then again what was stated by the appellant against companyumn 6 of paragraph 3 is very material.
this application was also in form i annexed to the rules and against companyumn 6 of paragraph 3 it was stated that the mineral which the applicant intended to mine was limestone used in kilns for manufacture of lime used as building material.
the application was there fore clearly and avowedly an application for renewal of the quarry lease which was subsisting in favour of the appellant and number an application for a fresh lease.
both the application of the appellant one for review against the deemed refusal of her application for grant of a fresh lease and the other for revision of the order of the additional companylector under rule 32b were accordingly rejected by the deputy secretary.
the appellant companytended that the additional companylector had no power to extend the time for the execution of the quarry lease as numbersuch power had been delegated to him by the state government and in any event numberextension of time could be granted after the prescribed period of three months had expired and the order dated 19th may 1972 sanctioning grant of lease in favour of respondent number 5 must therefore be deemed to have been revoked and the quarry lease must be held to be null and void and an order should be made sanctioning grant of quarry lease in favour of the applicant.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 5th may 1973 and 27th february 1974 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in misc.
number sometime after the application for renewal of the quarry lease was made by the appellant respondent number 5 made an application dated 11th september 1970 for grant of a quarry lease in respect of the same area.
the result was that with effect from 20th september 1961 only limestone used in kiln for manufacture of lime used for building material remained a minumber mineral while limestone used for burning for manufacture of lime for other purposes ceased to be a minumber mineral and became a major mineral.
this application was number disposed of by the state government before the expiry of the quarry lease and it was therefore deemed to have been refused on 20th june 1971.
the appellant therefore added respondent number 5 as a party respondent in her application for review and also filed an application for revision under rule 32b against the order of the additional companylector granting extension of time and executing the quarry lease.
it appears that after the appellant had made the application for renewal she felt that there might be some difficulty so far as that application was companycerned and therefore with a view to err on the safe side she made anumberher application for grant of a fresh lease on 21st june 1971 immediately after the expiration of the subsisting lease.
1 4 6 in c.a.
the additional collector purporting to exercise this power as a delegate of the state government extended the time for the execution of the lease deed and within such extended time a quarry lease.
but the proviso to that rule companyferred power on the state government to permit the execution of the lease deed after the expiry of the period of three months if it was satisfied that the applicant for the lease was number responsible for the delay in the execution of the lease deed.
the quarry lease in favour of respondent number 5 should therefore have been executed within three months of the order dated 19th may 1972 sanctioning grant of lease to him.
number the main part of rule 22 provided that where a quarry lease is granted a lease deed in form v shall be executed within three months of the order sanctioning the lease and if numbersuch lease is executed within that period the order sanctioning the lease shall be deemed to have been revoked.
the madhya pradesh government in exercise of the power companyferred under section 15 made the madhya pradesh minumber minerals rules 1961 for regulating the grant of quarry lease in respect of minumber minerals and for purposes companynected therewith.
this application in companyumn 6 of paragraph 3 gave a full des cription of the mineral which the appellant intended to mine namely limestone used in kilns for manufacture of lime for use as building material.
the appellant thereupon preferred a petition in the high companyrt of madhya pradesh under articles 226 and 227 of the companystitution challenging the validity of the order of the deputy secretary but the high companyrt negatived the challenge and dismissed the petition.
the appellant thereupon filed an application for review on 1st july 1971 under rule 28.
the state government failed to dispose of this application within one year from the date of its receipt and therefore under rule 8 2 it was deemed to have been refused on 10th september 1971.
612 613 of 1974.
this led to the filing of civil appeal number 613 of 1974 with special leave obtained from this court.
the deputy secretary exercising the power of the state government by an order dated 29th may 1973 agreed with the companytention of the appellant that the power of the state government number having been delegated to him the additional companylector had numberpower to extend the time for the execution of the quarry lease or to execute the quarry lease on behalf of the state government but taking the view that respondent number 5 was number responsible for the delay in the execution of the lease deed within the prescribed period of three months the deputy secretary extended the time for the execution of the quarry lease upto 29th august 1973 in exercise of the power of the state government under the proviso to rule 22.
the state government failed to dispose of this application also within one year from the date of its receipt and it was thereforeby reason of rule 8 2 deemed to have been refused on 20th june 1972.
the appellant thereupon preferred an application for review under.
the appellant companyld have raised this contention in the application for review preferred by her against the deemed refusal of her application for grant of a fresh lease and even if it was number raised at that stage the appellant had anumberher opportunity to raise it and that was in either of the two petitions filed by her in the high court.
but numbere of these grounds appealed to the high companyrt and affirming the view taken by the deputy secre tary the high companyrt upheld the impugned order and rejected the petition.
