LexGORELAL DUBEY versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D 876 GORELAL DUBEY v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS (And Vice-Versa) December 4, 1975 [K. K. MATHEW, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J < ' Mineral Concession Rules (Central) 1960-The Madhya Pradesh Mineral Rules, !961, made under section 15 of the Mines crnd Minerals (Regulatidn and Development) Act, (Central Act 67) 19·57-Section 3(a) and 3(e)-Power to grant a quarry lease for limestone as a l!linor mineral under the 1961 Rules or a mining /ease for lime;1one as a major mineral under the Centml Rules 1961 with the State Government-Notifications under section 3(e) of the Act by Central Government, one dated 1-6-1958 declaring "limestone used for lime buming and another" dated 20-9-1961 amending it, substituting the words "lime- stone used in kilns for manufacture of lime used c.s building material"- Totality of facts given in the application for a quarry lease describinR "lime- stone far burninR purposes" and "minor minerals" decides whether the appli- cation. is for ''majdr mineral'' or "1ninor minerals''-Treating such an applica- tion as "for a major mineral" is wrong when two avvlications are there, one for "quarry lease" and another for ''mininR lease" in respect of one and the smne arra. the gra111 of lease depends on the quality of limestone nvai/ah/e and after cnnshlering such ct?p1'ications together. Jn respect of an area of 8.36 acres of land containing limestone in the ,·illage Bistara, Jabalpur District. there were two applications before tlie State Governmwt (Respondent in C.A. 785/71 & Appellant in C.A. 1781 /75) em- powered to grant prospecting licence or a mining lease for a major mineral under the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 or a "quarry lease" under the E Madhya Pradesh Mineral Rules, 1961, for a minor mineral as defined in section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957- or.e by "GD". (the appellant in C.A. 785171 and respondent in C.A. 1781/75) dated 7-5-1965 for a quarry lease for "limestone for burning purposes, minor minerals intended" and another by "RC" dated 2-6-1965 for a mining lease for "a major mineral". The "quarry lease" was granted to "GD" on J-1 l-1965 and the lease deed was executed on 10-11-1965 with a special clau<e 18A therein. F G 11 Tn revision by "RC" against the order granting quarry lease to GD. the t:entral Government by its order dated 14-12-1967, holding that in substance the application of "GD" was an application for "major mineral" and. there- fore. the grant of the "quarry lease" to the appellant was not competent, direct- ed the respondent State to consider the application of "RD" for the grant of mining Jease. As the writ petition No. 3 /68 assailing the said order, filed by "GD" in the M.P. High Court was dismissed on 2-9-1970, GD obtained a special leave (CA 785/71 ), but the stay was refused, resulting in his lease running in operation only for a period of about 5 years and "RD" carrying on its opera- tion of mining lime>tone as a major mineral. During the pendency of the lease in favour of "GD". the rate. of royalty. was enhanced by the State Government and "GD" filed another writ petition (MP No. 328/1968) in the High Court on 23-7-1968. As the MP 3/68 was dismissed on 2-9-1970, "GD" amended the application suitablv in MP 328 J68 with the words "in view of the decision of the High Comt, he was liable w pay royalty at a rate which were chargeable as a major mineral''. The High Court allowed the writ petition. remanded the matter of qnantif.cation of the amo11At of royaltv due from "GD". After the r~mand, the State Govern- ment determined the royalty at Rs. 16,722/-. The said demand was again .... • • GORELAL v. M. P. STATE (Untwalia !.) 877 <:hal!enged by "GD" for the third time by way of a writ petition )"a. MP 39!)/ 72 contending that if royalty was charged from him on the basis of a ma1or mineral, th~n he had paid Rs. 36,000/- and odd more. The w!it was allowed -0n 25-3-1974 during the course of the hearing of CA 785 /71 m the Supreme Court and the appeal by special leave (CA 1781175) obtained by the respond• ent State against the order dated 25-3-1974 was heard with CA 785/71. Allowing CA 785/71 on merits, following the decision in Rukmani Bai Gupta v. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh. Bhopal and others, [1975] (3) S.C.R. 72 and allowing CA 1781/75 with permission to the appellant to withdraw the writ petitions No. MP 328/68 and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.