1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE13H DAY OF JULY2015PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA WRIT PETITION No.17548/2014 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN : M/s Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd., By its General Manager, Sri S.P.Vijaykumar, S/o Late S.P.Maregoud, Aged about 51 years, No.35, Park Enclave, Park Road, Tuskar Town, Shivajinagar, Bangalore-560 051. (By Sri D.L.N.Rao, Senior Counsel for Smt.S.R.Anuradha, Adv.) AND :
1. State of Karnataka By Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries ...PETITIONER2 2 M.S. Building, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560 001. The Hon’ble Lokayukta State of Karnataka, M.S. Building, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560 001 3. Mohammed Tanveer Major, S/o Mr. Ahmed Hussain, Smart Communications Rameshwari Complex, Kalamma Street, Bellary-583 101 …RESPONDENTS (By Smt.S.Susheela, AGA for R-1; Sri G.Devaraj, Adv. for R-2; Sri Kaleemullah Shariff, Adv. for R-3.) . . . . This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the report under Section 12[3]. of Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984 issued by the R-2 dated 13.3.2014 vide Ann-A and quash the communication issued by the R-2 dated 18.3.2014 vide Ann-B. This writ petition coming on for hearing, this day, N.Kumar J., made the following:
3.
ORDERThe petitioner has challenged in this writ petition Annexure-A the report under Section 12(c) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 where a recommendation was made to the competent authority to redress the grievance of the complainant by canceling the mining lease and licence of the petitioner if already granted or to reject application for renewal of mining lease and also initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the violation of provisions of Forest Conservation Act and IPC.
2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner applied for grant of mining lease for an area of 640 acres on 14.11.1986 along with a sketch. By mistake he had shown the area as outside the reserved area which is incorrect when the village map shows applied area is 4 situate inside the reserved zone. Therefore, he made sketch to be in conformity with village map on 23.12.1986. On the advise of the Forest Department, he also reduced the extent of land to 240 acres. However, his application for mining lease was deemed rejected. He filed revision petition before Central Government which set aside the rejection order and directed the State Government to consider the application for grant of mining lease.
3. On 29.10.1988, the Director of Mines and Geology recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of mining lease over an area of 204 acres out of 240 acres applied for seeking relaxation by the Central Government under Rule 59(c) of MC Rules as the area comes within the reserved zone. After verification, relaxation was granted. Thereafter, on 22.7.1989, the State Government sought approval from the 5 Government of India under Section 5(1) of MMDR Act for grant of mining lease. On 28/29.3.1990, the Central Government granted approval under Section 5(1) of MMDR Act by granting relaxation under Rule 59(c) of the MC Rules. Environment Clearance was also granted. A notification came to be issued on 29.7.1981 sanctioning the lease. On 24.1.1982 a lease deed came to be executed for a period of 20 years in favour of the petitioner after obtaining approval under Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 from MOEF.
4. On 15.3.2003, the State Government issued a notification under rule 59(1) inviting applications for grant of mining lease in reserved zone excluding the area granted in favour of the petitioner.
5. One Mr. Ahmed Hussain, father of the 3rd respondent applied for grant of mining lease, which came to be rejected as the said applied area overlapped 6 with area already granted in favour of the petitioner. There were several rounds of litigation both before Central Government in Revisions and in Writ Petitions before this Court. Sri. Ahmed Hussain categorically and in unequivocal terms has given up challenge to the grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner. Ultimately, he did not pursue his claim any further and he also died. The said Ahmed Hussain had filed W.P. No.7269/1995 wherein he has made a categorical statement that he does not wish to pursue his challenge to the grant of lease to the petitioner. On the basis of such statement, this Court by an order dated 24.01.1997 directed the Government to consider his application over the remaining area excluding the area already granted to the petitioner. The petitioner was impleaded in Revision Application No.13(3) 2001-RCI wherein it was held that the lease granted to the petitioner was after the Central Govertnment gave its 7 approval and by following due process of law. He further filed W.P. No.33169/2004 challenging the mining lease granted to the petitioner, which came to be disposed of on 24.11.2007, where again a direction was issued to the authorities to consider the claim of the applicant without affecting the rights of the petitioner.