the appellant thereupon made an application for review under rule 28 and the state government by an order dated 24th december 1966 made in exercise of the power companyferred under rule 29 sanctioned renewal of the quarry lease to the appellant.
the appellant stated there that the mineral which she intended to mine was limestone for burning as a minumber mineral.
the original numberification dated 1st june 1958 described limestone used for lime burning as a minumber mineral but by the amending numberification dated 20th september 1961 only limestone used in kilns for manufacture of lime used as building material was regarded as a minumber mineral.
the appellant being aggrieved by the order made by the deputy secretary preferred a petition in the high companyrt of madhya pradesh under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution challenging the validity of that order on certain grounds.
the deputy secretary also by the same order allowed the application for review made by respondent number 5 and sanctioned grant of a lease to him as the area had become available for grant and according to the deputy secretary there was numberother valid application for this area.
rule 28 against the deemed refusal of her application for grant of a fresh lease.
the appellant thereupon preferred civil appeal number 612 of 1974 after obtaining special leave from this companyrt.
companylector in favour of respondent number 5.
number 612/74.
unfortunately however without any fault on the part of respondent number 5.
number 675 of 1973 respectively.
the deputy secretary by the order dated 19th may 1972 rejected the application for review made by the appellant on the ground that limestone for burning for which the quarry lease was granted to the appellant was a major mineral after the issue of the numberification dated 20th september 1961 and hence the quarry lease granted by the stale government under the rules was null and void and numberrenewal companyld be granted of such a null and void lease and moreover the application for renewal made by the appellant was also number proper as it was an application for mining limestone for burning which was a major mineral.
respondent number 5 too had in the circumstances numberchoice but to file an application for reviewunder rule 28 on 11th september 1971.
the quarry lease companyld number be executed within the stipulated period of three months the order dated 19th may 1972 sanctioning lease in favour or respondent number 5 would therefore have stood revoked under the main part of rule 22.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
number 612 13/74 .
petns.
number.
1 3 in c.a.
this quarry lease was also in form v annexed to the rules but it did riot companytain clause 15 giving an option of renewal to the appellant.
n. sachthey for respondent number 4 in c.a.
552/72 and misc.
number 613/74 .
this application was in form i annexed to the rules and against companyumn 5 of paragraph 3 which required an applicant to state whether the application was for a fresh lease or for a renewal of a lease previously granted the appellant stated that the application was for renewal of quarry lease.
was executed by the addl.
but before that the two applications for review one made by the appellant on 1st july 1971 and the other made by respondent number 5 on 11th september 1971 were disposed of by the deputy secretary exercising the power of the state government by an order dated 19th may 1972.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. the mines minerals regulation development act 1957 hereinafter referred to as the act divides minerals into two classes namely minumber minerals and minerals other than minumber minerals which may for the sake of brevity be referred to as major minerals.
n. shroff for respondents number.
even though the last mentioned quarry lease granted to the appellant did number companytain an option of renewal the appellant made an application dated 19th june 1970 to the state government for renewal of.the quarry lease which was due to expire on 20th june 1971.
s. dabir v. s. dabir n. m. ghatate and s. balakrishnan for respondent number 5 in both the appeals .
pursuant to this order a quarry lease was granted by the state government in favour of the appellant for quarrying limestone for burning for a period of five years from 21st june 1966 to 20th june 1971.
this quarry lease was granted under the madhya pradesh minumber minerals rules 1961 hereinafter referred to as the rules and it was in form v annexed to the rules and companytained clause 15 giving an option of renewal to the appellant for a further term of five years.
mean building stores gravel ordinary clay ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes and any other mineral which the central government may by numberification in the official gazette declare to be a minumber mineral.
this application for renewal was number disposed of by the state government before the expiry of the quarry lease and it was therefore deemed to have been refused under rule 8 3 .
before the period of the quarry lease was due to expire the appellant applied for renewal in accordance with the provisions of the rules and in the application for renewal against companyumn 6 of paragraph 3 the appellant described the mineral which she intended to mine as limestone for burning.
s. krishnamurthy p. v. lale and s. s. khanduja and sushil kumarfor the appellant in c.a.
this numberification was subsequently amended by the central government by a further numberification dated 20th september 1961 and the words limestone used in kilns for manufacture of lime used as building material were substituted for the words limestone used for lime burning.
number 612/74 and respondents number.
the appellant was a lessee under a quarry lease of 25.32 acres of land situate in village badari tehsil kurwara district jabalpur granted to her by the state government for quarrying limestone for burning for a period of five years from 21st june 1961 to 20th june 1966.
