DOIWALA SEHKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD. versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 807 · Decided: 12-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

DOIWALA SEHKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMIT! LTD. 
A 
v. 
STA TE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 12, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Uttaranchal Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001 (Adaptation and 
Modification) Order, 2001-Rule 1(5)-Application for lease for mining of 
minor mineral by private party - Rejection based on policy whereby such C 
lease had to be granted to Government Corporations-Correctness of-
Held-No monopoly in favour of Government Corporation/Departments was 
created as policy also permitted grant of license to private parties and no 
genera/full restriction was imposed-After formation of State of Uttaranchal, 
Order of 200 I was issued pursuant to Article 348(3) of Constitution of India, 
1950, and notification regarding same was issued for general information- D 
Therefore, changed conditions could be given effect to since suitable provisions · 
were incorporated in statutory rules-Amended rules and policy decisiun 
were bona fide exercise of executive power of State Government and not its 
misuse to advance own self interest~Rule 9A of U.P. Minor Minerals 
(Concession) Rules, 1963. 
Government Policy-Change of-Held-Government has a right to 
denial of its policy from time to time according to the demands of time and 
in public interest-However, power to change policy under executive power 
E 
is only when it does not preamble by any statute or rules-Also, policy 
decision cannot come in the way as rights fructified much before it came into F 
being. 
Subordinate legislation-Validity of-Held-Nature, object and scheme 
of parent stature, afld also area, over which power has been delegated under 
statute, has to considered and then decision is to be taken whether subordinate 
legislation conforms to parent statute-it has to be struck down where it is G 
_directly inconsistent with a mandatory provision of parent statute-However, 
if issue is of its inconsistency of non-conformity not with reference to any 
specific provision of parent statute, but with object and scheme of parent 
statute, Court should proceed with caution before declaring invalidity. 
807 
H 
808 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14-Equal treatment-Concept-""' 
of-Held-Two wrongs cannot make on right -No one can claim that since 
something wrong has been done in another case, directions should be given· 
for doing another wrong-It would not be setting a wrong right but could 
be perpetuating another wrong and in such matters, there is no discrimination 
involved-Concept of equal treatment pre-supposes existence of similar· legal 
B foothold-It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring 
wrongs at par-Affected parties have to establish strength of their case on 
some other basis and not by claiming negative quality. 
Appellant is engaged in business of mining minor minerals. They 
C applied for grant of lease for mining of minor mineral under Rule 9-A of the 
U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The erstwhile State of U.P. 
got bifurcated and the impugned area fell under the newly formed respondent 
State, which exercising power under Section 87 of the U.P. Re-organization 
Act, 2000 extended to itself the Rules of 1963 with certain modification/ 
amendment. Respondent introduced a new policy of mining of minor mineral 
D whereby as far as possible the lease for excavation/mining was to be granted 
to the Governmerit Corporations. Based on this policy, the District Magistrate 
rejected the application of appellant stating that the lease of excavation of 
impugned areas had to be granted to Garhwal Manda! Vikas Nigam. Appellant 
challenged the rejection order as well the Policy of the respondent by filling 
E a Writ Petition. However, High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Appellant pleaded against the policy of respondent contending that (i) it 
imposed complete ban of mining of all minor mineral by private persons and 
created monopoly (ii) respondent was not competent to create monopoly by a 
F policy decision exercising its powers as delegated authority under Section 
15 of Minor Mineral Development (Regulations) Act, 1957 (iii) it was only an 
exercise of its executive powers whereas it required legislative sanction (iv) 
it was against Section 17 A(2) of Act of 1957 that required the State before 
reserving any area exclusively for itself to obtain approval from the Central 
Government which had n'ot 

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