6. The 3rd respondent applied for grant of mining lease in the year 2006 including the area already leased in favour of the petitioner. The said application was rejected by the State Government on the ground that the applied area fully overlaps with the mining lease already held by the petitioner. Against the said order, he preferred a revision petition before the Central Government. The Revision came to be dismissed. Then the respondent filed W.P. No.15723/2011 challenging the order of rejection of his application. By an order dated 01.03.2012, the said writ petition came to be 8 dismissed, which has attained finality. In fact the 3rd respondent has filed a writ petition No.12757/2008 alleging that the petitioner is working outside the leased area. The said writ petition was dismissed on 14.10.2008 for non-furnishing of material particulars. He also filed W.P. No.25255-56/2009 questioning the orders of the Controller of Mines and Appellate Authority, IBM, who rejected the request of the 3rd respondent for certain information pertaining to the approved mining plan relating to the petitioner. As W.P. No.11920/2010 challenging the grant of mining lease to the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn, W.P. Nos. 25255-56/2009 was dismissed on the ground that it does not survive for consideration. In fact in W.P. No.11290/2010, the 3rd respondent has challenged the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.38138/2009 wherein the petitioner has sought for extension of validity of permits and to issue Forest Transit Pass. On 9 08.12.2011, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on a memo filed by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent filed W.P. No.15723/2011 challenging the order of the Central Government dated 30.09.2008 rejecting his application for grant of lease. In the said proceedings it was held that as the land for which application is filed is already granted to the petitioner, he cannot be given the same land. During the consideration of the petitioner’s application for renewal before the Government, the 3rd respondent got himself impleaded and tried to mislead by way of map obtained from the Government of India, Ministry of Mines under RTI Act. Initially, the Director, Department of Mines and Geology had recommended rejection of the renewal application of the petitioner. It was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No.3476/2012, which came to be allowed on 16.02.2012 and a direction was given to decide the renewal application within two months. 10 Subsequently, by an order dated 20.06.2012, again he recommended for rejection of the renewal application. The same was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No.23465/2012. This Court, by an order dated 13.07.2012 set aside the said order and held that the Director of Mines and Geology has no jurisdiction to recommend rejection of renewal application in the forest area. In view of this finding, Director of Mines and Geology could not make any recommendation for rejection in Forest area.
7. After all these litigations, the 3rd respondent approached the Karnataka Lokayuktha by filing a complaint on 13.05.2010 as per Annexure ‘Q’ contending that the petitioner is mining illegally in the area, which is not applied by him and neither granted by the State Government nor approved by the Central Government in connivance with the Director of Mines 11 and Geology. He enclosed the documents to substantiate his claim. It is thereafter, notice was issued to all the concerned including the petitioner and thereafter Annexure ‘A’ the impugned order came to be passed. In the said proceedings, the State has taken a specific stand that there is no merit in the complaint and it has to be rejected. In the report under Section 12(1) of the Act, the recommendation made by the Lokayuktha to the Government reads as under: “By exercising the powers conferred under Section 12(1) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, recommendation is made to the Competent Authority to redress the grievance of the complainant by directing Govt. in Commerce & Industries Department and the Director of Mines and Geology to take appropriate action to redress the grievance of the complainant by canceling the mining lease and the license of the said M/s.Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. if already granted or to reject the application of renewal of mining lease and 12 license and also to initiate criminal proceedings against the said company for the violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act and under IPC for extracting iron ore in the area not permitted and to file application under Sec. 473 Cr.Pc in case of necessity, within three months from the date of this order and shall intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta about the action taken on the report within one month therefore as per Section 12(2) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.” 8. On the same day, the Lokayuktha also passed an order under Section 12(3) of the Act making the following recommendation to the Government: “A careful consideration of the documents and facts of the case prima facie show that the respondent Directors of the Department of Mines and Geology in Karnataka failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and thereby committed misconduct U/s 3(1)(ii) of 13 KCS (Conduct) Rules and made themselves liable for disciplinary action. Since the above said facts and documents on record prima-facie show that the respondents have committed misconduct and now, actions u/s 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, a recommendation is made to the Competent Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against respondent Directors and to entrust the enquiry to this Authority under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Service (Classifications, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.” 9. Challenging these reports, the petitioner is before this Court.
