EN THE HEGH C(_.)UR'I' OF' K.ARNA'?'AKA AT I:3AN('}A§,(.)RE§
DATED THIS THE 28'" SAY OF AUGUST, 2UU':} '*.T
PRESENT
THE H(')i\§'BLE MR. PD. DINAKARAN, cr%1E%?-.{JU;sjTiVCii'
AND
"me: HONBLE MRJUSTICAEE._\/i'€}:SABfi_AR£vT'~ " "
WRIT PETIT:oN_:Ne:,48:5/2003 j;[:.e..}4 i¥?i'r'*i $3
BETWEEN: . ' A' I
1 M/S iVIUK.AND LzM:'T_E;3'L._V,':'» _ .. »
(}INI(}ERA,VH(.)SPEA1T_ROAD, "
1»-\:(')PPAL DESTRECST. _ -
REP. 3y;"1T:e:;;.$;a1N to R: MANA<.3;E:--R';
'
A(}E:D_A;3<1VuT';-:4')Y:'":fiARs.-" ' PE'I'IT1ONE3R
(£33., $1-s'.-"f P RAJE:§\1._};3_r'TeA.'K-aJ:Ex~:AR SUE\IGAY, ADV(f)CA'I'E3 )
ééfimflwg
2 $TA1;E§'('}---.fi'---«KARNATAKA
I2"::'P.B2.£3:PA¢1ir'M_ENT or? INDUSTRIES,
c;>jr~.4_:\x1:e":';~'3.r;:1?: AND MINING,
. vi;-\;A~S; soumm, VEDHANA VEEZDHI,
£3_ANc3ALc)RE.
2 9r'v:~4,E DERECTOR AND C()IVIM1SSI()NER
{)E3PAF~3'§'§\/IEIE\1T(.)§¥' MINES AND (':E()L()GY,
P{ANL.JA B}-1:-'\\-"/\%\3, RACE COURSEI ROAD,
FSANCEAL-{.)RE~(} E.
ORDER
This writ petition is fiied under Arti<':iesf226.V.éind
227 of the Constitution of India seeking
the communication dated 21_.9..2'OO-7'.Aissue,di:ip§i_ :hei'rir".~:.;
res (indent recommendinv rdnt i'–:)i"i' mininfi in.
C: V_ 'V p. r, . .' 'V
fax-'oLir of respondent No.5 issLieV._a' ciirecfivonmto the 0
first respondent to '"gT€iI'1tji'§;I'1iZ/i.:Ii"1g\.\~-18886?'ifO1""i'[h€ area
sought by the petitiozrzeris—.iin:" i'1;s"«.ii'a.pp__iicati0n dated
10.5.2003.
2: it ..is”i.ave:iireCl ‘i1’i”«.1:he”petiiion that petitioner is a
PL1blie°–.’Li’mit:ed’ _.incorporated in 1.937 and
registered”ii:-‘ider gthe, pfiivisions of the Companies Act,
.VC0rnpa’n–_§,–‘««has groix-“n from a roiling mil} to one
def ‘ie§id.i4i”i1ginanufacturers of Aflqv and Special Steels
i11″i}:i’E”‘. (T§>.L’.}’1″i:.?:.3″_”Vi’ 1nc=1.ing;_»; {he iieeds 0I’o1’igi11a.1.l I:’7′{.fLli}9IflC.’.1″1%’
V._1’1’i£;1I”1L1°i”.?V,1(i31LlI”(“1’I’S (OEM). The company um
2*ViI1?.€}1″i’L1faC[UFiHg pfants, one at Cxinigera, Koppal District,
V !{f.i:*i1.:~1i.;eska, The COl’I’E})EflI]»\-‘KS ggross turnover dLiriiig the
V
_\-‘ea.r 2()0€i–0’?'” is Rs.2078 crore and the ctinrnpanx-‘
r,_ . enfa . ll ii a 1″‘ ..i I t),–7l’rr_”I~1.o. e
esentlx = 4 Ted 1 rats 1 nd ocessn ‘”_1 3_ V if
in two of the mines in the State of Kar:~jlata§<a;'t-lllitt.is "
further averreci that in response to _tis'c.»–..:n.oti~fic'atio_n'V
dated 25.3.2003 inviting applifl:latio:n' "Vf'I';l§')VrTt:l'
public for grant of mining lease iriaresppect as many–~.as'.tV
36 areas, including the area*~._merlttione..Cll"_in'»vth'elsaidl
notification at Sl.l\lo. 12 for of.l7"'98Vf'87JF}/zeetares
situated at Donimalai..4_R.ra11ge,Sa;i1.c§tlr'«talul<:, application
