Mining licence applications must be decided under the law in force at disposal; no vested preferential right survives amendment.
Amended mining law displaced any preferential claim based on the date of filing, so pending prospecting licence applications had to be considered under the law in force at disposal rather than the unamended Section 11 regime. The Court also recognised that departmental officers may hear and process applications for the Government under the Rules of Business without a separate statutory delegation, where no contrary statutory scheme applies. Vague allegations of bias and the collateral challenge to the earlier return of the application were rejected. The writ petition therefore failed and the impugned proceedings were left undisturbed.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner retained any preferential right to have his prospecting licence application considered under the unamended law after the 1999 amendment to Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. (ii) Whether the hearing and consideration of the applications by the Secretary and the departmental committee were incompetent in the absence of a formal statutory delegation under Section 26(2) of the Act. (iii) Whether the challenge based on bias and the earlier return of the petitioner's application could succeed.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner retained any preferential right to have his prospecting licence application considered under the unamended law after the 1999 amendment to Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
Analysis: The amended Section 11 substituted the earlier first-come-first-served approach and required pending applications in a notified area to be considered in accordance with the amended scheme. The Court relied on the settled principle that no applicant has a vested right to have an application decided under the law in force on the date of filing, and that pending applications must be dealt with under the law in force on the date of disposal. Since the petitioner had only an application and no vested right in the grant itself, the earlier preferential claim could not survive the amendment.
Conclusion: The petitioner had no enforceable preferential right under the unamended provision, and the objection to simultaneous consideration failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the hearing and consideration of the applications by the Secretary and the departmental committee were incompetent in the absence of a formal statutory delegation under Section 26(2) of the Act.
Analysis: The Court held that under the constitutional cabinet system and the Rules of Business, an officer of a department may hear and process matters on behalf of the Government, and such action is constitutionally the act of the Government itself. A statutory delegation under Section 26(2) was therefore not necessary for the Secretary to conduct the hearing. The Court distinguished cases involving existing rights and quasi-judicial hearings, and held that at the stage of grant of a prospecting licence no pre-existing right or legitimate expectation was involved. The hearing procedure adopted by the State was therefore valid.
Conclusion: The hearing process was competent and lawful, and the challenge to the committee's authority failed.
Issue (iii): Whether the challenge based on bias and the earlier return of the petitioner's application could succeed.
Analysis: The allegation of bias was found to be vague and unsupported by specific pleadings or impleadment of the concerned officials. The challenge to the earlier administrative action returning the proposal was also treated as stale and incapable of collateral attack in the present proceeding, especially when no final decision had yet been taken after remand.
Conclusion: The allegations of bias and the collateral challenge to the earlier action were rejected.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on all substantive grounds and the impugned proceedings were left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: An applicant for a mining or prospecting concession has no vested right to insist on decision under an earlier regime, and pending applications must be considered under the law and procedure in force at the time of disposal; departmental officers may act for the Government under the Rules of Business without a separate statutory delegation where no contrary statutory scheme exists.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
