fSSS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARII AT BILASPUR 'x/ .u-Jli.JJ.^.,11 PETITIONERS Writ Petition NQ. 97 of 2002 . B. Vijay Kumar CUhattisgarh Exploration Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 501-B, Priyadarshini Co- operation Housing Society Ltd. Priyadarshani Nagar, Ring RoadNo.l, Raipur (CG). ;. Shirish I. Shah, Director,. B. Vijay Kumar Chhattisgarh Exploration Pvt. Ltd. Aged about 63 years, S/o Shri Indu Lal Mansukh Lal- Shah, R/o A-32, Blue Diamond Apartment, Central Avenue, Chembur Mumbai. VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry ofMining Govemment oflndia, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Mineral Department Chhattisgarh. 3. Secretary, Department of Forest, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4.8pecial on Dufy Officer, Sanchalnalaya, Laad in Mining, Raipur Chhattisgarh. . 5. Collector, District, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aenihotri, J.V Present : Shri Ambuj Agrawal, Advocate forthepetitioners; ShriAjay Barik, Advocate forthe respondentNo. 1. Shri Prashant Mishra/Advocate General with Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Vivek Sharma, Advoeate for the intervenor. ORALORDER (Passed on07tIfofApril, 2008) 1. The petitioner impugns validity of the order dated 14.12.2001 (Armexure P/32), whereby, the prospecting license granted fo the petitioner on 25.01.2000 (Annexure P/4) has heen cancelled. The challenge of the petitioner to the validity of the impugned order is on several grounds, including violation ofprinciples ofnaturaljustice. 2. The prospecting license was granted to the petitioner with certain terms and Conditions. According to leamed Advocate General appearing for the . State/respondents, the petitioner has fiot compliedwith' the termsj and; conditions of the prospecting license (for short 'PL'). Thus, afler giving - opportunity of hearing, FL was carice d. The^Advocate General fui-ther submits that tHis petjtion is hotimaintainable in view of ay^tabilit^ of; alteroative statutory remedy to theipetitioner under the provisiona ofSej^idn 1 ] 30 ofthe Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)! short 'MMDR Act'), read with Rule 54 of the Mineral Cori| 1960, (for short 'the Rules, 1960') which provides fbr power of]| Central Govemment. 3. Shri Ambuj Agrawal, leamed counsel appearing fbr the petjj that this Court in case of violation of principles of natur;| entertain a petition even if there is availability of alternativei Agrawal relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the EO]| (Smt.) & another v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and otheii 4. On bare pemsal of Section 30 ofthe MMRD Act, and Rule 54 1960, it is clear that the petitioner, being aggrieved by any o| the State Government, may file a revision to the Central Govsl is no reason asto why the statutory provision be given entertainmg this petition, particularly in a case like this whe^ expertise is required. 5. After hearing leamed counsel fbr the parties on the| maintainability of this petition, it is evident that the statutji remedy as provided under provisions of section 30 of the Mjl Rule 54 ofthe Rules, 1960, is available. 6. Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Re| 1957 reads as under: "30. Power of revision of Central Govemment - TUl Govemment may, of its own motion or on applicatil within the prescribed time by an aggrieved party, nj order made by the State Govemment or other au1| exercise of fhe powers conferred on it by or under this respect to any mineral other tUan a minor.mineral)." 7. Rule 54 ofthe Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, provides fbr| revision, which reads as under "54. Application fbr revision. - (1) Any person aggrievj| order made by the State Govemment or other authority iil ofthe powers conferred on it by the Act or these mles, mj [three months] of the date of communication of the ordf| apply to the Central Government in triplicate in fbn revision ofthe order. The application should be accompal| Bank Drafi for [five thousand mpees] on a nationalized b name of 'Pay and Accounts Officer, Department of Minei| at New Delhi or through a treasury challan for [five (2003) 7 SCC 693 lct, 1957 (for ;ssion Rules, ivision to the aner submits justice may 'emedy. Shri ter of Kanak i af the Rules, er passed by iment. There i go-bye by £hetechnical fluestion of y alternative :DR Act and ulation) Act, Central n made iise any 3nty in ct (with pplication of by any sxercise / within to him, N, for sd by [a lk in the Payable lousand mpees under the Head of Account - 0853 - Non-ferroil and Metallurgical Industries -102 Mineral Concession F( andRoyalties:] Provided that any such application may be entertained said period of [three months] if the applicant satisfies tti Government that he had sufficient cause for nol]! application within time. j! (2) In every application under sub-rule (1) against the «| State Govemment refusing to grant a prospecting lice| mining lease, any person to whom a prospecting licence || lease was granted in respect of the same area or fbr a pa]| shall be impleaded as party. |1 (3) Along with the applicatioa under sub-mle (1), theil shall submit as many copies thereof as there are parties i! under sub-rule (2). il (4) On receipt ofthe application and the copies thereof, tt| Govemment shall send a copy of the application to edi parties impleaded under sub-mle (2) specifying a date on|| which he may make his representations, if any, against thll application". || 8. In the matter of Kanak (Smt.) & another (supra), the Suprej that once the writ petition has been entertained, the question oll the alternative remedy would not come in the way to decidei merit. In that case it was held that the appellants filed a countei| matter was argued on merit and in that view of the matter it is| l' day to contend that the respondent herein should have || altemative remedy. The facts in the said case was that the wii entertained by a Single Judge after hearing both the parties arii and order was passed. Thereafter, the Division Bench in W| aside the order of the Single Judge, holding