LexM/S. ALANKAR GRANITES INDUSTRIES AND ORS. versus P.G.R. SCINDIA, MLA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..\ • MIS. ALANKAR GRANITES INDUSTRIES AND ORS. v. P.G.R. SCINDIA, MLA AND ORS. JANUARY 18, 1996 [J. S. VERMA, S.P. BHARUCHA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development)Act, 1957/ Kar- nataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 : A B S.15/Rules 3, 3A, 66-Mi11or Minerals-Qu. 1y lea, ' f01--Granite- C Prohibition on quarry leases-Order passed by State Govenu. C11t under Rule 3 granting quarry leases for black, pi11k and multicoloured granite on govem- ment lands notwithstanding prohibitio11 contained in Rule 3A-Held invalid. The Government of Karnataka, by notifications dated 22.5.1990 and 4.1.1991, amended Rule 3A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession D Rules 1969. By the two amendments absolute restriction on grant of lease of Government lands for quarrying granite was relaxed in favour of certain category of persons specified therein. Validity of these amendments was challenged in writ petitions filed before the High Court which granted stay in favour of the petitioners therein. Meanwhile the State Government by E its order dated 18.6.1991, passed nnder Rule 3, granted to 203 Ieasees, quarry leases for black, pink and multi coloured granite on Government lands. Writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging these leases as contrary to the prohibition contained in Rule 3A of the Rules. The plea of the leasees that the Government made these grants in exercise of its power of relaxation in special cases, as provided in Rule 66 of the F Rules, was rejected by the High Court holding that Rule 66 was inap· plicable in the field covered by Rule 3A; and since the leases could not be granted because of the prohibition under Rule 3A, the power of relaxation of the Rules under Rule 66 was not available. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the grants. The Division G Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals of the lessees. In the present appeals filed by the lessees before this Court, besides supporting the leases on the ground of Rule 66 of the Rules, it was contended for the leasees that by virtue of the order passed by the High Court in the earlier writ petitions, the power under Rule 3(1) of the Rules H 721 722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996[ 1 S.C.R. A was available for making the grants with the prior approval of the Govern- ment which was accorded on 18.6.1991. Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD : I.I. There is no basis to uphold that grant of any of the B present 203 quarry leases under Rule 66 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 particularly when that rule was not even resorted to by the Government for making any of these grants. TI1e Government Order dated 18.6.1991 granting the leases was issued exercising the power only under Rule 3 without even a reference to Rule 66. There is a clear C statement in the order that the Government had decided to resort to Rule 3 for the purpose of making these grants on the applications which had been made expressly under Rule 3 of the 1969 Rules. [728-C-D; 727-F-G]. 1.2. Even otherwise, Rule 66 requires the Government to form its opinion keeping in view the public interest. It is implicit in Rule 66 that D such opinion of the Government must be formed after considering facts and circumstances of each case and on reaching the conclusion that it was the requirement of public interest to authorise the grant of a quarry lease on such terms and conditions, other than those prescribed in the Rule, as may be specified by the Government. This requirement precedes the making of the grant on the terms and conditions specified for the purpose and it E cannot be subseqnent to the grant for the purpose of justifying the grant without prior satisfaction to this effect leading to the relaxation of the rules. [727-G-H, 728-B-D] 1.3. In the case of the present 203 leases, the power of relaxation was not exercised separately in each individual case. The Government Order F dated 18.6.1991 merely authorises grant of mining leases under Rule 3, notwithstanding the prohibition contained in Rule 3A and the ultimate power of granting the quarry leases was exercised by the Director of Mines and Geology and not by the Government in individual cases as is required by Rule 66. [728-C-D] G 2. As regards the effect of the order in the earlier writ petitions challenging the validity of amendments made in Rule 3A, it is clear that operat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.