1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No.6645 of 2008. In Writ Petition No.2625 of 2007. Ashish S/o Ramesh Belorkar. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances,Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri A. S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. BH Dangre, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Respondents. Coram: B. H. Marlapalle and A. H. JOSHI, JJ. Dated: 14th OCTOBER 2008. 1. Heard Mr. Jaiswal, the Learned Counsel for the applicant who has filed Writ Petition No.2625 of 2007 has challenged the notification issued by the Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining under the delegated powers assigned to him by the State Government. 2. By this application, the applicant/petitioner prays for stay to the decision taken by the Government of Maharashtra on 7-7-2008. 2 3. The State Government has filed its reply on 10-10-2008 and has opposed this application. 4. A copy of the order dated 7-7- 2008 is placed on record and it has been passed by the Minister for Industries and Mining, Government of Mahaerashtra. It is evident from the said order that in all 30 applicants have been considered for grant of mining lease, and they were called and heard on 8-5-2008. There is a chart of comparative statement annexed to the order thereby listing out the details of all the applicants like date of application, area applied for, special knowledge or experience possess by the applicants, financial resources, the nature and quality of the technical staff employed or to be employed, proposed investment for mines or the industries based on the minerals and reasons for acceptance/rejection of the application. 5. In the said chart, the name of the petitioner appears at Sr. No.1, and it is noted that the petitioner applied for the area admeasuring 13.78 Hectors and he holds the prospecting licence in Nagpur 3 District for dolomite. He had not submitted the solvency certificate, the income tax clearance certificate for the year 2003-2004, showed the income of Rs.2,14,850/-. The technical staff was not available and it was proposed to be appointed. Nothing was mentioned about the proposed investment. The petitioner's application was dated 5-11-2003 and it came to be reasons for the following reasons. “In Maharashtra the Iron Ore reserves are limited. Therefore, it is decided to utilise the mineral for captive use in the interest of conservation and development of available mineral wealth. However, Applicant has proposed to utilise mineral for trading. Hence, application is rejected”. [Quoted from page 150 of Writ Petition Paper Book] 6. The Order passed by the Minister on 7-7-2008 recorded the following conclusions: The Iron Ore reserves in Maharashtra are limited. In this particular case the area available for allotment of ML is only 13.78 H/F and estimated reserves of mineral is meager i.e. is 10,000.00 tones. It is endeavour of the State to maintain equipoise in the conservation and development of mineral wealth. As such, the Applicants mentioned in Para 8A & B under caption “observations” really deserves to be recommended for grant of ML. However, this proposition is not 4 practicable as an area available for grant is very small and cannot be split to satisfy the aspiration of these applicants. Further the estimated reserves are not sufficient to establish independent mineral based industry as well as insufficient to cater their needs. Hence, it is worthwhile to choose one of emerging entrepreneur eager to enter into mining field and to stimulate him to establish mineral based industry with appropriate assistance. 2. Thus, taking into consideration the above narration and the Inter-se- Merit chart and contentions made in para 5 under caption”Observations” of this order, I am satisfied that Shri Ghanshyam Nandlal Popat is one of the emerging entrepreneur who is capable to utilize this opportunity to achieve the goal of setting up the mineral based industry by making all out efforts. [Quoted from Page 148 & 149 of Writ Petition Paper Book] 7. The order dated 7-7-2008 is obviously a recommendation to the Central Government to grant mining lease for Iron Ore over the area admeasuring 13.78 Hectors situated at Mouza Bhisi, Tah. Chimur, District Chandrapur and in favour of Shri Ghansham Nandlal Popat. It is for the Central Government to consider the reasons set out in the said order and take a decision. There is no doubt that whenever the decision is taken by the Central 5 Government, the Petitioner or any aggrieved person has the right of revision against such an Order. When the Central Government has to pass the order based on the recommendations made by the State Government, obviously, it will consider the applications and the details submitted therein except those applicants who did not remain present before the Minister for hearing on 8-5-2008. The applicant was present when the Minister heard the applicants. Just because the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 12-10-2006, cannot by itself be a reason to stay the order dated 7-7-2008, which in fact, is only a recommendation made to the Central Government, and any order passed by the Central Government could be challenged in revision application under Rule 54 of the Mines and Mineral Concession Rule 1960. 8. Hence, we do not find a prima facie case made out by the applicant to stay the recommendatory order dated 7-7-2008. 9. This application is, therefore, rejected. 6 Writ Petition No.2625 of 2007. 10. List the petition for final hearing in the weeks commencing from 19-01-2009. JUDGE JUDGE Sbm