PREM NATH SHARMA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 09-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PREM NATH SHARMA 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
APRIL 9, 1997 
B 
[J.S. VERMA, CJ. AND B.N. KIRPAL, J.) 
Mines & Minerals : 
Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963-Rule 
C 72--Notice issued i11viti11g applicatio11s for grant of lease-Rule mentioni11g 
time limit of seven working days withi11 which application to be filed-Notice 
itself 11ot mentioning such a time limit-Held, notice not invalid-DM decid-
ing to grant lease without, waiting for the expiry of seven days time 
limit-Held, contrary to Rule 72. 
D 
TI1e appellant had been granted lease under the provisions of Uttar 
Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 for a period of 10 years 
and thereupon the appellant set-up a granite unit. After some extensions, 
the lease expired. A public notice was issued by the DM on March 31, 1995 
for grant of a fresh lease for the same area. The notice was issued under 
E Rule 72(ii) of the 1963 Rules according to which applications for grant of 
lease could be received within seven working days from the specified date. 
Thus, applications in this case could be filed between May 2 and May 9, 
1995. 
On May 2 itself, nine applications including that of the appellant 
F were filed. The DM, vide his Order of May 6, informed the appellant that 
his application had been approved. Thereupon, as required, the appellant 
furnished the necessary papers. However, the DM did not execute the deed. 
The appellant filed a petition in the Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus 
directing the respondents to execute the lease deed in favour of the 
G appellant. 
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the DM issued a fresh 
Notification on May 30. According to the respondents since the first Notice 
of March 31 was not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 72(ii) 
inasmuch as the seven days time for acceptance of applications was not 
H mentioned in the notice, the DM's order granting the lease was cancelled 
774 
P.N. SHARMAv. STATE 
775 
and so fresh notice was issued on May 30. The appellant filed another Writ A 
Petition challenging the new notice. The High Court dismissed the peti-
tions holding that the re<Juirement of mention of seven days time limit in 
the notice was mandatory and so respondents were right in not acting on 
the basis of March 31 notice. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. As per Rule 72(ii) of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals 
(Concession) Rules, 1963, the applications for grant of lease arc to be 
received within seven working days from the date specified in the notice. 
The mention in the notice of the date within which application has to be 
filed may be desirable but non-mention of the same will not invalidate the 
said notice. The High Court was not right in holding the notice to be bad 
because of non-specification of seven days time limit. [779-B-D] 
B 
c 
2. As per Rule 72(ii), applications could be filed between May 2 and 
May 9. The DM was under a legal obligation to wait till May 9 before taking D 
any decision for grant of the lease. [779-F] 
3. As per Rule 9, an application received earlier in point of time will 
normally get preference over an application received later. However, a later 
applicant but more deserving one may be given preference if the applica-
tion is filed within the period specified in Rule 72(ii). In this case, it was 
possible that a more deserving applicant than the appellant might have 
filed an application by May 9. The opportunity granted to prospective 
applicants was denied by the OM who by his order of May 6 decided to 
grant the lease in favour of the appellant. [781-F-G; 782-1<'] 
4. The notice of March 31 did not suffer from any legal infirmity but 
the Order of May 6 issued by the DM was contrary to Rule 72(ii). The 
respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh notice inviting applications for 
grant of lease. [782-G-H] 
v 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 14748-49 G 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.4.96 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C. Misc. W.P. No. 15290 and 16886 of 1995. 
Sudhir Chandra, P. Niroop and Ms. Nandini Gore for the Appellant. H 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
R.C. Verma, Ashok K. Srivastava and R.B. Misra for the Respon-
B 
c 
dents. 
Anil Kumar Gupla-II for the implcading party. 
The J udgmcnl of the Court was deliwred by 
KIRPAL, J. The appellant had, under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh 
Minor Mineral~ (Concession) Rules, 1963 (for short 'the Rules')

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