10. The respondents are all duly served. All of them have filed their statement of objections supporting their respective stands and want the writ petition to be dismissed. 14 11. Sri.D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailing these two impugned reports contends that the Lokayuktha had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings on the complaint of the 3rd respondent in view of Section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Lokayukta Act’. He also relies on Section 8(2)(c) of the Lokayukta Act and contends that the complaint lodged was beyond the period of limitation and the same could not have been entertained. Elaborating the said contention he submits that the 3rd respondent is a rival claimant claiming grant of mining lease. Earlier, his father was the claimant claiming mining lease. The area notified for grant of mining lease on 15.03.2003 specifically excluded the land, which had been granted to the petitioner in respect of which a lease deed has been executed for a period of 20 years. When applications 15 were filed by the 3rd respondent and his father claiming the very same land, their claim is rejected on the ground that it is overlapping. The said orders have become final. Both the 3rd respondent and his father in the course of those proceedings, also have challenged the grant of lease in favour of the petitioner. It also failed and that also attained finality. In fact they filed a memo withdrawing their claim and accepting the grant of lease in favour of the petitioner. In those circumstances, when the 3rd respondent has exhausted the remedy of appeal, revision, review and writ proceedings, it was not open to the Lokayuktha to entertain the said application and re-adjudicate the matters which are all adjudicated finally by competent authorities including this Court and it has attained finality. Therefore, he submits that not only the impugned orders passed and the consequential steps taken by the Government require to 16 be set-aside, but the very application filed by the 3rd respondent is liable to be rejected with exemplary cost.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Lokayuktha submits that Section 8(1)(b) of the Lokayukta Act applies to a case where a complainant has a remedy but has not availed the same. It has no application to a complainant, who has availed the remedy available to him in law and who has lost his right in the said proceedings. Such a person is not precluded from approaching the Lokayuktha and therefore, he submits that the application is maintainable. After holding an enquiry, giving opportunity to all the concerned when report is submitted, it cannot be found fault with. Therefore, he submits that no case for interference is made out.
13. The Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State contended that these matters 17 relating to the lease was the subject matter of the proceedings before the Apex Court as well as before the Division Bench of this Court. Referring to few relevant paras, she submitted that if there is any contravention by these lease holders, liberty be given to take appropriate action in accordance with law. In fact they have taken action in accordance with the law though not on the basis of the order of the Supreme Court or this Court, but on the basis of the report of the Lokayuktha. That by itself would not vitiate the action taken by the State.
14. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the action taken by the authorities is in accordance with law, no fault could be found with the report submitted by the Lokayuktha and therefore, he submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 18 15. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the points that arise for our consideration are: (1) Whether the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent is not maintainable in view of Section 8(1)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the Lokayukta Act?. (2) Whether the report submitted by the Lokayukta under Section 12(1) and 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act and the action initiated by the State Government in pursuance of the said reports are liable to be quashed?.
16. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, first we have to see Section 8 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. It reads as under:
8. Matters not subject to investigation:- (1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall not 19 conduct any investigation under this Act in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action, - (a) if such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule; or (b) if the complainant has or had, any remedy by way of appeal, revision, review or other proceedings before any tribunal, Court officer or other authority and has not availed of the same. (2) The Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall not investigate, - (a) any action in respect of which a formal and public enquiry has been ordered with the prior concurrence of the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta, as the case may be; (b) any action in respect of a matter which has been referred for inquiry, under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 with the prior concurrence of the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta, as the case may be; 20 (c) any complaint involving a grievance made after the expiry of a period of six months from the date on which the action complained against become known to the complainant; or (d) any complaint involving an allegation made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place: Provided that he may entertain a complaint referred to in clauses (c) and (d) if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the period specified in those clauses. (3) In the case of any complaint involving a grievance, nothing in this Act shall be construed as empowering the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta to question any administrative action involving the exercise of a discretion except where he is satisfied that the elements involved in the exercise of the discretion are absent to such an extent that 21 the discretion can prima facie be regarded as having been improperly exercised.
