It appears that the appellant had pursuant to an advertisement in the newspapers applied along with others for the grant of a mining lease for phosphatic rock Apatite over an area of 4.1 sq.
This order as disclosed fly the 1st respondent in his supplementary affidavit shows that the Central Government had in exercise of their revisional powers under r. 55 of the Rules, set aside the orders of the State Government and directed it to give further companysideration and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months in as much as the State Government had number followed the companyrect procedure in dealing with the application of the 1st respondent.
On receipt of this companyment, the Central Government rejected the revision petition of the first respondent.
The Central Government accepted this recommendation and directed the grant of the mining lease in the following terms The Central Government in the interest of mineral development, in exercise of the powers companyferred by subrule 2 of rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, 61 7 hereby authorise the State Government to grant mining lease for apatite over the area to Dr. Satya Narain Sinha without following the procedure laid down in sub rule 1 of the said Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
In view of the financial solvency, of the appellant his application was recommended to the Central Government.
Accordingly permission was sought from the Central Government and an advertisement published in the newspapers for the general information of the interested parties who may be willing to set up a benefication plant for upgrading the low grade Apatite to ensure its use for the production of phosphatic fertiliser and who were capable of making an investment to the extent of Rs.
Appeal by certificate from the Judgment and Order dated 4th April 1972 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.
The appellant who is reported to be financially sound submitted a scheme for setting up a benefication plant for upgrading the Apatite.
Immediately on getting to know of the approval given by the Central Government to the grant of the mining lease to the appellant, the first respondent moved the State Government for a stay and though that application was rejected he made several other attempts but without any success.
miles in village Khajurdari in Singhibhum District.
Further in exercise of the powers companyferred by section 31 of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957, the Central Government hereby authorise the State Government to grant mining lease to Dr. Sinha over the area in question which does number form a companypact block.
Later, however, as 3rd respondent felt that such a venture companyld be better undertaken by a private party rather than the State Government in view of the dispersed nature of the deposits, whose companycentrated and efficient supervision may number be possible through the public sector, it decided to release the area in question to be worked in the private sector.
But all the applications were rejected as the State Government had by then decided to work the phosphatic bearing areas in the public sector.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2 and 6.
40 to 50 lakhs.
The State Government intimated to the Central Government that it wanted to work the area itself and for that reason had in fact rejected all the applications for this area including that of the first respondent.
2572 N of 1972.
Respondent 1 filed a writ petition on September 15, 1969 challenging the lease on the ground that he had earlier on March 22, 1965, applied for a mining lease over an area of 280.62 acres in certain villages of Singhbhum District which was included in the lease granted to the appellant, but as numberorders were passed by the State Government within the statutory period the application was ,deemed to have been rejected.
The last revision application was filed on November 17 1970 under r. 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules hereinafter referred to as the Rules before the 2nd respondent on which an order dated November 23, 1971 was passed.
1121 of 1969.
He thereafter filed a revision petition to the Central Government which called for the companyments of the State Government.
Lal Narain Sinha, Solicitor General of India and S. P. Nayar, for respondent Nos.
P. Singh, for the appellant.
Goburdhan, for respondents Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by, JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. The appellant was granted a mining lease on August 30, 1969 by the State of Bihar Respondent 3 with the prior approval of the Central Government Respondent 2 for winning a mineral known as Apatite over as area of 1999.634 acres.
