TMI Blog1976 (8) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals are similar in essential respects and may be shortly stated. There are large deposits of bauxite in Gujarat State. The State Government issued a notification on December 31,1963, intimating that the lands in all the talukas of Kutch district and in Kalyanpur taIuka of Jamnagar district had been reserved for exploitation of bauxite in the public sector. A similar notification was issued on February 26, 1964, in respect of all areas of Jamnagar and Junagarh districts. Even so, the appellants made applications to. the State Government for grant of mining leases for bauxite in the 'reserved areas. There were no other applications to that effect, but the State Government rejected the applica- tions of the appellants on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the rules made thereun- der. It appears that although the writ petitions were based on that short ground, the Controversy in the High Court ranged over a wider field including that relating to the scope of the executive power of the State Government in respect of the impugned reservations. The High Court there- fore examined the controversy with reference to articles 162 and 298 of the Constitution, and the relevant entries in the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, but we are not concerned with that aspect of the matter as the arguments before us have been confined to the provisions of the Act and to the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, hereinaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se than in accord- ance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 10 of the Act and Chapters II, III and IV of the Rules, deal with the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in the land in which the minerals vest in the Government of a State. That was why the appellants made their applications to the State Government. Section 4 of the Act provides that no person shall undertake any prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and condi- tions of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, a mining lease, granted under the Act and the rules made thereunder, and that no such licence or lease shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mining operations to be undertaken by the Central Government, they are enough to show that the Act does not contemplate or provide for reservation by any other authority or for any other purpose. The argument is however untenable because the aforesaid sub-sections of section 17 do not cover the entire field of the authority of refusing to grant a pros- pecting licence or a mining lease to any one else, and do not deal with the State Government's authority to reserve any area for itself. As has been stated, the authority to order reservation . flows from the fact that the State is the owner of the mines and the minerals within its territo- ry, which vest in it. But quite apart from that, we find that rule 59 of the Rules, which have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a mining lease in respect of an area for which no such notification has been issued, inter alia, 8--1104SCI/76 under rule 59, for making the area available for grant of a licence or a lease, would be premature, and shall not be entertained and the fee. if any, paid in respect of any such application shah be refunded. It would therefore follow that as the areas which are the subject matter of the present appeals had been reserved by the State Government for the purpose stated in its notifications, and as those lands did not become available again for the grant of a prospecting licence or a mining lease, the State Government was well within its rights in rejecting the applications of the appellants under rule 60 as premature. The Central G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the obtaining of a licence or lease would still be applicable to it. In S. Lai and Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and others (supra) the High Court noticed the decision in State of Orissa v. Union of India (supra) but it cannot be urged with any justification that the view expressed in it was followed by the Patna High Court. On the other hand the Patna High Court followed the view which was taken by the Gujarat High Court in the judgment which is the subject matter of the present appeals and held that the State Government has the,, power to reserve certain areas. for exploitation by itself. or by a statutory corporation or for a company in a public sector. The controversy in that case was. however, examined with reference to the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