17. Section 9 of the Act deals with Provisions relating to complaints and investigations. A conjoint reading of these two provisions makes it clear that any person may make a complaint under the Act to the Lokayuktha or Upalokayuktha. Such a complaint shall be made in the form of statement supported by an affidavit in the form prescribed under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Rules, 1985. The complaint may be presented in person or sent by registered post to the Registrar. On receipt of a complaint, the Registrar shall cause the particulars thereof to be entered in “the Register of Complaints” in Form II-A. If the Registrar is of the opinion that any such complaint is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act or the Rules, he shall, within a period of 15 days, by issuing a notice, call upon the complainant to rectify the defect. 22 However, the Registrar is vested with the power to extend the time for rectifying the defect. It is thereafter, the complaint shall be placed before the Lokayuktha or the Upalokayuktha as the case may be, for orders. When the complaint is placed before the Lokayukta or Upalokayuktha they have to apply their mind and find out whether they have jurisdiction to conduct any investigation under this Act. If the complaint falls under any of the clauses mentioned in Section 8(1)(a), (b) & (c) they shall not conduct any investigation. Similarly, if the case falls under Section 8(2)(a), (b), (c) & (d) then also they shall not investigate. In fact Sub- section (3) of Section 8 imposes restriction on the power of the Lokayuktha and Upalokayuktha in respect of the complaint involving a grievance, to question the administrative action involving the exercise of discretion, except where he is satisfied that the elements involved in exercise of the discretion are 23 absent to such an extent that the discretion can prima facie be regarded as having been improperly exercised. In other words, if an administrative action involves discretion, as a rule, they shall not entertain the complaint involving the grievance. However, if the discretion is improperly exercised, then only they get the jurisdiction to entertain such complaint. After going through the complaint, they are at liberty to make such preliminary enquiry as they deem fit to conduct any investigation under the Act. In the course of such investigation, they can forward a copy of the complaint to the public servant or the competent authority concerned and have his say in the matter. They shall afford the public servant with an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint and they can also make an order for safe custody of the documents relevant to the investigation. The said investigation shall be conducted either in public or in camera as the 24 Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta, may consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case. After such preliminary enquiry, the Lokayuktha or the Upalokayuktha in their discretion may refuse to investigate or cease to investigate any complaint involving a grievance or an allegation, if, the case falls under (a), (b) & (c) of Sec 8(1) of the Act. If they decide not to entertain a complaint or to discontinue any investigation in respect of a complaint, they shall record their reasons therefore and communicate the same to the complainant and the public servant concerned. This is the scheme provided under the Act. It is only in cases where they proceed to make an investigation of any action involving the grievance or any action involving an allegation, a regular enquiry is to be conducted as provided under the Act. Thereafter, he shall prepare a report under Section 12(1) of the Lokayukta Act recording the grievance meted out by the 25 complainant and if, it has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant, the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta shall, by a report in writing, recommend to the Competent Authority concerned that such injustice or hardship any, remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as is specified in the report. If the report is regarding the action involving an allegation and if he is satisfied that such allegation either wholly or partly, is substantiated, then he shall submit a report in writing communicating the findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, material and evidence to the Competent Authority and thereafter, it is for the Competent Authority to examine the report and take appropriate action and after such action is taken to report to the Lokayuktha or Upalokayukta. 26 18. As is clear from Section 8(1)(b) read with Section 9(5)(c) of the Lokayukta Act, if the complaint involving a grievance or an allegation has or had any remedy by way of appeal, revision, review or other proceedings before any Tribunal, Court Officer or other authority and has not availed the same then they shall refuse to investigate or cease to investigate such complaint because by virtue of Section 8 they have no jurisdiction to investigate such grievance. This Court in the case of Prof. S.N.Hegde Vs. The Lokayukta, Bangalore and others reported in 2004(3) Kar.L.J.
505 dealing with the jurisdiction has held as under: “32. What inevitably follows from the above is that, when specific provision is made in the Universities Act for conducting an enquiry against the Vice-Chancellor and on the basis of the report to be submitted for his removal, the presumption is that a general enactment like the Lokayukta Act is not intended to interfere with the said provisions unless such 27 an intention manifest clearly. Each enactment must be construed in that respect according to its subject-matter and on its own terms. More importantly when the Lokayukta has no power to make recommendation for the removal of Vice-Chancellor, merely because he has some jurisdiction related to the subject-matter it cannot be a ground to hold that the Lokayukta has jurisdiction over the Vice-Chancellor. Before a Court or an authority could be held to have jurisdiction to decide a particular matter it must not only have jurisdiction to investigate but must have also the authority to pass the orders sought for. This jurisdiction must include the power to hear and decide the question at issue.
