Case: M.P. Ram Mohan Raja Vs. State Of Tamil Nadu

of the matter afresh. Meanwhile, the allotment was further cancelled in 1992. This Court held that due to in ordinate delay in filing the writ petition, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition and accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court. 13. So far as the question of delay is concerned, no hard and first rule can be laid down and it will depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the facts stare at the face of it that on 8.10.1996 an order was passed by the Collector in pursuance to the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for consideration of the grant of mining lease. The writ petitioner sat tight over the matter and did not challenge the same up to 2003. This on the face of it appears to be very serious. A person who can sit tight for such a long time for no justifiable reason, cannot be given any benefit. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the High Court passed the order on 14.6.1996, at that time Rule 39 was in existence. Therefore, the case of the writ petitioner should have been decided by the High Court as if the Rule had not been deleted or repealed. In support thereof, learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the following decisions of this Court. i) 1993 Supp (1) SCC 96 (II) In the matter of : Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal. ii) AIR 1994 SC 1 State of Haryana & Ors. v. The Karnal Co-op. Farmers Society Limited etc. iii) AIR 2003 SC 833 Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. 15. In the matter of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, their Lordships held that Legislature can change the law in general by changing the basis on which a decision given by court but it cannot affect setting aside the decision inter parties itself. Similarly, in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. it was held that decree of civil court and judicial order holding that certain lands and immovable properties fell outside "shamilat deh" regulated by principal Act, subsequent amendment directing Assistant Collector to decide the claim by ignoring them was held to be unconstitutional as it encroaches upon judicial power. 16. In the case of Beg Raj Singh, the petitioner was granted mining lease for 3 to 5 years but the petitioner was erroneously granted lease for one year. It was held that a right accrued to the petitioner to continue for a minimum period of three years in terms of the policy decision and it was held that it cannot be curtailed because of lapse of time in litigation and on the ground that higher revenue would be earned by the Government by auctioning the mining rights. 17. Therefore the Court directed that the petitioner would be entitled to continue for a period of three years. Now, coming to the merits of the writ petition we find that the rule was already repealed on 27.6.1996 and the ground reality had also changed. So far as grant of mining and mineral lease is concerned, no person has a vested right in it. There is no quarrel on the legal proposition that if certain rights have been decided on the basis of the law which was obtaining at that time, that will not nullify the judicial decision unless the bases are taken out. In the present case, the rule under which the writ petitioner sought direction for consideration of his application has already been repealed within the time frame directed by the High Court. Therefore the basis on which the order was passed has been totally knocked out. Rule 39 on the basis of which direction was given was not in existence. Therefore, it could not have been possible for the authorities to have acceded to the request of the writ petitioner. More so, no one has a vested right in mineral lease. In this connection it will be more useful to refer to a decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone & Ors. [(1981) 2 SCC 205] . Their Lordships in the aforesaid case observed as follows: "The submission was that it was not open to the government to keep applications for the grant of leases and applications for renewal pending for a long time and then to reject them on the basis of Rule 8-C notwithstanding the fact that the applications had been made long prior to the date on which Rule 8-C came into force. While it is true that such applications should be dealt with within a reasonable time, it cannot on that account be said that the right to have an application disposed of in a reasonable time clothes an applicant for a lease with a right to have the application disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of the making of the application. No one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In the absence of any vested rights in anyone, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that applications for the grant of renewal of leases made long prior to the date of G.O.Ms. No.1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C did not exist." 18. Similarly in the case of P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [ (1996) 5 SCC 268 ] their Lordships reiterated the same position.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We are satisfied that there was no justification for the writ petitioner to have waited for a long time. Once the order was passed on 8.10.1996, then there was no need for the writ petitioner to have waited for such a long time. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the High Court. However, the High Court despite the fact that the writ petition was belated and suffered from laches entered into the controversy on the merits also and took the view that when Rule 39 was deleted within four weeks of the direction to the State Government to dispose of the application of the writ petitioner, there was no option with the Collector but to reject the application as the rule which was in force was repealed, therefore, the basis on which the order was passed was knocked out. Therefore, the High Court declined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner and dismissed the writ petition on merit also.So far as the question of delay is concerned, no hard and first rule can be laid down and it will depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the facts stare at the face of it that on 8.10.1996 an order was passed by the Collector in pursuance to the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for consideration of the grant of mining lease. The writ petitioner sat tight over the matter and did not challenge the same up to 2003. This on the face of it appears to be very serious. A person who can sit tight for such a long time for no justifiable reason, cannot be given any benefit.Therefore the Court directed that the petitioner would be entitled to continue for a period of three years. Now, coming to the merits of the writ petition we find that the rule was already repealed on 27.6.1996 and the ground reality had also changed. So far as grant of mining and mineral lease is concerned, no person has a vested right in it. There is no quarrel on the legal proposition that if certain rights have been decided on the basis of the law which was obtaining at that time, that will not nullify the judicial decision unless the bases are taken out. In the present case, the rule under which the writ petitioner sought direction for consideration of his application has already been repealed within the time frame directed by the High Court. Therefore the basis on which the order was passed has been totally knocked out. Rule 39 on the basis of which direction was given was not in existence. Therefore, it could not have been possible for the authorities to have acceded to the request of the writ petitioner. More so, no one has a vested right in mineral lease. In this connection it will be more useful to refer to a decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone & Ors. [(1981) 2 SCC 205] . Their Lordships in the aforesaid case observed assubmission was that it was not open to the government to keep applications for the grant of leases and applications for renewal pending for a long time and then to reject them on the basis of Rulenotwithstanding the fact that the applications had been made long prior to the date on which Rulecame into force. While it is true that such applications should be dealt with within a reasonable time, it cannot on that account be said that the right to have an application disposed of in a reasonable time clothes an applicant for a lease with a right to have the application disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of the making of the application. No one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In the absence of any vested rights in anyone, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that applications for the grant of renewal of leases made long prior to the date of G.O.Ms. No.1312 should be dealt with as if Rule18. Similarly in the case of P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [ (1996) 5 SCC 268 ] their Lordships reiterated the same position.