DHARAMBIR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 566 · Decided: 19-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DHARAMBIR SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
c 
Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957/Mineral Con-
cession Rules, 1960. 
Section 11/Rule 59-Mining licence and prospecting licenc~Applica-
tion from a person who had claimed that he had discovered the min~State 
Govemment notifying that area-Challenged before the Central Govem-
ment-Mines Tribunal setting aside the notification-Declined to grant mining 
lease to petitioner on the ground that the State Goveniment had done so in 
its discretion and that the Central Govenunent would not curtail the discre-
D tion-Cliallenge negatived by High Cowt-On appeal held, the State Govem-
ment has a discretion to grant or refuse to grant any prospective licence or 
licence to any applicant-No applicant has a right, much less vested right, to 
the grant of mining lease for mining operations in any place within the State. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
E 
No. 18150 of 1996 . 
F 
. From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7,96 of Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 9624of1996. 
K.B. Rohtagi, Ms. Apar.na Rohtagi for the Appellant. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The petitioner has file'd this special· leave petition against the judg-
ment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made on Juiy 9, 1996 in CWP 
No. 9624 of 1996. The petitioner had applied for mining lease and the 
G prospecting licence claiming that he had discovered limestone minerals in 
Bhemdemti Dostpur, Mohindergarh District in the State of Haryana. The 
Government has notified that area under Rule 59 of the Mineral Conces-
sion Rules, 1960. The petitioner challenged the reservation of the area in 
revision before the Central Government and prayed for grant of the lease 
H in his favour. The Mines Tribunal of the· Central Government while setting 
566 
.. 
DHARAMBIRSINGHv. U.0.1. 
567 
aside the notification issued by the State Government, declined to grant A 
mining lease to the petitioner stating that the State Government had done 
so in its discretion and that the Central Government would not curtail the 
said discretion as it is its property. The High Court dismissed the writ 
petition in limine. Hence this special leave petition. 
. 
Shri Rohtagi, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on 
sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & 
Development) Act, 1957, contended that the petitioner having filed an 
application for mining lease has got preferential right and the Mines 
Tribunal and the High Court were not right in rejecting his prayer. We find 
no force in the contention. Section 11 of the Act reads as under : 
"(1) Where a prospecting licence has been granted in respect of 
any land, the licensee shall have a preferential right for obtaining 
a mining lease in respect of that land over any other person; 
B 
c 
Provided that the State Government is satisfied that the licen-
D 
see -
(a) has undertaken prospecting operations to establish minerals 
resources in such land; 
(b) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions 
of the prospecting licence; and 
(c) is otherwise a fit person for being granted the mining lease. 
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), where two or more 
persons have applied for a prospecting licence or a mining lease 
in respect of the same land, the applicant whose application was .-
received earlier shall have a preferential right for the grant of the 
licence or lease, as the case may be, over an applicant whose 
application was received later : 
Provided that where any such applications are received on the 
same day, the State Government, after taking into consideration 
the matters specified in sub-section (3), may grant the prospecting 
licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the 
applicants as it may deem fit. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
(3) The matters referred to in sub-section (2) are the following : 
(a) any special knowledge, of, or experience in, prospecting 
operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by 
the applicant; 
(b) the financial resources of the applicant; 
( c) the nature and quality of the technical staff employed or to 
be employed by the applicant; 
· 
. 
( d) such other matters as may be prescribed. 
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) but 
subject to 

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