33. In the event of an enquiry being initiated against the Vice-Chancellor on the basis of the report submitted by the Lokayukta and if after enquiry the Vice-Chancellor is exonerated of the charges levelled against him, the report of the Lokayukta loses its importance or significance. It is the report of 28 the enquiry conducted under the Universities Act which would prevail over the report of the Lokayukta. More importantly the damage done to the Vice-Chancellor by the report of the Lokayukta would become irreparable in the sense that even if he is exonerated in the enquiry conducted under the Universities Act, the damage done to his reputation cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever.
34. Therefore, seen from the above angle when the Lokayukta did not have the power or jurisdiction to take any action against the Vice-Chancellor in view of specific provision being made in the Universities Act, the Lokayukta ought to have refrained from proceeding further for want of jurisdiction. The defect of want of jurisdiction cannot be overcome merely because Vice-Chancellor and the Professor sent their replies to the complaint. Acquiescence or consent would not confer jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, having regard to the scope of the Universities Act and the object behind the 29 Lokayukta Act, it is clear that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to investigate a complaint against the Vice-Chancellor under the provisions of the Act, Such a jurisdiction is clearly barred in view of Section 14 of the Universities Act.” 19. Therefore, it is clear that the words used in Section 8 of the Act is, ‘shall not conduct any investigation’ if, the case falls under Section 8(1)(a), (b) & (c) or if the case falls under Section 8(2)(a), (b), (c) & (d) of the Lokayukta Act. The said provision is mandatory. Unless the Lokayuktha or Upalokayuktha has jurisdiction to investigate under the Act, any such investigation to be conducted would be invalid, void and without the authority of law. It was contended on behalf of the Lokayuktha that Section 8(1)(b) of the Lokayukta Act applies to cases where the complainant has not availed all the remedies available to him under law. It has no application to the case where the 30 complainant has availed the remedy. If the complainant has availed the remedy and if he is not successful in redressing his grievance in those proceedings, the question of the complainant approaching Lokayuktha would not arise as his complaint and grievance has been already adjudicated by an authority, which is competent to adjudicate the same.
20. Section 9 of the Lokayukta Act is not a provision of appeal. Section 9 is in the nature of original jurisdiction. It applies to a complainant, who has no remedy under law at all. Then this Act enables him to approach the Lokayuktha or Upalokayuktha for redressal of such grievance for which in law there is no provision. If there is a law, which provides remedies for such grievance, he should approach the authorities and agitate his rights. What Section 8(1)(b) read with Section 9(5)(c) of the Lokayukta Act emphasizes is, if a remedy 31 is available to the complainant and if he has not availed the remedy, even then, he cannot approach the Lokayuktha or Upalokayuktha because when an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to a complainant for redressal of his grievance, Lokayuktha Act is not an enactment, which is meant to redress his grievance or complaint. In fact Section 9(5)(c) of the Lokayukta Act provides that other remedies are available to the complainant and in the circumstances of the case, shall be more proper for the complainant to avail such remedies. Then, the Lokayuktha or the Upalokayuktha in their discretion shall be justified to refuse to investigate or cease to investigate any complaint involving a grievance or an allegation.
21. Further, it was submitted that in Section 8(b) of the Act, the word ‘High Court’ is not used and therefore, neither the complainant has a remedy in the 32 High Court nor he has availed a remedy in the High Court. That will not come in the way of the complainant approaching the Lokayuktha. The said argument has no merit. If the complainant has already approached the High Court and the High Court has decided against him, then the question of complainant approaching the Lokayuktha or Lokayuktha readjudicating the claim adjudicated by the High Court, would not arise. That is the reason, the Legislature in its wisdom, consciously has not included the word `High Court’ in Section 8(1)(b) of the Lokayukta Act and the authorities included therein are authorities, which are subordinates to the High Court. The question of the Legislature expressly prohibiting Lokayuktha or Upalokayuktha, who are the former Judges of the High Court and Supreme Court, who are well aware of the legal position, be restrained from conducting investigation, as the orders passed by the Lokayuktha are amenable to the 33 writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore, if the complainant has an alternative remedy as provided under Section 8(1)(b) of the Lokayukta Act or he has already approached the High Court and got his rights adjudicated, then Lokayuktha and Upalokayuktha shall not conduct any investigation under the Act by entertaining a complaint involving any grievance in respect of any action taken.
