AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1714
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Namita Choudhary, AOR JUDGMENT M.M. SUNDRESH, J. 1. In all these appeals the Appellants seek to overturn the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench declaring sub-rule (10) of Rule 4 and sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") as unconstitutional. 2. Heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Appellants and Ms. Shobha Gupta, learned Advocate-on-Record & Ms. Ankita Gupta, learned Advocate, appearing for the Respondents. A VISIT TO THE RULES: 3. The Rules were brought into statute by the first appellant in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "1957 Act") for regulating the grant of quarry licenses, mining leases and other mineral concessions qua minor minerals. Chapter II of the Rules deals with grant of leases. Rule 7 speaks of preferential rights of certain persons. As per the said Rule, in existence prior to the amendment made on 28.01.2011, one applicant shall have a preferential right over the others on the sole basis of his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncluding member of para military forces belonging to Rajasthan, who have been permanently disabled or dependents of those who have died while in service; 5% (vii) Rajasthan State Government servants who have been permanently disabled while on duty or the dependents of those who have died while in service; 5% (viii) Societies of Unemployed youth of Rajasthan; 30% (ix) Other persons; 10% In the reserved area applications will be invited after 30 days of notification and the applications received within a period of 30 days after 30 days of notification shall be treated as received on the same day. The applications shall be disposed of by way of lottery. (vi) after the existing sub-rule (4), the following new sub-rule (5) shall be added, namely:- "(5) If a short term permit application is received from a contractor who has been awarded work for National/State Highway (road construction project) shall be given priority over an application of mining lease received within a period preceding 3 months from date of short term permit application subject to following conditions - (a) Short term permit application has been filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Manual workers belonging to Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes / Other Backward Classes / Special Backward Class employed in Mines; 5% (iii) Manual workers other than Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes / Other Backward Classes / Special Backward Class employed in mines; 5% (iv) Persons belonging to Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes / Other Backward Classes / Special Backward Class 20% (v) Persons identified as Below Poverty Lines; 10% (vi) Ex-soldiers including member of para military forces belonging to Rajasthan, who have been permanently disabled or dependents of those who have died while in service; 5% (vii) Rajasthan State Government servants who have been permanently disabled while on duty or the dependents of those who have died while in service; 5% (viii) Societies of Unemployed youth of Rajasthan; 30% (ix) Other persons; 10% Provided that mining leases for mineral bajri shall only be granted by way of tender or auction." 8. We have been informed at the Bar by Dr. Singhvi, that even these Rules underwent further amendments creating a new procedure by way of e-auction. While taking note of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a decision in rem but subject to the rider that all the pending applications ought to be considered in accordance with the amendment made vide Notification dated 28.01.2011 to Rule 4 and 7, "(i) That the respondent State shall undertake the exercise of delineating, demarcating and specifying all the mining areas available for the Sandstone and Masonry Stone within a period of six months as undertaken by the learned Addl. Advocate Generals, on behalf of the State. (ii) Thereafter, the State Government will re-notify such delineated areas for grant of mining leases for sandstone and masonry stone, as the case may be, with the stipulation & condition that payment of Royalty and dead rent applicable for the sandstone in case sandstone is also found available in the mining lease granted for masonry stone. (iii) That all the applications hitherto filed for such mining leases shall be treated as revived and with further applications, which may now be filed upon such re-notification of delineated areas available for grant of mining leases for sandstone and masonry stone. The earlier applicants will be at liberty to withdraw their earlier applications & file fres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t available to claim it as vested. The Respondents cannot have a fundamental right in mining. The High Court is wrong in going into the principles governing Legitimate Expectation and Natural Justice in a case involving amendments by way of introduction of new Rules through the process of substitution. He further goes on to state that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as they would stand in the way of the new amended Rules being given effect to, meant for all the minor minerals in the State. SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS: 16. Ms. Shobha Gupta, learned Advocate-on-Record, & Ms. Ankita Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents, submitted that the High Court was right in holding that the impugned amendments are nothing but an attempt to overreach the earlier decision of the Court. There is no justification for keeping the applications pending for decades. Had the applications been considered earlier, leases would have been granted. The areas sought for mining by the Respondents are not very huge in extent and therefore their applications ought to be considered under the then relevant rules in existence. There is malice in law through the introduction of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icular 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." (emphasis supplied) Fundamental Right 18. The question of applicants not having fundamental right in mining is no longer res integra, Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1 may shed some light, "No fundamental right in mining 133. The appellants have applied for mining leases in a land belonging to the Government of Jharkhand (erstwhile Bihar) and it is for iron ore which is a mineral included in Schedule I to the 1957 Act in respect of which no mining lease can be granted without the prior approval of the Central Government. It goes without saying that no person can claim any right in any land belonging to the Government or in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xx xxx xxx 188. It is not necessary to multiply the decisions of this Court. Suffice it to observe that the following principles in relation to the doctrine of legitimate expectation are now well established: xxx xxx xxx 188.3. Where the decision of an authority is founded in public interest as per executive policy or law, the court would be reluctant to interfere with such decision by invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The legitimate expectation doctrine cannot be invoked to fetter changes in administrative policy if it is in the public interest to do so. 188.4. The legitimate expectation is different from anticipation and an anticipation cannot amount to an assertable expectation. Such expectation should be justifiable, legitimate and protectable. 188.5. The protection of legitimate expectation does not require the fulfilment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words, personal benefit must give way to public interest and the doctrine of legitimate expectation would not be invoked which could block public interest for private benefit." (emphasis supplied) 20. Kerala Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture will be granted or if the person is already in receipt of the benefit, that it will be continued and not be substantially varied, then the same could be enforced. 18. It has been held by R.V. Raveendran, J. in Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar [(2006) 8 SCC 381 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1986] that legitimate expectation is not a legal right. Not being a right, it is not enforceable as such. It may entitle an expectant: (SCC p. 391, para 15) "(a) to an opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed; or (b) to an explanation as to the cause for denial. In appropriate cases, the courts may grant a direction requiring the authority to follow the promised procedure or established practice." Substantive Legitimate Expectation 19. An expectation entertained by a person may not be found to be legitimate due to the existence of some countervailing consideration of policy or law. [ H.W.R. Wade & C.F. Forsyth, Administrative Law (Eleventh Edn., Oxford University Press, 2014).] Administrative policies may change with changing circumstances, including changes in the political complexion of Governments. The liberty to make such changes is so....