Shambhu Singh vs State Of Raj & Anr on 30 March, 2012
Shri Kamlakar Sharma, learned senior counsel has also submitted that State Government cannot act in violation of statutory rules. For this, reliance has been placed on Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Hari Har Yadav & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1082, Union of India & Anr. Vs. Central Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service Group A & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 3, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., JT 1990(3) SC 533, M/s. T.R. Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Orissa & Anr., AIR 2008 ORISSA 126. He contended that the policy cannot override the statutory provisions. In our considered opinion, the Marble Policy, 2002 cannot be said to be in violation of the Rules of 1986. Rules of 1986 provide for consent before entry is made or mining is undertaken, stage of obtaining consent is not specifically dealt with even if it is taken that same is to be obtained after grant of lease as stage of consent is a procedural aspect and for this, any method or procedure which is different can be prescribed in Policy by State Government as provided under Rule-65A of the Rules of 1986. The Clause-12 of Policy is in terms of Rules of 1986. Thus, there is no statutory violation made in Policy, 2002 by making procedural provision to obtaining the consent imperative before lease is granted. There is no violation of provisions of the Act of 1956 or the Rules of 1986. As such, ratio of the aforesaid decisions is not attracted in the instant case.