RUKMANI BAI GUPTA versus STATE GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 20-12-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

72 
RUKMANI BAI GUPTA 
v. 
STATE GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL 
& ORS. 
December 20, 1974 
[K. K. MATHEW, P. N. BHAGWAT! AND N. L. UNTWAL!A, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh· Minor Minerals Rules, 
1961 
and. Mi1!es 
(Regulation a11d Deve/opme11t) Act, 1957, S. 3(e)-Not1ficatw11 
Government of minor mintrals-Scope of-Rules of b11si11,ess. 
and Minerals 
by 
Central 
Practice-C~ntentio11 not raised before authorities and High Court-Whether 
Supreme Court would interfere on such contention. 
The respondent-Government in exercise of the power conferred under s. 15 
<>f the Mines and Minerals 
(R·~.gulation and Dev~'.opment) Act, 1957 made 
the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1961 for grant of prospecting 
licences and mining leases in re»pect of minor minerals. 'Minor JJ}inerals' are 
defined in ·s. 3 ( e) of the Ad. The Central Goverrncnt, in elliercise of the 
power conferred under. s. 3(e) i~~u~d a notificati?n in 1~58 declaring, in!er a!ia, 
"limestone used far hme burning" to be a mmor. mineral. The notification 
was amended in 1961 and the words ''limestone u..ed in kilns for manufacture 
of lime used as building material" were substituted_ 
The appellant was a lessee tmder a quarrying .Jease from 1961 to 1966 
and it was renewed in 1966 for the ~riod 1966 to 1971 for quarryi:ng "limestone 
for burning". Though there was no option for renewal in the later lease, the 
appellant applied for renewal of the lease for "limestone for burning as a 
minor mineral." As the application wa·s not disposed of in time it wa~ deemed 
to have been rofused and the appellant applied for review. 
Mean.while, the 5th respondent applied for a quarrying lease for the same 
area and as this application was not disposed of in time, it was also deemed 
to have been refused and the 5th respondent also app1ied for r:vkw. 
' 
. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
The Deputy Secretary rejected the appellant's application on 
the 
grounds, 
(a) that the quarrying lease granted for "limestone for 
burning" 
was null 
and void, because, after the 1961 notification the lease was not for a "minor 
mineral" and hence no 
renewal could be granted of a null and void lease, 
and (b) the applcation was not proper, because, the applicatio:11 
was 
for 
F 
"limestone for burning" and hence was not for a minor mineral. The Deputy 
Secretary, by the sa111e order, allowed the 5th respondent's application observing 
that 'there was no c(Jther valid application,' but, by that time, an application 
by the appellant fof'· a, quarrying h:ase of "limestone used iii kilns ·for manu-
facture of lime for use as building material,'' filed by the· af Pellant'' abundant/ 
cautela, was in fact .pending before the authorities. 
· 
As the !lease deed in favour of the 5th respondent in pursuan~ of the 
G 
grant of the quarrying lease by the Deputy Secretary, was not execu.t,~d in 
time, the Additimial Collector, in exercise of his· powers as a deloegate of the 
State Government. extended< the time for execution of the 
l~as~-deed and 
thereafter, a lease was executed in favour of the 5th respondent. "· 
~ 
The appellant's appli~ation for a fresh leaSe was again not disposed of in 
time and it was deemed to have been refused. . She filed a review application 
a_nd a}so a revision against the order of the Addi!. Collector e~:tending the 
time 10 favour of the 5th respondent. The Deputy Secretary 11greed with 
H 
the contention that the Additio.1t.il Col~tor-had no power to exte1:id time but 
himself extended the period for execution of the leaSe deed and rejected the 
appellant's application for grant. of a fresh leillle in her favour. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
" 
:"• 
RUKMANI V. M. P. GOVT, 
73_ 
....... 
The appellant challenged the orders of the Depµty Secretary but. the High 
Court negatived the chaillenge. · 
· 
. 
In appea,J to .. this Court it was contended, (i l that the quarrying lease ·for 
1966 to 1971 in favour ot the appellant was not void; (ii) the application 
of renewal by the appellant was proper; (iii) no power was delegated to the 
Deputy Secretary by the State Government to extend the time for execution 
of the lease deed; and (iv) the sanctioning of the lease in favour of the 5th 
respondent proceeded on the wrong ba3is that it was the only valid application 
for the quarrying gease. 
· 
· 
Dismissing the appeal, 
, 
HELD . (!) B«h under the origina'l notification of the Central" Govern-
ment of 1958 and the amended notification of 1961 'limestone' was .contemplated 
to be used f

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