THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP NO. 5623 OF 2011 Date of Judgment: 31.10.2011 Between: MSR Minerals represented by its Managing Partner Shri K. Subhoji …Petitioner and Government of India rep. By Deputy Secretary (General), Ministry of Steel and Mines and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP NO. 5623 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Smt. N. Shobha, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and with their consent, this writ petition itself is being disposed at the stage of vacate stay petition. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Government allowing the revision petition of fourth respondent. The facts, in brief, are that the fourth respondent applied for grant of mining lease over an extent of 36 acres in Sy.No. 39/1 of Vemulanerva village, Kesampet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar district for a period of 20 years. According to the State Government, the fourth respondent did not respond by filing approved minor plans in spite of grant of several opportunities, thereby it had passed the order dated 15.5.2007 rejecting the mining application of the fourth respondent. Questioning the said rejection, inter alia on the grounds that the fourth respondent had not received any show cause notice prior to the said rejection order and that the fourth respondent had already submitted approved mining plans, the fourth respondent preferred a revision petition, on 11.6.2007. Under the impugned order dated 1.10.2010 the said revision has been allowed by the Central Government by remanding the mining application of the fourth respondent for fresh consideration to the State Government. That order is questioned by the petitioner herein. The writ petitioner states that after rejection of the fourth respondent’s mining application, the petitioner was granted mining lease under G.O. Ms. No. 219, Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 13.8.2008. The said lease is subject to outcome of the revision petition of fourth respondent, but no details of the said revision or its pendency was informed to the writ petitioner. The petitioner also states that after obtaining the lease, he has made huge investments in the said land, as he has set up grinding plant and machinery at a distance of about 600 meters from the mining site by investing a sum of Rs.4.5 crores. He also submits that 40 employees are working in the plant. The petitioner would stand to great prejudice on account of the impugned order which was passed by the Central Government without notice and hearing the petitioner. It is also stated that questioning the mining lease granted to the petitioner, the fourth respondent has preferred another revision petition before the Central Government bearing No. 2/13/2010-RC-II and that revision petition is pending consideration before the first respondent. The learned senior counsel submits that the order of rejection of the fourth respondent’s mining application itself would state that numerous opportunities given to the fourth respondent over the years were not availed by him and as such the rejection of his mining application was clearly justified. However, the same was not taken into consideration and the Central Government was not apprised of the events prior to the rejection as well as the events subsequent to the rejection of the fourth respondent’s mining application, as the petitioner was not a party before the Central Government in the revision petition. The learned senior counsel would, therefore, submit that the impugned order itself suffers from non- application of mind and is liable to be set aside so as permit the petitioner to continue the lease granted in his favour. Smt. N. Shobha, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, on the contrary, contends that the claim of the petitioner arises subsequent to the rejection of the fourth respondent’s mining application and filing of the revision petition before the Central Government, and therefore it was neither necessary to implead the writ petitioner nor was it necessary to hear him. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and in my view, irrespective of the petitioner being a necessary party before the Central Government in the impugned revision petition, as the second revision petition referred to above is already pending before the Central Government on the same subject matter between all the parties herein, the petitioner would at least be considered as a proper party in the impugned revision petition, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner was subsequently granted lease and has made substantial investments in working of the said lease. Whether the rejection of the mining application of the fourth respondent was justified as well as the legality of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner are, therefore, matters which the Central Government must apply its mind and decide the said questions after hearing the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Central Government without hearing the writ petitioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the impugned revision petition bearing No. 2/(17)/2007-RC-II shall stand restored on the file of the Central Government to be heard and disposed of along with revision petition bearing No. 2/13/2010-RC-II after giving notice and hearing the writ petitioner, the fourth respondent as well as the State Government. The fourth respondent shall, therefore, take appropriate steps to implead the writ petitioner in the impugned revision petition to enable the Central Government to decide both the revision petitions together. The said revision petitions shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. In view of the disposal of the main writ petition, the vacate stay petition i.e., W.V.M.P.No. 1904 of 2011 does not survive and it is accordingly dismissed. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 31.10.2011 KR