KALPNATH SINGH versus UDAI NATH & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 811 · Decided: 11-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 9 S.C.R. 811 
KALPNATH SINGH 
v. 
UDAI NATH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6520 OF 2010) 
AUGUST 11, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963: 
A 
B 
rr. 9(2)(a),(b) and (e) and 6(1)(g) - Sand mining lease -
c 
Preference to members of Socially and Educational Backward 
Classes - HELD: Preference to the persons mentioned in 
clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of r.9 is to be given if such person 
was equal to other applicants in matters specified in clauses 
(a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-rule(2) - In the instant case, since 
0 
the appellant had more experience in mining operations and 
bfltter financial resources than respondent no. 1, as specified 
in clauses (a) and (b) of r.9(2), State Government was fully 
within its powers to decide to grant the lease in favour of the 
appellant - High Court while exercising the power of judicial 
E 
review erred in reversing the decision of the State Government 
- Judicial review - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226. 
r.6(1)(g) - Submission of "No Objection Certificate" with 
application for mining lease - HELD: The requirement would 
not be applicable to the application submitted prior to the date 
F 
of the Notification introducing r.6(1)(g). 
In response to the public notice dated 4.1.2007 
inviting applications for sand mining, besides the 
appellant and respondent no. 1, two others submitted 
G 
their applications on 5.2.2007. The Mine Supervisor 
submitted the verification report in favour of the appellant. 
The 
District 
Magistrate 
accordingly 'Senl his 
recommendations dated 3.8.2007, whereupon the State 
811 
H 
812 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A Government by its order dated 21.9.2007 granted 
permission to the District Magistrate to execute the 
mining lease in favour of the appellant. Respondent no. 
1 challenged the recommendations dated 3.8.2007 as 
also the order dated 21.9.2007 on the ground that he 
B being a 'Nishad' and thus belonging to Socially and 
Educationally Backward Class, was entitled to preference 
in respect of the said sand mining lease, as provided by 
clause (e) of r.9(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral 
(Concession) Rules, 1963, and that as the appellant did 
C not file the "No Objection Certificate" in terms of r.6(1 )(g), 
his application was incomplete. The High Court allowed 
the writ petition, and directed the lease to be granted to 
respondent no. 1. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the 
·· U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 stipulates 
that in respect of mining lease for sand exclusively found 
in river bed, "if other things are equal", preference shall 
E be given to a person or group of persons who belong to 
Socially and Educationally Backward Classes and such 
other castes of citizens as notified by the State 
Government. The expression "if other things are equal" 
in clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules would 
F obviously mean that the preference under clause (e) is 
to be given to a person or group of persons belonging 
to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, if only 
such person or group of persons was equal to other 
applicants in matters specified in clauses (a), (b), (c) and 
G (d) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9. Any special knowledge or 
experience in mining operations possessed by the 
applicant and the financial resources of the applicant are 
two of the matters specified in clauses (a) and (b) in sub-
rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules. [para 8] [819-A-E] 
H 
KALPNATH SINGH v. UDAI NATH & ORS. 
813 
1.2 The verification report of the Mine Supervisor and 
A 
the recommendations of the District Magistrate placed 
before the State Government clearly indicated that the 
appellant had more experience in mining operations ahd 
had also better financial resources as compared to 
respondent No.1 and, therefore, the appellant and 
B 
respondent No.1 were not equal in matters specified in 
clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules. 
The State Government, therefore, was fully within its 
powers to decide to grant the lease in favour of the 
appellant and not to give preference to respondent No.1 c 
under clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules. The 
High Court while exercising the power of judicial review 
could not have reversed this decision of the State 
Government. [para 9] [819-F-H] 
2. As regards non-submission of 'No Objection 
D 
Certificate' mentione

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