2008 (5) TMI 734 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the Central Government under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
2. Preferential right under Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
3. Competence of the Secretary to hear the applications without statutory delegation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Order Passed by the Central Government:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Central Government under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The petitioner had applied for a Prospecting Licence on 29.10.1991, but the application was not processed promptly by the State Government. The State of Orissa initially decided to grant the Prospecting Licence for 85 hectares to the petitioner, which was later recalled without the Chief Minister's prior approval. The Government of India returned the proposal, allegedly to favor opposite party No. 4 under Section 11(5) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the preferential right was disregarded when the State Government recommended the Prospecting Licence of opposite party No. 4 to the Central Government on 19.12.2006.

2. Preferential Right under Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957:
The petitioner claimed a preferential right under Section 11 of the Act, having applied for the Prospecting Licence on 29.10.1991. However, the court noted that Section 11 had been substantially amended in 1999, changing the principle of "first come, first served" and eliminating preferential rights for notified areas. The court referred to the Supreme Court case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone, which held that applications must be dealt with according to the rules in force at the time of disposal, not at the time of application. Therefore, the petitioner could not claim any preferential right under the old provision of Section 11(2) after its amendment in 1999.

3. Competence of the Secretary to Hear the Applications without Statutory Delegation:
The petitioner argued that the Secretary was not competent to hear the applications without a statutory delegation under Section 26(2) of the Act. The court examined Section 10(3) and Section 26(2) of the Act, which allow the State Government to delegate its powers by notification in the Official Gazette. The court referred to the Rules of Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, which empower the Government to allocate business to various departments. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras and Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, which held that decisions by civil servants are considered decisions of the Government. The court concluded that the Secretary's actions were on behalf of the State Government and did not require a separate statutory delegation.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner had no vested right to have the application considered under the old provisions of Section 11(2). The Secretary's hearing process was deemed competent and valid under the Rules of Business. The court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions and dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.