22. In this background, we have to find out: Whether the complainant herein has any remedy under any other law to redress his grievance in respect of which, he has approached the Lokayuktha?.
23. The Parliament has enacted the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 providing for the development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union. The mining lease granted for the purpose of undertaking 34 mining operations includes a special lease granted for such persons. Section 5 deals with Restrictions on the grant of prospecting licences or mining leases. Section 6 deals with Maximum area for which a prospecting licence or mining lease may be granted. Section 7 provides for the Periods for which prospecting licences may be granted or renewed. Section 10 of the Act provides for Application for prospecting licences or mining leases. Section 10(3) vests in the State Government the power to grant the permit, licence or lease. Section 11 provides for Preferential right of certain persons. Section 19 of the Act declares that any reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease granted, renewed or acquired in contravention of the provisions of the Act or any Rules or orders made thereunder shall be void and of no effect. The explanation to the said Section provides that where a person has acquired more than one 35 reconnaissance, permit, prospecting licence or mining lease and the aggregate area covered by such permits, licences or leases as the case may be, exceeds the maximum area permissible under Section 6, only that reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease the acquisition of which has resulted in such maximum area being existed shall be deemed to be void. Section 20 provides that the provisions of the Act and the Rules shall apply in relation to the renewal of leases. Section 30 of the Act vests with the Central Government, the power to revise any order made by the State Government or other authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by or under this Act with respect to any mineral other than mining. The said power of review can be exercised suo moto or on an application made by the aggrieved person. 36 24. Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 provides that any person aggrieved by any order made by the State Government or any other authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Act or these Rules may, within three months of the date of communication of the order to him, apply to the Central Government in triplicate in Form N, for revision of the order. Provision is also made for condoning the delay in filing such revision. Sub-rule (2) provides that in every application under Sub-rule (1) against the order of the State Government refusing to grant a prospecting licence or a mining lease, any person to whom the prospecting licence or mining lease was granted in respect of the same area or a part thereof, shall be impleaded as a party. Rule 55 provides for passing of orders on revision application after hearing all the parties concerned. The Central Government may confirm, modify or set-aside the order or pass such 37 other order in relation thereto as a Central Government may deem just and proper. It also has power to grant stay of execution of the impugned order. Rule 26 provides for refusal of application for grant and renewal of mining lease after affording an opportunity of hearing. Such an order is also revisable under Section 30 read with Rule 54 of the Rules.
25. Therefore, the Act provides for a comprehensive mechanism for applying for grant, refusal of lease and remedies in case of refusal of lease. If any aggrieved person prefers a revision against the said order, the Central Government has power to pass such order as it deems fit. Therefore, as this Act provides a right as well as remedy, the aggrieved persons have to work out their remedy within the four corners of the Act. As against the orders passed in revision, the only forum where they can challenge the 38 said order is by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. Against the said order they may approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This is the scheme of the Act. It is in this background, we have to see whether the Lokayuktha has the jurisdiction to entertain an application filed by a rival applicant and thereafter pass the impugned orders, which he has passed.
26. The material on record discloses that the petitioner filed an application on 14.11.1986 seeking grant of mining lease for iron ore for an extent of 259 hectares in Yeshawanthnagar, Bellary District for a period of 20 years. Ultimately, what was sanctioned to him is only 82.55 hectares of land, which works out to 204 acres for a period of 20 years, subject to the clearance from the Government of India under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The Government of 39 India granted forest clearance for a period of 20 years. A lease deed also came to be executed in M.L. No.2141 dated 24th January, 1992 for a period of 20 years. Ultimately, the extent of area leased to the petitioner is only 60.80 acres. On such lease, they have taken possession and they are carrying on mining operations without any hindrance from any law.
