M/S PALLAVA GRANITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 633 · Decided: 07-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

: 
Mis PALLA VA GRANITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 7, 2006 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDS.H. KAPADIA,JJ.] 
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development Act, 1957-Sections 
9A, 17A(2)-Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Celling on Agricultural 
Holdings) Act, 1973; Section 14-Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession C 
Rules, 1966; Rule 9A(J)-Government Order issued by State to lease out 
lands to appellants for mining purposes but was immediately withdrawn-
State thereafter reserved the right of exploitation of lands by its State owned 
Corporation in public interest and sought approval from Central Government, 
which was granted-High Court dismissed the W,,.it Petitions of the 
appellants-Correctness of-Held, in law, a Government Order cannot fetter D 
or hamper future executive action/decision in public interest-On facts, the 
said Order was only a decision to grant mining lease and not a grant by 
itself-Central Government approval was not conditional-State withdrew 
. its Government Order in public interest and hence the action of the State is 
not mala fide or a colourable exercise of power. 
E 
State issued a Government Order (G.O.) to lease out the lands 
surrendered by landholders under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land 
Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 to appellants for 
mining purposes. The State '\;ithdrew the G.O. when it was challenged in a 
Public Interest Litigation. The appellants fil(\d Writ Petitions before High F 
Court challenging the withdrawal of the G.O. which was allowed holding that 
the withdrawal of the G.O. was void ab initio for not following the principles 
of natural justice and directed the State to execute lease in favour of the 
appellants. The Writ Appeals filed by the State were dismissed by the High 
Court but making an observation that the State is not prevented from taking 
steps to cancel the G.O. in accordance with law. 
G 
The State issued show cause notices to the appellants for 
cancellation of mining rights. The appellants challenged the notices by 
filing Writ Petitions before the High Court. Pending the Writ Petitions, 
633 
H· 
634 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A the State issued two G.Os. under Rule 9-A(I) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor 
Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 reserving the right of exploitation of the 
land by its State owned Corporation in public interest. The said two G.Os. 
were challenged by filing Writ Petitions before the High Court on the ground 
of not obtaining prior approval of the Central Government under section 
B 17A(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. 
Pending the Writ Petitions, the State sought approval from the Central 
Government which was granted subject to two conditions. 
The appellants filed Writ Petitions before the High Court seeking 
declaration that the two G.Os. are illegal and void; that the show cause notices 
C issued by the State Government should be quashed; that the grant of approval 
by the Central Government was illegal, void and unenforceable; and that the 
cancellation and revocation of mining lease applications was arbitrary and 
illegal. The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions. The Writ Appeals filed 
by the State were allowed by the High Court. 
D 
In appeals to this Court, the appellants contended that the G.O. conferred 
on them a right for mining purposes; that the rights stood crystallised in 
favour of them by the binding decisions of the High Court; that the conduct of 
the State show a colourable exercise of power to circumvent the binding 
decisions given by the High Court; that the two G.Os. issued were illegal and 
·void ab initio for want of previous approval by Central Government; that the 
E approval of the Central Government was invalid since section 17 (A) (2) of 
the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 does not 
contemplate conditional approval; and that the approval granted by the Central 
Government stood vitiated on account of non-application of mind. 
F 
The State contended that the said G.O. did not create any interest or 
right in favour of the appellants; that the G.O. did not amount to crystallisation 
of any right in favour of the appellants; that the appellants did not make any 
application seeking mining lease and hence cannot claim proprietary rights 
as the State did not execute a mining lease in prescribed form under the Act; 
that the State has decided to invite global 

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