ORDER
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The State of Haryana is the appellant. It contends that the learned single Judge has erred in issuing a writ of mandamus for the implementation of the order of the Central Government dated May 8,1986. In any case, the appellant maintains that the State Government has issued a notification dated May 21, 1991 u/S. 17A of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and in view thereof the claim of the respondent, Shishpal Singh, cannot be sustained.
2. A few facts necessary for the decision of the case may be noticed. The State Government granted a mining lease to one Mr. Som Parkash Sethi on October 31,1984. Aggrieved by the order, Mr. Shishpal Singh, who was also an applicant, filed a revision petition before the Central Government. This revision petition was allowed by the Central Government vide orders dated May 8, 1986. A copy of the order passed u/S. 30 of the Act is at Annexure P. 1. In a refreshingly elaborate order the Central Government found that :--
'The State Government had clearly no power to pass the order dated 30-10-84 granting the additional area to Shri Som Parkash Sethi, respondent No. 2. The order of 5-1-84 had finally disposed of the petitioner's application of 23-9-83 for the grant of mining lease and there is no question of the area of 8430 kanals and 15 marlas being treated as a 'withheld' area as sought to be made out by the respondent, for that area had been refused to him under Rule 26. In the circumstances, on 2-4-84 the petitioner was the first and the only applicant for the area and, therefore, was entitled to priority under S. 11(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.'
3. This order was challenged by Shri Som Parkash Sethi in a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. This petition was dismissed on March 5, 1987. The Special Leave Petition filed by Shri Sethi against the order is stated to be still pending. Since Shri Shishpal Singh was not granted the lease in spite of the order of the Central Government, he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1528 of 1987 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Haryana to implement the order of the Central Government. This writ petition was admitted. During the pendency of the writ petition, the State of Haryana proceeded to decide the matter afresh after the issue of a notice u/S. 4A of the Act. By its order of February 26, 1988, the State Government decided to reject the claim of respondent No. 1 and to 'reserve this area under Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for the grant of mining lease of silicas and to Haryana Mineral Limited in view of the directions of Central Government as conveyed vide their letter No.3(33)/84-MV (Ptd) dated 8-7-1985.' The respondent -- Writ Petitioner had amended the writ petition to challenge the said order. In the meantime, the State also issued notification dated May 12,1988 in exercise of the powers under R. 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. A copy of the Gazette Notification was placed on record before the learned single Judge. By orders dated May 31, 1988 (reported in AIR1989 Punj & Har 112), the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition. The State of Haryana filed the present Letters Patent Appeal in August 1988. During the pendency of this appeal, the State of Haryana issued a notification dated May 21,1991 u/S. 17A of the Act. This notification reads as under :--
'Haryana Government
Mines and Geology Department
Notification
The 21st May, 1991.
No. 5/4/6-21 BII-87. In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-sec. (2) of Section 17A of Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and in supersession of Haryana Government Industries Department, Notification No. 5/4/6-21 BII-87, dated 12th May, 1988 issued under R. 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the President of India, hereby reserves the following area in Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad as specified in the Schedule given below for exploitation of silica sand, fire clay, china clay and quartz minerals by Haryana Minerals Limited, a Haryana Government undertaking:--
(See table)
4. A perusal of the sequence of events shows that after the issue of the order by the Central Government in May, 1986, the State of Haryana, issued the order under Rule 58 on May 12, 1988 so as to defeat the claim of the petitioner. In fact, it was specifically argued on behalf of the State that 'after the issuance of the notification under Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, the petitioner had no claim and, therefore, the writ petition was liable to be set aside on this short ground alone.' This claim of the State was negatived by the learned single Judge. Thereafter, it appears to have come to the notice of the parties that Rule 58 had, in fact, been omitted prior to the issue of the notification thereunder. Accordingly, it appears that an effort was made to salvage the whole thing by resorting to action u/S. 17A of the Act. At the hearing before us this notification was the sole basis for claiming reversal of the judgment of the learned single Judge. Since the controversy centres around the notification u/S. 17A, it is apt to notice this provision. It reads as under:--
SCHEDULE
Sr.No.
Name of Locality.
