Mining lease recommendation is not a completed grant; reservation of the area remained valid under the statutory scheme.
A rejected mining-lease applicant could invoke revision under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 because an aggrieved person may challenge the State Government's order, provided the successful applicant is impleaded. A State Government recommendation in favour of an applicant did not amount to a concluded grant of lease: prior Central Government approval and the remaining statutory lease formalities had not been completed. Because no registered lease deed or completed grant existed, the area could still be reserved by the Central Government under Section 17-A(1-A) of the MMDR Act for government operations, and the reservation notification and revisional order were upheld.
Issues: (i) Whether a revision under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 was maintainable at the instance of an applicant whose mining-lease request had been rejected by the State Government. (ii) Whether the Central Government could reserve the concerned area under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and whether the State Government's recommendation in favour of the petitioner amounted to a concluded grant of mining lease.
Issue (i): Whether a revision under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 was maintainable at the instance of an applicant whose mining-lease request had been rejected by the State Government.
Analysis: Rule 54 permits any person aggrieved by an order of the State Government or other authority to seek revision before the Central Government. In a case where the State Government has rejected one application and granted preference to another applicant, the aggrieved rejected applicant is entitled to invoke the revisional remedy, provided the successful applicant is impleaded as required by the Rules. The subsequent consideration of the State Government's recommendation on merits by the revisional authority is therefore not barred by maintainability objections.
Conclusion: The revision was maintainable and the objection to its entertainability failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the Central Government could reserve the concerned area under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and whether the State Government's recommendation in favour of the petitioner amounted to a concluded grant of mining lease.
Analysis: Section 17-A(1-A) empowers the Central Government, in consultation with the State Government, to reserve any area not already held under a prospecting licence or mining lease for operations through a Government company or corporation. The State Government's order in favour of the petitioner was only a recommendation and did not become an effective grant because prior approval of the Central Government remained necessary under the statutory scheme, and the further steps required under the Mineral Concession Rules had not been completed. In the absence of a completed grant and registered lease deed, the area could still be treated as not already held. The consultation requirement was also treated as satisfied on the record.
Conclusion: The reservation notification was valid and the State Government's recommendation did not confer a completed mining lease; the challenge to the revisional order and notification failed.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because the revisional authority acted within jurisdiction and the Central Government's reservation of the area was not shown to be illegal or arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: A State Government recommendation for grant of mining lease does not amount to an actual grant until the statutory approval and lease formalities are completed, and an area covered only by such recommendation may still be reserved by the Central Government under Section 17-A(1-A) if it is not already held under a mining lease.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
