Mining lease applications create no vested right, and the State may shift to auction-based allocation in public interest.

A pending application for a mining lease over Government land does not create a vested or enforceable right, so the State may change the lease-grant procedure in public interest. The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot prevent a policy shift to a more transparent auction-based allocation, and no personal hearing is required before the rule change itself. The amended rules were also not shown to be tainted by legal malice or to have unlawfully overridden earlier orders. The State's statutory rule-making power therefore supports revised grant procedures, including rejection of pending applications under the new regime.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether applicants for mining leases over Government land acquire any vested right from a pending application so as to prevent the State from amending the lease-grant procedure; (ii) Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation or natural justice could invalidate the amended rules introducing auction and rejection of pending applications; (iii) Whether the amended rules were vitiated by legal malice or by an attempt to overreach earlier orders.

Issue (i): Whether applicants for mining leases over Government land acquire any vested right from a pending application so as to prevent the State from amending the lease-grant procedure?

Analysis: A mere application for a mining lease does not create an enforceable or vested right. The State retains regulatory control over mineral resources and may alter the grant procedure in public interest. Pending applications have to be dealt with according to the rules in force when the decision is taken, and no applicant can insist on disposal under the earlier regime merely because the application was filed earlier.

Conclusion: No vested right accrued to the applicants from the pending applications.

Issue (ii): Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation or natural justice could invalidate the amended rules introducing auction and rejection of pending applications?

Analysis: Legitimate expectation is not an absolute or enforceable right where the governing policy is changed for a fairer and more transparent method such as auction. Public interest prevails over individual expectations, and the State is not barred from changing the procedure merely because some applicants hoped to be considered under the previous system. The framing of the amended rules did not require a personal hearing before the policy change.

Conclusion: The amended rules could not be struck down on the ground of legitimate expectation or breach of natural justice.

Issue (iii): Whether the amended rules were vitiated by legal malice or by an attempt to overreach earlier orders?

Analysis: The amendments were made under the State's statutory rule-making power and were directed towards a new allocation process applicable across minor minerals. The earlier orders did not confer a universal right to allotment under the old first-come-first-served system, and the amendments were not shown to have been made for a foreign or improper purpose. Hence, legal malice was not established.

Conclusion: The amended rules were not vitiated by legal malice and did not unlawfully overreach the earlier orders.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgments of the High Court were set aside and the amendments to the lease-grant rules were upheld, with the pending matters disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: No person acquires a vested or enforceable right merely by filing a pending application for a mining lease on Government land, and the State may validly alter the grant procedure in public interest even if pending applications are thereby rejected.

---