Mines and minerals – Grant of mining leases – Vested right/preferential rights of certain persons:
Held : Applicant cannot have an exclusive right in seeking a grant of license of a mineral unless facilitated by a statute – There is no right vested over an application pending seeking lease of a Government land or minerals over which the Government has a vested right and regulatory control – Mere filing of an application ipso facto does not create any right – When a decision is taken by a competent authority in public interest by evolving a better process such as auction, a right, if any, to an applicant seeking lease over a Government land disappears on its own – Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 – rr. 4(10) and 7(3). [Para 17] Mines and minerals – Mining leases – Invocation of doctrine of legitimate expectation – On basis of pending application: Held : Legitimate expectation is a weak and sober right as ordained by a statute – When the Government decides to introduce fair play by way of auction facilitating all eligible persons to contest on equal terms, he is not entitled for a lease merely on the basis of a pending application – Right being not legal, apart from being non-existent, it cannot be enforceable. [Para 19] Mines and minerals – Mining leases – Fundamental right in mining:
Held : There is no fundamental right in mining. [Para 18] Mines and minerals – Mining leases – New amended Rules – Legal malice in amendments:
Held : Impugned Rules have not been brought forth only to nullify the effect of the judgments – Basis of a judgment can be removed and a decision of the court cannot be treated like a statute, particularly when power is available to act and it is accordingly exercised in public interest – Appellants have duly complied with the orders passed – In view thereof, no legal malice in the amendments – Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 – rr. 4(10) and 7(3).[Para 21]
Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 – rr. 4(10) and 7(3) – Constitutionality of:
Held : Amendments made to the Rules – Issuance of Notification introducing amendments – All pending applications for leasing out minor minerals on first-come first-serve basis declared as rejected while facilitating grant of 50% of the leases through auction except for the categories entitled for preference – Division Bench of the High Court declared the amendments as illegal on the grounds that the applicants have not been heard, and their applications ought to be revived in view of the earlier orders passed by the court on the principle of legitimate expectation and rights having vested in them – High Court misconstrued the issues ignoring the fact that there is a delegation of power to the appellant which was rightly exercised – There is neither a right nor it gets vested through an application made over a Government land – Law does not facilitate hearing the parties in bringing an amendment by an authority competent to do so – Thus, the impugned judgment set aside – Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. [Paras 22 and 23]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone & Others (1981) 2 SCC 205 : [1981]
2 SCR 742; Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India (2012) 11 SCC
1 : [2012] 7 SCR 644; Kerala State Beverages (M AND M) Corporation Limited v. P.P. Suresh (2019) 9 SCC 710 : [2019] 17 SCR 164; Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania (2010) 9 SCC 437 : [2010]
10 SCR 971 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.