Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Veet Rag Homes Private Limited, challenged the order dated 25.4.2008 of the Minister (Industries & Mining) recommending grant of mining lease of bauxite ore to respondent no.3, M/s Akash Universal (P) Limited, under Section 11(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 34 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The petitioner also challenged the order of the Mines Tribunal rejecting their revision under Section 30 of the Act. The dispute arose when the area of 192.36 hectares at Mauze Kumbhawade, district Ratnagiri, was notified under Section 11(2) of the Act on 12.12.2006, and applications were invited. The petitioner and respondent no.3, along with 16 other applicants, applied for the mining lease. The Minister considered all applications and recommended respondent no.3 for the grant. The petitioner filed a revision before the Mines Tribunal, which was rejected. The High Court examined the validity of the Minister's recommendation and the Tribunal's order. The Court held that the Minister had considered all applications and the recommendation was made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. There was no violation of principles of natural justice. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision to reject the revision. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Mining Law - Grant of Mining Lease - Section 11(3) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - The Minister considered applications of all 18 applicants and recommended respondent no.3 for grant of mining lease. The Court held that the Minister's recommendation was valid and did not violate principles of natural justice. (Paras 2-3)
B) Mining Law - Revision under Section 30 - The Mines Tribunal rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The Court upheld the Tribunal's order, finding no error in the Minister's recommendation. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Minister's recommendation for grant of mining lease under Section 11(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 34 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 was valid and whether the Mines Tribunal erred in rejecting the revision petition.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Minister dated 25.4.2008 and the order of the Mines Tribunal are upheld.
Law Points
- Section 11(3) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1957
- Rule 34 of Mineral Concession Rules
- 1960
- Principles of natural justice
- Scope of revision under Section 30 of the Act
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO.468 OF 2011
S.A. Bobde, Smt. V.K. Tahilramani
Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar with Mr. Nikhil Sakhare and Ms. Chandana Salgaonkar for petitioner; Mr. Jaydeep Deo for respondent no.1; Mr. Vijay Patil, Govt. Pleader with Mr. Prashant Dharandhale for respondent no.2; Ms. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate, i/b. Mr. Anil Mishra for respondent no.3
M/s. Veet Rag Homes Private Limited
Union of India, State of Maharashtra, M/s. Akash Universal (P) Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Minister recommending grant of mining lease and the order of the Mines Tribunal rejecting revision.
Remedy Sought
Quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.4.2008 of the Minister (Industries & Mining) and the order of the Mines Tribunal.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed that the Minister's recommendation for grant of mining lease to respondent no.3 was illegal and the Mines Tribunal erred in rejecting the revision.
Previous Decisions
The Minister recommended respondent no.3 for grant of mining lease on 25.4.2008. The Mines Tribunal rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
Issues
Whether the Minister's recommendation for grant of mining lease under Section 11(3) of the Act read with Rule 34 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 was valid.
Whether the Mines Tribunal erred in rejecting the revision petition under Section 30 of the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Minister's recommendation was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice.
The respondents contended that the Minister considered all applications and the recommendation was in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi
The Minister's recommendation for grant of mining lease under Section 11(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 34 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 was valid as all applications were considered. The Mines Tribunal's rejection of revision was proper.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.4.2008 of the Minister (Industries & Mining) recommending grant of mining lease of bauxite ore under section 11(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957...
The Minister considered the applications of all the applicants and recommended the respondent no.3 M/s.Akash Universal (P) Limited for grant of mining lease by the order dated 25.4.2008.
Procedural History
The area was notified under Section 11(2) on 12.12.2006. Applications were invited and considered by the Minister. The Minister recommended respondent no.3 on 25.4.2008. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 30 before the Mines Tribunal, which was rejected. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: Section 11(2), Section 11(3), Section 30
- Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: Rule 34
