HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1198 of 2002 PETITIONER : M/s. Manish Trading Company A partnership flrrn through Its partner Manish Raj Singhania Son of Shri Raj Kamal Singhania Aged 28 years, Resident of Civil Lines, Raipur, District : Raipur (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Mineral Resource Department, D.K.Bhavan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, Advocate General with Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents. RESPONDENTS ’ 2. The Collector, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ORAL ORDER (Passed on 08a; day of April, 2008) The petitioner impugns the validity of the order/notification dated 23rd March, 2002 (Annexure P/3) published in the Chhattisgarh Official Gazette on 17.5.2002, whereby the Collector (Mineral Branch) Raipur, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules) 1960, (for short “the Rules, 1960') published the order inviting applications for prospecting license/reconnaissance permit/mining lease for extraction of diamonds, precious, semi precious and other allied minerals from Beharadih, Block No. D—7, a‘dmeasuring 4600 sq. K.M. in district Raipur, on account of the fact that the prospecting licence granted to one M/s B.Vijay Kumar Chhattisgarh Exploration Pvt. Ltd., was cancelled. On the question of maintainability of this petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the notification cannot be challenged in revision before the Central Government under the provisions of section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act'), read with Rule 54 the Rules, 1960. Thus, this petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Advocate ‘General appearing for the State/respondents, per contra, would submit that this petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of alternative statutory remedy under the provisions of section 30 of the MMDR Act, read with Rule 54 the Rules, 1960. The impugned notification is nothing but an order passed by the Collector- to notify public at large, inviting applications for the purposes of grant of prospecting licence / reconnaissance permit / mining lease. The word notification has not been defined under the provisions of MMDR Act or the Rules, 1960. I‘n the matter of Kashmiri Lal and others v. State of Punjab and anotherl , the Full Bench of Punj ab & Haryana High Court held as under: “6. The word ‘notitication’ has not been defined in Sec. 3 of the aCt nor does it find place in the Central General Clauses Act, 1898. One must consequently turn to the ordinary dictionary meaning of the‘words ‘notify’ and notification. In Webster New International Dictionary, the word ‘notify’ means: - TO make known, to declare: to publish. and ‘notification’: is the act of notifying a written or printed matter which gives notice. In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the word ‘notify’ means: — To make known, publish, proclaim, to announce, e.g: The King, therefore, notified t0 the country his intention of holding Parliament. ‘Notification’ — the action of notifying ~ In Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary: to make known, to declare. 7 ...... The very word ‘notify’ means to declare or to give notice and is to be contrasted with a mere intent or a cloistered order and thus means something which has been publicized to the citizenry at large. This seems to flow from its ordinary dictionary meaning as also from its use in common parlance.” 