Preferential mineral concession rights prevail in non-reserved areas unless exceptional special reasons and approval justify a later applicant.
A writ challenge to mineral concession processing was held maintainable because revision lay only against a communicated order, the claim was not premature, and delay and laches did not bar relief. The area was treated as non-reserved because earlier reservation notifications had lost effect after the statutory changes and lacked the required Central approval, so the 1991 notification could not sustain a reservation. For applications filed before the amendment, the earlier applicant retained preferential consideration, and a later applicant could be preferred only for exceptional recorded special reasons with the required approval. The recommendation favouring the later applicant was therefore invalid, and reconsideration of all pending applications was directed.
Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred by availability of an alternative remedy, was premature, or was hit by delay and laches; (ii) whether the area in question was a reserved area or a non-reserved area; (iii) whether the petitioner retained a preferential right of consideration under Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and whether the recommendation in favour of the later applicant was valid.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by availability of an alternative remedy, was premature, or was hit by delay and laches.
Analysis: Revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 lies only against a communicated order. The petitioner's applications had not been rejected and no effective order existed to be challenged in revision. The writ was also not premature because the petitioner approached the Court when its claimed right of consideration was threatened. The long pendency of the applications and the earlier directions of the Court showed that the petition was not liable to be rejected on delay and laches.
Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, was not premature, and was not barred by delay and laches, in favour of the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the area in question was a reserved area or a non-reserved area.
Analysis: The 1962 notifications reserving the area had been issued under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, but Rule 58 was later omitted and there was no saving clause preserving the earlier reservation. The statutory changes introduced Section 4(3) and Section 17-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which required Central approval for reservation, and the earlier reservation notifications had not secured such approval. On that reasoning, the area ceased to remain reserved when the 1991 notification was issued.
Conclusion: The area was treated as non-reserved and the 1991 notification could not operate as a valid reservation, in favour of the petitioner.
Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner retained a preferential right of consideration under Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and whether the recommendation in favour of the later applicant was valid.
Analysis: For applications filed before the 1999 amendment, the earlier applicant retained a right of preferential consideration. Even after amendment, that principle continued for non-notified areas, while later applicants could be preferred only for special reasons under Section 11(5) and with prior Central approval. Special reasons had to be exceptional and distinct from the comparative-merit factors under Section 11(3). The records did not show a proper simultaneous examination of all pending applications or a legally sustainable invocation of Section 11(5). The State's recommendation in favour of the later applicant was therefore not supported by valid statutory reasoning.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to preferential consideration over later applicants, and the recommendation in favour of the later applicant was invalid, in favour of the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The impugned recommendation was set aside and the State was directed to reconsider all pending mineral concession applications afresh in accordance with law and by according the petitioner preferential consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an area is non-reserved and applications are pending, the earlier applicant retains preferential consideration, and a later applicant can be preferred only on exceptional special reasons recorded in writing and supported by the statutory approval required by Section 11(5).
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