that the orderli Single Judge is bad as the writ petition was not maintainable; availability of alternative remedy. In the present case, at thq; respondents have taken objection on maintainability of the || i' basis of statutory provisions. Thus, dictum laid down is not q| facts ofthepresent case. [ 9. Leamed counsel further relied on a decision in State of U.ii Dharmander Prasad Singh, wherein it is held that, it is well | in case of violation of principles of natural justice, the HI| exercise discretion by entertaining the petition. In the in| principle ofnatural justice, as raised by the petitioner itself is order impugned herein indicates that the show cause notice w|| Mining 3, Rents [fter the Central makin; ler of a ce or a mming thereof, pplicant pleaded Central 1 of the i- before revision e Court held :vailability of he matter on iffidavit. The bo late in the lailed of the petition was the judgment t Appeal set assed by the in account of hreshold, the ;tition on the licable to the v. Maharaja ttled law that 1 Court may ant case the Isputed as the issued to the 2 (1989) 2 SCC 505 petitioner and personal hearing was also given to the petitione! as per notice dated 27th August, 2001 (Annexure P/22). | lO.The Supreme Court iri the matter of State of H.P. and ot]| ;rs v. Gujrat Ambuja Cement and another observed as under: | "17. We shall first deal with the plea regarding altern^l raised by the appellant State. Except fbr a period w^i was amended by the Constitution (Forty-second Aii'ili 1976, the power relating to altemative remedy has b<| to be a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essent policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule c|l the existence of altemative remedy, it is within the description ofthe High' Court to grant reliefunder Ar1l| Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight|| the matter relating to an altemative remedy has nothii the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Co1| uiterfere if there is an adequate efficacious altemat^ somebody approaches the High Court without || altemative remedy provided the High Court should ij| he has made out a strong case or that there exists gq| invoke the exta-aordinary jurisdiction. || 21. In G.Verappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd., q| India Ltd., Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State qft Gonda Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra, C.A. Abr& Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, | Gopinath & Sons, Whirlpool Corpn. V. Registrar ofTi^, Plate Co. oflndia Ltd. v. State ofBihar, Sheela Devi v| and Punjab National Bankv. O.C.Krishnan, this Cour|! where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statuji exhaust the statutory remedy befbre resorting to writjui 11. Further applying the said ratio in the matter ofU.P. State Spiiil v R.S.Pandey and anothe/, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observJ I: "21. In U.P.State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Sen Karmachari Sangh, it was held that when the disput«| enforcement ofa right or obligation under the statute ali remedy is, therefore, provided under the statute, the ]]1 should not deviate from the general view and inted Article 226 except when a very strong case is ma|| making a dqiarture. The person who insists upon su|| can avail of the process as provided under the statiji same effect or the decisions in Premier Automobilv Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, Rajasthan SRTC v. Kri^ Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Ahmedabad and in Scooters India v. Vijai E. V. Eldred^ 12. In another latest decision on the concept of maintainability o|| /e remedy as 1 Article 226 idment) Act, n considered lly a rule of 'law. Despite Irisdiction of le226ofthe F that though g to do with ; should not : remedy. If ivailing the t ensure that i grounds to E v. Dvnlop ripura, Shiv am v. I.T.0, B.Gandhi v. iemarks, Tin aspal Singh, lad held that party must sdiction." ing Co. Ltd. ; as under: Nigam S. •elates to 1 specific gh Court re under out for i remedy . To the : Ltd. v. 'na Kant, •pn. Of ivnt petition vis-a-vis availability of altemative remedy, the Supreme Couril a the matter (2005) 6 SCC 499 (2007)2.SCC216 »PY ._r" of Secy., U.P.High School & Intermediate Education, Allahabad & another v.H.K.Lal, observed as under: "4. From the records it is bome out that the question as to whether the respondent has a legal right to alter his date ofbirth reeorded in the certificate granted by the Board was pending consideration before tKe appellate Court. The writ petition filed by the respondent should, therefore, not have been entertained particulariy in view of the fact fhat the appeal thereagainst was pending, Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and should not ordinarily be exercised ifthere is an altemative remedy." 13. Applying the well settled principles of law as eAunciated above, to the facts ofthe instant case,wherein the violation ofprinciples of natural justice is in dispute, there is no allegatioo of violation of fundamental rights and no special cireumstances have been shown to invoke extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction to entertain tKis petition under Artiele 226 ofthe Constitution of India, this petition is not maintainable. The statutory provisions of altemative remedy available to the petitioner, can not be ignored. 14. Thus, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The interim relief granted earlier stands discharged. However, in the event a revision is prefen-ed before the Central Govemment within a period of 15 days from today, the delay caused on account of pendency of this petition shall be ignored while entertaining the revision filed by the petitibner. / : ". ' : ! 15. In the meantime, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner for a period of 15 days. The Central Govemment may consider fhe reyision with application for interim relief, if filed, without being influenced by the observations, if any, made hereinabove by this Court. Certified copy, by tomorrow. SdA Satish'K.i.Agnaiotri _ Judge : Sahu