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has defined the word. ‘notification’ in the matter of Subhash Ramkumar Bind Alias Vakil And Another v. State of Maharashtraz, as . under: “20.....We find, however, that there is some justification in such contention but the second count is rather important inasmuch as the requirement of the statute is the issuance of a notification. Notification in common English acceptation means and implies a formal announcement of a legally relevant fact and in the event of a‘ statute speaking of a notification being published in the Official Gazette, the same cannot but mean a notification published by the authority of law in the Official Gazette. It is on formal declaration and publication of an order and shall have to be in accordance with thegdeclared policies or in the event the requirement of the statute then in that event in accordance therewith.” ’6. This is not a notification ofpublication of any rules, regulations or provisions of the Act. It is publication of an order in accordance with the provisions of Rule 59 ofthe Rules, 1960. ‘ AIR 1984 Punjab and Haryana 87'Fu11 Bench 2 (2003) i scc 506 Qn mm pemsal of Semion 30 of‘the MMRD Amy and Rude 5401? W6 Rales. 1966? i1; is slear that {m patitmnar, being aggrievmi hy my ordar pagsed hy tha 5mm: Govemment may file a reviskm {0 ihe, Cankrai Gowmment ”I‘hgre is n9 wagon asto why ff“: smfmmry gwovisian be givm a gwbya by entarwining thi$ pamimj particuiarh' m a case him this whére the: teamica} expextiss is required” After hearing }eamed counsai fer Elm mamas on tha quemjon Qfmelmminability of ’this peiitiom it is evidem. that ii'w statuiiery altamatEVé rmméy as provideé unéer provisiam: of sectien 30 ofzhe M‘MDR Aat am! Rule 54 of thé: Rulexg W60, is avaiiable. $3cti0n 3O of the MinsS anti Mmemk (ikvsiopmeat and Regulatim) Act? 195’? remis a3 under: ”30. Powar of revisinn 0f (Emmi Govemmmn u The Cemral Government may; of its mm motiun or on appiicatim maée Within the yrczacribed time by an aggrievad imrtv, rev§$e aily orc‘fuer made by the State {bvemmem or 0mm: auihori’tv in axemisa of tl'm pewem canfarmd m! i‘% by 0r umisr ‘thiS Act {‘Witi’x resyect to any minerai ather than a minor minerali" m. Rula 54 af ihe Minarai {lancessim Rakes” 196i), provitias for appticatian 0f ravisiena which wads as imam “54. Appiication far reviSion. — (3} Ami pemm mgwievecfi hv any (krdmir made by the State Gwemgmng or owe? gafiim‘ity ha exarcise ofthe powers confarred 0n it bv the Act 0r these miss may within {three rrimlthg Qfiha date 0f amrmmaicaiiQQ Qf ma:- order m him apph; t0 The Centrai Govammwt in :r§p§icaie in 113ml N, for revision of {Sm urdar. The; appiicatim} shoulci 136 accompanied by [a Bank Draii for [fWe thousand rugees} Q11 a mticiializeci mm: m me 112mm 0f ’Pay anti Accc’m‘iis Ofi‘mer, Department of Mims‘ Payabk at New Daihi or throagh a traawry ehalian fm {iiva thougané ruperss midis? the Haad m‘ Account ~ $853 — Non-know Minimg and Me‘raimrgiaa‘i Endustrieg _.— 132 Mineral Cm‘icesggicn Feas, Ram and R0yal?ies;:} i’rm’isiati That. any sush app}écaii0n may b$ gntermimzti emer (13mm thiz gaid Gavammem, péréud Gf mime ihat he morxths} had suiiiaient if the ap§w1i¢am caaae for gatigfias um; mahaé thL applicaém; Wi'ihin iiim. {2) in awry application Lmder Submit? {I} agag'yxs‘t ma GMer Ozf‘a State Gevm'mem mfagigg 113.. grant a pmsyamiiig Eimrism a: a mining ieamei any 96mm 1,0 Wham £1 pmwemwg licemm m" mim'i‘ig §m€e mm gramad m :‘égma‘u a}? the 5mm am; m‘ Eh? a 33m £13em0£ aha.“ ha imykmdai a3 pagty. {3} Aiong (with the appiécwm} 12nder Suiymie {1}“ the appiicam‘ ahaik wwrgét as; mam cc’piaE i§3§i‘6?}f as; ’i‘i"nen~3 am paiiwsz impiaadgsd andgr Sim—wig (’2). 4. CemmE {4:3 £313. Gu’wmmmn 1weipi. 0f {he Sinai: appj‘iicmima gtsmi a capy aim 0f i316 the appim ; aim? imziie m” we‘h Gf’ti’m 0:" bawfmw pm‘ééag Whiah imw'mmié3d Em may ‘magk‘; amiier hi3 Sim-mie mpgaczagmmw; (”A 81w jFvma‘ 1i {mi ? giats agah’aSi m“; m: {éWiSjmm agagw§iwi§an”. E L like Supreme» £30m; in me matmr {ff Sta’w of Hi‘. £17m Gathers v, Gujrat Ambuga {iamem aw mlmhers obaeww 21$ wider: ”W. :Wa shall fist dizai withwffh? yiia rigarding altamatiwf wmeuy a3 mum: Dy me appeuam giate. mucpt {by a periw whet: Amide 226 was amwtied by W9 (‘amii‘iutécm ($‘ari‘v $ccnmd Emmiltmmm) Am, i976, thy; éawm‘ i‘etiatfng it; altemativa remedv has‘ hem aonsidared in he a m}? of qeH' impasmi iimi’mtgm. 1R 1&s :aggciitia3w da ' mic; ‘ (if: pumy. cemvenienw am di$cretim am! mva-r a wig GHaW Desm‘iP me exis’wizce 0f almmativa remedy, ii £5 within ihe iui‘iaii}été611 Qf deswriptitm ofths High Cami 1:0 gram raiiafuufier Articie: IZW)‘ of the Cmxstitution. Ai thts fiama mm; it cmmot Ere m3? gighz 2f that though ma mama“ relatmq TO an aliema‘tive remaiv has nuthing to ck) Wi‘ih mg jurigdiitii5n Gf fim aawe, 110n1ialfy the High (léllri shouki mt interfere if there: is: cm aciaquaée efiEcacmus altematjw @gmdy. If wmézmtiv wpfwwhw th»: Hgh (301.137: mmmt avaiiing ‘ihe ammativedt’egketiv pr0;rided 1.