Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.34 seconds)
Barium Chemicals Ltd. vs Government Of India And Ors. on 6 February, 1987 cites

Kangra Valley Slate Company Ltd. vs The Union Of India And Ors. on 8 March, 1973

15. The learned counsel invited my attention to a decision of the Delhi High Court in Kangra Valley State Co. v. Union of India, upholding the validity of S. 11(1) and S. 11(2). I entirely agree with the interpretation placed on S. 11(1) that a prospecting licensee enjoys an overriding preference over others subject to the two conditions mentioned therein and no question of comparison of merits arises. But with great respect to the learned Judges, I cannot approve of their reasoning in regard to S. 11(2) of the Act when they say that if the applicant is fit even though not equally fit, he is entitled to the lease by virtue of the preference clause. While it is true that the Government cannot afford to wait any length of time for a person to start operations once he obtained a lease or a licence, it cannot be said the same thing when the difference in point of time is at the time of making applications. So long as the applications are not disposed of and the land is available, all applicants have to be treated on the same footing. Let us take the case where a notification fixes the last date for receipt of application and one person applies on the date of the notification itself and another some time and the 3rd on the last date prescribed for receipt of applications can a distinction be made between them on the ground of priority of application. I do not think it can be done. Such procedure would be opposed to reason. The same position obtains where no time is fixed for receipt of applications. For instance, in the present case, the land was notified for regrand on 31-7-72. The 4th respondent applied on 31-7-72, whereas, the petitioner applied on 2-8-1982 i.e., two days later. Can it be said that the petitioner is not keen or so keen as the 4th respondent to undertake the mining operations? At best, this factor can only tilt the balance, but the claims must be balanced.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next