ivil Appeal No 3255 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 2971985 of the Bombay High Court in WP No 2137 of 1979
VA Bobde SD Mudaliar and AG Ratnapaxkhi for the Appellant
SK Dholakia AS Bhasme and AM Khanwilkar for the Respondents
For the Respondent No 4 in person not present
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA J
Notice for final disposal of the case was served on the respondents
Heard the learned counsel for the parties
Special leave is granted
This case is dependent on the correct meaning and scope of Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Rules
A certain area in village Bazargaon District Nagpur was reserved for Nistar purposes that is for grazing of cattle etc
The respond ent No 4 applied for grant of a mining lease in regard to the said area which was allowed
The appellant who is a local resident challenged the allotment on the ground that the procedure for settlement as laid down in Rule 59 read with Rule 58 was not followed before the grant
Rule 58 deals with availability of areas for re grant of a mining lease and requires an entry to that effect to be made in a 832 register referred to in Rule 212 of the Rules and a notification to be published in the official gazette at least 30 days in advance
The purpose obviously is to enable the members of general public to apply for the proposed lease
Rule 59 directs the procedure in Rule 58 to be fol lowed in the cases mentioned thereunder in the following terms 59
Availability of certain areas for grant to be notified In the case of any land which is otherwise available for the grant of a prospecting licence or a mining lease but in respect of which the State Government has refused to grant a prospecting licence or a mining lease on the ground that the land should be reserved for any purpose the State Government shall as soon as such land becomes again available for the grant of a prospecting licence or mining lease grant the licence or lease after following the procedure laid down in rule 58
 The appellant contends that as the prescribed procedure had not been followed the grant in favour of the respondent No 4 is illegal and fit to be set aside  4
Admittedly the disputed area was reserved for Nistar purposes and when an application for grant of mining lease was earlier made by a third party it was rejected on the ground that it was so reserved
Further there is no dis pute that before the impugned grant was made in favour of the respondent No 4 the procedure prescribed by Rule 58 was not followed and no opportunity was given to any other person before entertaining the request of the respondent No 4
The question in this background is whether Rule 59 is attracted to the case
The appellant s application under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on the ground that Rule 59 was confined to cases where earlier reservation was made for mining purposes
The stand of the respondents that the expression reserved for any purpose in rule 59 does not cover a case where the area was reserved for Nistar purposes or for any purpose other than that of mining was accepted
Earlier the expression reserved for any purpose was followed by the words other than prospecting or mining for minerals which were omitted by an amendment in 1963
Mr Dholakia learned counsel for the respondents appearing in support of the 833 impugned judgment has contended that as a result of this amendment the expression must now be confined to cases of prospecting or mining for minerals and all other cases where the earlier reservation was for agricultural industrial or any other purpose must be excluded from the scope of the rule
We are not pursuaded to accept the suggested interpre tation
Earlier the only category which was excluded from the application of Rule 59 was prospecting or mining leases and the effect of the amendment is that by omitting this exception prospecting and mining leases are also placed in the same position as the other cases
We do not see any reason as to why by including in the rule prospecting and mining leases the other cases to which it applied earlier would get excluded
The result of the amendment is to extend the rule and not to curtail its area of operation
The words any purpose is of wide connotation and there is no reason to restrict its meaning
We do not see any ground for limiting the scope of the rule so as to deprive the members of general public to approach the State with competitive terms
It is clearly in the public interest to notify the proposal to grant a mining lease so that the best deserving person may have a chance to be considered
The State and its authorities will in that case have the choice of selecting the most suitable person by following the just and equitable criteria laid down by the Rules
If on the other hand the rule is con strued as suggested by the respondents a resourceful appli cant can succeed in striking an un deserved bargain to the prejudice of the public interest
We are therefore of the view that Rule 59 covered the present case and the grant in favour of the respondent No 4 was illegally made in violation of Rule 58
According ly the appeal is allowed the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the decision to grant the mining lease in question to the respondent No 4 is quashed
The State Government may now issue a notification and take other steps in accordance with law before proceeding further
There will be no order as to costs
PSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
Under the customary law of the Punjab property inherited by a Hindu male from his maternal grandfather is not ancestral property qua his sons
Narotam Chand vs Mst
Durga Devi I L R 1950 Punj 1 approved
Lehna vs Musammat Thakyi 1895 30 P R I24 and Musammat Attar Kaur vs Nikkoo Lah 356 not approved
The rule of stare decisis is not an inflexible rule and is inapplicable where the decision is clearly erroneous and when its reversal does not shake any titles or contracts or alter the general course of dealing