for grant should be notified for disposal by tender-cum-auction and when once such notification is issued, the bidders will act on the information given by the department and offer bids. It has been pointed out that the bidders honestly believe that the notification has been issued by the department after carrying out the preliminary investigation and after obtaining a report of the availability of the black granite in the area of 29 acres. It was also pointed out that the persons who apply for grant of quarry lease under Rules contained in Chapter III select an area and apply for the same enclosing a sketch. Such applicants would have carried on their own investigations and applied for the area. Such applicants have got an option to surrender part of the area under Rule 19 of the Rules. Such liberty and option is not available to a bidder who offers his bid for the area notified under Rule 31-A. It has been pointed out that according to Rule 17, the boundaries will have to be specified which should run vertically downwards below the surface towards the centre of the earth. It is on the basis of availability of granite the department has to publish a notification under Rule 31-A. It turns out that the department has not followed the principles laid down by the rules before publishing a notification as per Annexure-A. The department seems to have proceeded on assumption that granite is available in 29 acres. It is submitted that the department cannot wriggle out of its responsibility in not handing over 29 acres containing black granite to the petitioner.

6. A detailed statement of objection has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating, inter alia, as hereunder:

It is stated that as the petitioner himself wrote after the confirmation of the auction expressing his eagerness to execute the lease deed it was executed and as such there is no question of the refund of Rs. 59.50 lakhs as now claimed. As per Annexure-R2, it is clear that the petitioner has given consent for fixing the boundaries. After these representations, the petitioner cannot now withdraw from the terms and conditions. It was stated that there was no assurance on the part of the State Government that black granite was available in the entire 29 acres. He participated in the auction as per the notification with full knowledge of this fact and he was aware of the terms and conditions of the auction as also the area to be auctioned. When the area is auctioned, the successful bidder will have right to excavate the minerals found in the area auctioned which has to be carried out in a systematic way stipulated under the Mining Act and Rules. For systematic and scientific quarrying, the area has to be developed with proper approach roads and temporary sheds have to be erected for storing quarrying material, labour sheds, etc. The present black granite deposit extends North-West-South-East direction for a length of about 1,000 ft., and over a width of about 200 ft. The dyke rock dips towards North-East direction and extends to greater depths. This black granite deposit is exposed at the top of a hillock whose height is about 100 ft., from the ground surface. To quarry the black granite deposits found in the area, approach roads have to be made, waste rock and soil has to be removed, benches have to be formed for systematic and scientific quarrying. The waste rock and the soil has to be deposited in the area in such a way that it does not affect the ecology and environment etc. To quarry in such a systematic way, the quarry has to be properly developed by making the above mentioned developmental works. For doing this, an additional non-mineralised area is also required for the lease holder. If such an additional non-mineralised area is not available under the lease, then he will be forbidden from developing the quarry and disposing of the waste material. Since the black granite deposit dips in a north-easterly direction, as the quarrying progresses the occurrence of deposit will be in the north-easterly direction. The black granite deposit which is exposed at the surface now towards all along the south-western portion of the lease will gradually move towards north-eastern direction at depth. Therefore, for systematic and scientific quarrying additional nonmineralised zone at the surface has to be included, so that, the black granite deposit available in the area could be exploited to the fullest extent up to a reasonable depth.

8. I have heard Mr. M.R. Achar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kantharaju, learned Government Advocate for the respondents, at length.

9. The whole dispute now has arisen due to the difference in the area embedded with of minerals assumed to be available as per auction notification, by the petitioner from what exactly was found available in the area. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondents had notified to sell minor mineral, namely, black granite spread in an area of 29 acres in Sy. No. 248. Whereas the respondents contend that they merely notified to sell the black granite found available in the 29 acres of land in Sy. No. 248. According to them, the area occupied by black granite is unspecified and is situate within the 29 acres of notified land. As could be seen, it is their case that they did not intend to represent to the public that the entire 29 acres of land notified in Annexure-A as Sl. No. 1, contained black granite; but the petitioner contends that the notification was an overt representation in that behalf to the prospective bidders holding that the black granite existed in 29 acres and as such the respondents cannot resile therefrom. We will now examine this question first, before going into other contentions.