27. The 3rd respondent – applicant made an application for the first time on 20.02.2006, nearly 20 years after the grant of lease in favour of the petitioner. In the said application, he sought mining lease for iron ore and manganese in an extent of 210 acres in R.M.Block, Ramanadurga Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. The area in respect of which he sought mining lease overlapped with the land leased to the petitioner. His explanation was called for and he gave his explanation. However, not being satisfied with the 40 explanation, his application was rejected by an order dated 30.09.2008. He preferred a revision petition before the Central Mines Tribunal, which is done when he was adjudicating his rights under the MMRD Act. He also preferred a writ petition in W.P. No.17801/2007 complaining that his application is not considered. The writ petition was allowed on 13.03.2008 giving a direction to the authorities to consider his application. He filed one more application in W.P. No.12575/2008 to consider and take action in pursuance of the representation given by him on 02.07.2007. The said writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction that he shall furnish requisite particulars to the authorities, so that they would consider the same. Insofar as his complaint that the mining lease granted to the petitioner was within his applied area and is fraudulent, was denied by the authorities and they requested the authority to drop the proceedings. Revisional authority 41 by its order dated 22nd October 2010, after considering the rival contentions, rejected the revision petition filed by the 3rd respondent, in respect of his application dated 20.02.2006 for grant of mining lease for iron ore and manganese at R.M.Block, Ramanadurga Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. The said order of the revisional authority was challenged by the 3rd respondent before this Court in W.P. No.15723/2011. The division bench of this Court, after considering the rival contentions held that the grant of lease in favour of the petitioner is not under challenge and given up in earlier proceedings. If the land granted to the petitioner is taken into consideration, there is no land available for grant in favour of the 3rd respondent. Having invited the attention of the revisional authority to the merits of the case, the 3rd respondent cannot now be heard to say that the order of the revision authority, which is a well considered order and is a speaking order, should be 42 set-aside. Therefore, it held that no useful purpose would be served in reopening the matter and thereby placing it back to imperial stage. The said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has attained finality.
28. The third respondent preferred Writ Petition No.11290/2010 assailing the lease granted to the petitioner herein which was withdrawn by filing a memo and accordingly the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.12.2011. Subsequently, he filed WP Nos.25255-56/2009 for quashing of the order dated 20.3.2009 where his request was for grant of certified copy of the approved mining plan of the petitioner and for other reliefs was rejected. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground that when in WP112902010 the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, the prayer in this writ petition do not survive for consideration. 43 29. From the aforesaid proceedings, it is clear, the lease granted to the petitioner which was challenged by third respondent was up-held, his application for grant of plan as it was overlapping with the mining lease too the petitioner was rejected and the said order has attained finality. It is in this background, the third respondent-the rival claimant after exhausting his remedy under the MMDR Act and before this Court, could not have agitated the same rights under the guise of lodging a complaint to the authorities. Even if he had filed such application, Lokayukta could not have entertained the said application. All the facts set out above are gathered from the order of the Lokayukta. Once Lokayukta looked into these orders, which demonstrates that the complaint-third respondent is a rival claimant, his claim is rejected, the challenge made to the lease granted in favour of the petitioner is 44 rejected. Lokayukta could not have embarked upon an enquiry to find out the legality or otherwise of a lease in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, he could not have embarked upon the enquiry to find out whether the petitioner is eligible for renewal of the lease that too after the period of 20 years. The directions issued purporting to be under Section 12(1) of the Act is outside the scope of the Act. It is clearly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Similarly, if the application filed by third respondent-complainant was not maintainable at all, he could not have proceeded to pass orders under Section 12(3) of the Act directing the authorities to take appropriate action against the authorities and therefore said order is void abinitio and cannot be sustained.
30. In the light of the above facts we have set out above, and from the relevant provisions of the Act, it is 45 clear, when once the complainant had remedy by way of review/revision and also before this Hon’ble court and he has availed of the same and lost the legal battle, Lokayukta should not have conducted any investigation under the Act in respect of so called `grievance’ of the complainant. In that view of the matter, we are of the view, the proceedings before the Lokayukta, the orders passed by him and subsequent action purported to have been taken by the authorities in pursuance of the report under section 12(3) of the Act are all without jurisdiction, null and void and they are all hereby quashed. Hence, we pass the following order: a) Writ Petition is allowed. b) The report under Section 12(1) and 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act,1984 and subsequent notices issued to the petitioner by the authorities are all hereby quashed. 46 c) All the applications are ordered to be filed. d) Parties to bear their own costs. SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE SPS/Sk/-