1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4506 of 2010 Udaykumar s/o Vasantkumar Betharia, Aged years, Occupation – Mining, Resident of 150, Civil Lines, Amravati Road, Near Ravi Nagar Chowk, Nagpur-440 033. … Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra prasad Road, New Delhi 110 001. 2. The Revisional Authority, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, Shastri Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110 001. 3. The Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Department of Industries, Energy and Labour, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. 4. The Director, Geology and Mining, Old Secretariat, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 5. Mrs. Rachana w/o Ashish Belorkar, Kanchan Geet Apartments, Plot No.57, Near Hill Road, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur-440 010. 6. The Collector, Nagpur, Taluka and District Nagpur. … Respondents 2 Shri M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri S.K. Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Smt. T.D. Khade, AGP for Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6. Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM : R.K. Deshpande, J. DATED : 6th April, 2011 Oral Order : 1. This petition challenges the order dated 29-7-2009 passed in Revision Application No.17(13)/2008-RC-II filed by the petitioner. The said revision application has been dismissed by the Director (Mines), Ministry of Mines, Government of India, upholding the order dated 20-5-2008 passed by the Hon'ble Minister (Mines), State of Maharashtra, recommending grant of prospecting licence of Manganese Ore over an area of 26.67 H./R. to the respondent No.5-Smt. Rachana Ashish Belorkar at Mouza Kawatha, Taluka Saoner, District Nagpur. 2, The claims of all the applicants for grant of prospecting licence in respect of the land in question has been considered by the State Government in its order dated 15-4-2008. The case of the petitioner has been considered at serial No.(15) as under : “(15) Shri Uday Kumar Vasant Kumar Betharia, Nagpur has applied for P.L. Over an area of 15.04 H./R. on 22.01.2007. It is seen from submissions of the applicant that :- (i) He has applied for P.L. In Individual Capacity. 3 (ii) Applicant is Mechanical & Automobile Engineer by profession. (iii) He does not hold any M.L./P.L. (iv) Applicant is having experience of mining. Further qualified staff is appointed. (v) Finance will be raised by self and through financial institution, but details are not submitted.” The case of the respondent No.5-Smt. Rachana Ashish Belorkar has been considered at serial No.(2) as under : “(2) Smt. Rachana Ashish Belorkar, Nagpur has made two applications (a) for M.L. Over an area of 26.67 H./R. on 25.05.2005 and (b) for P.L. over an area 26.67 H./R. on 18-05- 2005. It is seen from her submissions that : (i) She is Proprietor of “Sharli Minerals” which is a registered S.S.I. Unit which is established for benefication of minerals. (ii) She holds three Prospecting Licences for Dolomite in Nagpur District and do have experience to carry on P.L. The qualified technical staff is available. (iii) She do have adequate financial capacity and Solvency Certificate is submitted.” It has been held that the respondent No.5 fulfills the criteria laid down as per the rules and regulations to be recommended for mineral concessions. It has further been held that the petitioner has not 4 submitted the details about either availability of technical staff or financial capacity for carrying out the prospecting licence operations. With these findings, it has been held that the respondent no.5 deserves to be recommended for grant of prospecting licence. Accordingly, under Section 11(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the recommendations have been submitted for grant of prospecting licence. 3. The petitioner preferred the revision before the respondent No.2, the Revisional Authority, against the order granting prospecting licence to the respondent No.5. The relevant consideration of challenge is reflected in paras 12, 13, and 14 of the order, which are reproduced below : “12. We find that the submissions made by the revision applicant that the Impleaded Party does not have any experience in the mining sector, are contrary to the records and his own submissions made in the revision application. The applicant has specifically mentioned that though the Impleaded party has another three PL/MLs, but, however, he mentioned that the Impleaded Party has intention to sell the same. These submissions are not only contradictory but his contention that the Impleaded party may sell off the PL/MLs is not born out from record. The Impleaded Party, on the other hand, had vehemently stressed that she has vast technical experience, sound financial standing and technical expertise to carry out the prospecting. She has also pleaded that she is 5 already carrying out the prospecting activities in respect of dolomite mineral and the respondent have rightly granted them the PL.” “13. We noticed that the respondent while passing the Impugned Order, have applied their mind completely on the various criteria as detailed out in the inter se merit chart and has given detailed reasoning for selecting the Impleaded party. The respondent, in pursuance to their policy to strengthen and nurture the chain of SSI units in public interests, have decided to give preference to such SSI units. The respondent, who is a proprietor of sharli minerals, which is registered as SSI unit and hence, to promote the SSI units, the respondent, in exercise of powers under Section 11(5) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, have detailed out the special reasons and recorded the same in writing in the Impugned Order and, thus, sanctioned PL in favour of the Impleaded Party. Therefore, we hold that the respondent have passed the Impugned Order after following the principles of natural justice, taking into account various parameters, like technical expertise, financial strength and public policy of the State and then in pursuance of the special reasons recorded in writing, have rightly granted the PL in favour of the Impleaded Party.” “14. In view of the above, we do not find any legal infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the respondent, 6 thereby granting PL in favour of the Impleaded Party and rejecting the PL application of the revision applicant. We do not find any merit in the revision application filed by the revision applicant and hold the same is liable to be dismissed.” With the aforesaid findings, the revision application has been dismissed confirming the order passed by the State Government. 4. Shri Jaiswal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, submits that the area in question has been prospected and the report to that effect has been submitted to the State Government on 20-1-2011, and, therefore, the present petition has become infructuous. He further submits that if at all the petitioner wants to raise any objection in respect of the said report, it is open for him to approach the State Government, which is the competent authority. 5. The contention of Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the claim of the petitioner has not been considered properly. According to him, it is discovered that the area in question in respect of which the prospecting licence has been granted to the respondent No.5, belongs to the private parties, and hence the prospecting licence could not have been granted in respect thereof. The contention cannot be accepted. The petitioner himself has applied for grant of prospecting licence in respect of the same area. If the area is not available for prospecting purposes, then it is for the competent authority to consider it. He further submits that the procedure for grant of prospecting licence 7 includes the auction. However, he is unable to point out that any such provision existed on the date when the State Government considered the applications and passed an order. Perusal of the comparative assessment made by the State Government shows that there is an application of mind to the relevant aspects. The claims of the petitioner and the respondent No.5 have been considered. The challenge to the findings recorded by the State Government has been rejected by the respondent No.2, the Revisional Authority. The order passed by the Revisional Authority also takes into consideration the relevant aspects. 6. Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the State Government has recorded the finding in respect of the claim of the petitioner that the finance will be raised by sale and through financial institution, but the details are not submitted. He has invited my attention to para 17 of the petition, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner had attached with the application necessary certificates and other documents showing experience of mining, drilling as well as using mechanical drilling, power excavators and all other machines. However, there is no statement that the details were submitted in respect of the finance before the State Government. The another ground, which is assigned by the State Government, is that the petitioner does not hold any mining licence/prospecting licence. How this finding is incorrect, has also not been pointed out in the petition. Moreover, the points were also not raised in the revision application before the respondent No.2, the Revisional Authority. In view of this, the authorities below, after taking into consideration the material produced before them, have recorded the findings of fact, which do not call for interference. 8 7. Thus, the petition has no merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. Pdl.