Tehsil
District
Detail of area/KhasraNo.
Total area in KanalMarlas
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
Pali
Ballabgarh
Faridabad
41/1,2,91024
42/l to25
43/ 1 to 25
44/1 to 25
45/ 1 to 25
46/ 1 to 25
47/1 to 25
48/l to25
49/1 to 25
50/4 to 7, 14 to 17, 24,25
51/4 to 7,14 to 17, 24,25
52/1 to 25
53/1to 25
54/1 to 25
55/1to25
56/1 to 25
57/l to25
58/1to25
59/1 to 25
60/l to25
61/ll to20,21
68/1 to 25
69/1 to 25
70/1 to 25
71/l to25
72/4 to 7, 15, 16, 25
Total : Kanals
Marlas
4, 448
11
R. L. Sudhir,
Commissioner &Secretary; to Govt.,
Haryana, Mines &Geology; Department.'
'Section 17A. Reservation of area forpurposes of conservation.-
(1) The Central Government, with a view to conserving any mineral and after consultation with the State Government, may reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease and, where it proposes to do so, it shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such area will be reserved.
(2) The State Government may, with the approval of the Central Government, reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease, for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through a Government company or corporation owned or controlled by it or by the Central Government and where it proposes to do so, it shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such areas will be reserved.
(3) Where in exercise of the powers conferred by such sub-s. (2) the State Government undertakes prospecting or mining operations in any area in which the minerals vest in a private person, it shall be liable to pay prospecting fee, royalty, surface rent or dead rent, as the case may be, from time to time at the same rate at which it would have been payable under this Act if such prospecting or mining operations had been undertaken by a private person under prospecting licence or mining lease.'
5. The above provision was promulgated on February 10, 1987. A perusal of Cl. (2) under which the above mentioned notification has been issued shows that the State Government can issue a notification only with the approval of the Central Government. Mr. Vasudeva, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the Central Government had granted approval vide letter dated April 20,1985 (Annexure R.1). On the other hand, Mr. Gopi Chand Bhalla, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, submits that this letter had been issued even prior to the promulgation of S. 17A and as such cannot constitute approval of the Central Government as required under the provision.
6. The letter of April 20, 1985 shows that the Government of India had by this letter forwarded a copy 'of the confidential report on silica, sand mining in Haryana State submitted by the Indian Bureau of Mines.' In this letter it was inter alia observed that 'the report has highlighted that any measure to divide the area into small plots is fraught with dangerous consequences, besides, the systematic development of mines in small plots, will not be possible specifically for application of systematic mining methods. Further, the Central Government in terms of the provisions of Mines & Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957, do not consider it advisable that on premature termination of mining leases of private parties the same area should be divided and sub-divided and again leased out to a large number of private parties. Instead, the State Government may consider entrusting the task of scientific, optimal and planned exploitation of silica sand reserves to a State Public Sector Corporation which would be interested in such an activity.' This is the entire purport of the letter. Besides forwarding a report, the Central Government had desired the State Government to consider the entrustment of the work of scientific exploitation of silica sand reserves to a Public Sector Corporation. This letter does not in any way constitute any approval of the Central Government to the reservation of any area for undertaking mining operations. In fact, by no stretch of imagination can this letter issued much prior to the promulgation of S. 17A constitute approval under that provision. Inevitably it follows that there was no approval of the Central Government. In this situation, we are of the considered view that the notification of May 21, 1991 was not issued in accordance with the provision of S. 17A. It was wholly without jurisdiction. It was illegal. It cannot be invoked to defeat the claim of the respondent-writ petitioner. The appellant cannot use this notification to defeat the claim of respondent No. 1.
7. No other point was urged on behalf of the appellant. The sequence of events shows that respondent Shishpal Singh has relentlessly fought his battle against the State since the year 1984. Repeated efforts have been made by the State of Haryana to defeat his claim. We hope the notification u/S. 17A was the last of such efforts. The respondent shall be given what the Central Government itself had found to be his due.
8. The appeal has no merit. It fails. Respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to his costs, which are assessed at Rs. 3,000/-
9. Appeal dismissed.