};2 E‘iigh €6un 3%mum m7: «Emma thai‘ he has; made“: gym a wm‘ig Gage or max mew exists good gmundg to mvoke the extrzmz'&§jiary jm‘isdimim. 2}. In Gyamgmz Fiiiai v. Ramaw 52 Ramazq Ltd {“C’F v Dmziqz? fm’z‘a Lid” Rcmwivzdm Kgskaré Biswczs V: Sgare; 0f Twpum‘ Shiv Ganda Alma Paiil 1A Siam Qf‘Mahamshtm, C [4 Akmham v. £210, Tiicgghw" Pqpey' M‘iZls “C0. Lid. v, Sim? Q’ Grissa, HBGmgdha‘ v. Gapinafr’? 62 Sam” WhirEpwl {foam V Registrar QfTrademaFks, Tm Piafe C0. affiidia Ltd. v. Siaié 9f Bi/rmr, Swag Dwz‘ v. Jaspai Singh amf Punfab Nariarzaé Bank m OCKrixhmn, thir‘s Couri him hjeld mat vdvhere hiararchy 0f aypmaigs is provmed by tim maxim, party muwt 6xhau$t ihe stammry remedy hcferc resorting to writ jléisdiii‘iw. " L 1" . ‘5. Further applying the said ram) in the matter of 1.1.3). State Spimmg C0. Lm. V. R.S.Pandey Md anothm", thé: Hon‘bk 3uprsma Cami obsarvsd w; :mdgr: ”’21. in UJ'iState Bridge Caryn. Ltd. v. ULP. Rafva Sam Nfgam S. Kamaavhari Smigh, it was heid fhai wiwn ‘thiJdiSpuge fakms to spwifw enforcement remwy of is, a themfam. right or ebliaaticm pr‘cgli’ded wider under ma t’ne gtamté, Latute anti the High Qwrt sfhomé m: deviam fi‘Eéi/n the generai viaw and mmrfem under Ariicie 226 eXz’Jept Whm a vgly gémxg caga £3 mada such i'amedy out fm‘ makiilg eat; ai‘ail a deparim‘e Gf ma {H‘aciasg '1‘he3 peww a£a previded who imisis énder‘tim 11mm statuta. To ths’ Same eff‘ec: or the decisidns in Premier Aammobz‘iex lid. v. KamMcar Sharimmm Wha’kz'? Rafasthar; Jam 6%) é) QLC #99 A am: m 2 SRTC v. Krishna Kant, Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corpn. OfAhmedabad and in Scooters India v. Vijai E. V. Eldred." 13. In another latest decision on the concept of maintainability of writ petition Vis-a- Vis availability of alternative remedy, the Supreme Court in the matter of Secy., U.P.High School & Intermediate Education, Allahabad & another V. H.K.Lal5, observed as under: ”4. From the records it is borne out that the question as to whether the respondent has a legal right to alter his date of birth recorded in the certificate granted by the Board was pending consideration before the appellate Court. The writ petition filed by the respondent should, therefore, not have been entertained particularly in view of the fact that the appeal thereagainst was pending. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and should not ordinarily be exercised if there is an alternative remedy." Applying the well settled principles of law as enunciated above, to the facts of the instant case, wherein the order passed under Rule 59 of the Rules, 1960 is under challenge, there is no allegation of violation of principles of natural justice or violation of fundamental rights and no special circumstances exist which may invoke extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this court to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this petition is not maintainable. The petitioner cannot ignore the statutory provisions of alternative remedy available to him. 15. In the meantime, the interim order dated 29.07.2002 shall remain in operation for a period of 15 days from today. However, in the event a revision is preferred before the Central Government within a period of 15 days from today, the delay caused ion account of pendency of this petition shall be ignored while entertaining the revision filed by the petitioner. The Central Government may consider the revision, if filed, without being influenced by the observations, if any, made hereinabove by the Court. 16. This petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. Certified copy, by tomorrow. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihtm-it Judge 1 . 4; Amit 5 (2007) 2 SCC 216