AMRITLAL NATHUBHAI SHAH AND OTHERS versus UNION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 372 · Decided: 24-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
372 
AMRITLAL NATHUBHAI SHAH AND OTHERS 
v. 
UNION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
August 24, 1976. 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. N. SmNGHAL, JJ.] 
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957-State Gov-
emme11t reserved certain areas for exploitation of minerals in public sector-if 
had the power to do so-Stale Governmellf~If could reject application of private 
persons. 
The appellants' applications for grant of mining leases were rejected by the 
State Government on the ground that the areas for exploitation of which they had 
applied, had been reserved for exploitation in the public sector. The Central 
Government dismissed the revision applications pointing out that since the mine-
rals vested in the State Government it had inh,erent right to reserve any particular 
area for exploitation in the public sector. 
In writ petitions challenging the orders of the State Government the appel-
lants contended before the High Court that the State Government had no autho-
rity to reserve any a~ea for exploitation of minerals in the public sector and its 
action had no support under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Develop-
ment) Act, 1957. The High Court dismissed the petiti )ns. 
Dismissing the appeals, 
HELD : The State Government was well within its rights in rejecting the appli-
cations of the appellants under r.60 as premature and the Central Government 
was justified in rejecting the revisiorr applications. [376 BJ 
(i) The 1957-Act declared that it was expedient in the public interest that the 
Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the developm!lnt 
of minerals. The State Legislature's power under Entry 23 of List II was thus 
taken away so that regulation of mines and mineral development had to be in 
accordance with the Act and the Rules. [374 CJ 
(ii) The State Government is the owner of the minerals within its territory, 
and the minerals vest in it, and no person has any right to exploit them otherwise 
than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. [374 DJ 
(iii) There is nothing in the Act or the Rules to require that the restrictions 
imposed by the Rules would be applicable even if the State Government itself 
wanted to exploit the minerals. There is no reason why the State Government 
could not reserve any land for itself for any purpose and such reserved land would 
then not be available for the grant of prospecting licence or a minirrg lease. [374 
HJ 
(iv) The State Government's power under s. 10 of the Act to entertain appli-
cations includes the power to refuse to grant a licence or a lease on the ground 
that land was not available for such grant by reason of its having been reserved 
by the State Government for any purposes. (375 BJ 
(v) The authority to order reservation flows from the fact that the State is the 
owner of the mines and the minerals within its territory. Rule 59 clearly con-
templates reservation by an order of the State Government. (375 E] 
(vi) Under rr. 58, 59 and 60 it is not permissible for any person to apply for 
a licence or lease in respect of a reserved area until after it becomes available for 
such grant and the availability is notified by the State Government. The State 
Government in the present case reserved the areas .for the purpose stated in the 
notifications and as these lands did not become available again for grant of a pros-
pecting licence or a· mining lease. it was well within its rights in rejecting the appli-
H 
cations of the appellants under r. 60 as premature. [375 H; 376 A] 
State! of Orissa v. Union of India, A.LR. 1972 Oris.sa 68 and Mis. S. Laf and 
Co. Ltd. v. The Union of India and others A.I.R. 1975 Patna 44 held inapp!ic 
cable. 
\ 
( 
( 
J 
( 
; 
>· 
AMRITLAL NATHUBHAI SHAH v. UNION OF INDiA (Shinghal, J.) 373 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1554-64/72. 
(From the Judgment and Order dated 4-5-1972 of the Gujarat 
High Court in Special Civil Appln. Nos. 1018 and 1045-1054/68 
respectively). 
· 
A. K. Sen, Bishamber Lal Khanna and E. C. Aggrawala for the 
Appellants. 
L. N. Sinha, Sol. Genl. of India and Mr. Girish Chandra, for the 
Respondents. 
· 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHINGHAL J.,-These appeals by certificate are directed against a 
common judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated May 4, 1972. 
We have heard them together and will dispose them of by a common 
judgment. The facts giving rise to the appeals a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.