Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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, any other person:
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 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 disposed of, shall be deemed to have been received on the same day for the purpose of assigning priority said sub-section.

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 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 .

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.