State Of Tamil Nadu vs Hind Stone Etc on 5 February, 1981
The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ
petition observed that the auction notice specified a
particular period namely, 1.1.95 to 31.3.98 and, therefore,
the appellant could not claim that the three year period was
to run as per the amended Rule 8(8)(a), that the amendment
was prospective in nature and was not applicable to leases
which had already been processed and rejected the Collector
earlier, - in this case on 22.3.1995. Merely because the
appellate order was passed subsequent to the amendment of
the rules in GOMs No.235 dated 19.12.1996, the appellant
could not seek the benefit of the amendment. Before the
learned single Judge, the appellant relied upon the judgment
of this Court in State of Tamilnadu vs. Hind Stone [1981
(3) SCR 742] for the proposition that if rules were amended
during the pendency of an application for the grant of a
mining lease, the said rules should be applied to such
pending applications. The said decision was distinguished
by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the
appellant's application was rejected by the Collector on
22.3.1995 long before the rules came into force on
19.12.1996 and that the pendency of the appeal by the rime
the emended rules came into force, was not a sufficient
reason for applying the amendment. So far as the appellate
order of the Director asking the appellant to pay
seigniorage as per the amended rule was concerned, the
learned Single Judge justified the said charge on the ground
that the said fee was leviable form 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998.
On these grounds, the writ petition was dismissed.