was filed on 10.5.2003. 'Thei'felornpanflretseiveci a notice
under', Rt_,1l_ei'2.6[..1.):'«.ol'«..plVli.ne.sjand Minerals Concession
Rules, l§.9ll€)() l('he'1*e'i;'1al7$terl called the Rules'; dated
3o.ps;r.:2'oo7/3.9.2007ii from the third respondent
lliifiolrmillng the company,' to appear before the Additional
lS_e'c.reta'1*§l?'_'vv..toil"'flovernment (Mines), Commerce and
lndi;tstr—ies"llfiepartment, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course
Bangalore, on l;2.9.i2007' to make a
rtrspmresentation for the applied Mining lease by the
N}
Company. Accordingly, the compan_V's represe*i1—-tati\4-'e
appeared before the Authority and
submissions along with the represen-tgitirionI 'rFiT'1{i_ i'
highlighted some of the salient ifiaetvsjre'iat_ing._:tojV_its
plants in Maharashtra and KarnAait'aka. [The V' C:()T'1"i:'}')E'.3{11_\'f".
referred to its financial ieisoiiirces "anCi't–Iitsi',adeqL1ate
expertise in mining""~3eti.Viti_eS',–._inflresponse to the
notification ciated appiications
were receiveeiiiniihrespeot "of"t'heHiss;idV:«extent of ianoi at
S1.No.12 respondent No.5
is who fiied appiication on
"£8.4.2{A)iO~7L,T after the notification.
\Ar'h1'lje"'rhe appIi_cati<)ns fiieti for the period commencing
A"t._ivi1 31.3.2007 were kept pending, shortly
i"a_ft'e_ip-p.thefieppiiieiétion of the fifth respondent was made,
respect of fifth respondent though, nearlx,–' 60
1"ec:o'nirriendétion has been made for grant of mining
Aappliications have to be processed and therefore, the
M}
act.ior2 of the Governmeiit appears to be inexplicable and
totally lacking tram sparency. Being aggrie\'eciV}q_i\_-' .{h'e"s2i'iti
recommendation, the instant writ p€11'i"'i'{)V1"}':VA_'i'Si. .*"ii1e–d_'i'
E'i\-"(:'1"I'i1'E§_§ that the application of the';:ie't_iti-ioner–.haé'iiioi?;
been considered on merits thetigh the:.:peititioiier¥'a
compaiiy stands on a better"footirigiiithiéinigthe fifth
I"t'SpOi1(i€1'1L
3. We hegiie__ heardii ieoiinsel appearing
for the €p’eii”i.t_’io. ::(_+'(}t.111SC’i appearing for
appearing for
respoiiderit Government Advocate
‘c-1ppETE’i’I’i11gi%ii:(J1″V?€€i3}:*_()i’i’-fiiié1iiitiS I to 3.
4: .i’Leeir.ijed counsel appearing for the petitioner
ii’i’.Ci”t’.’3;’i’Eiii(i'(i’_’=.I:_}T<ij."gI'(')L.lI1dS urged in the writ petition and
sL2bi'nitt5ed"%ihat the procedure prescribed for ex-'aiuat.ion
2'~.3h'é1~;:§…i"1(J'{Hi1{)@(?13 followed in accordance with law, inasmuch
'cii{S',ithE.'. a licaziorz filed by res ondent i\io.5, which is
E – P
we
i"
subsequent. to the date of application of the peti.ti_oner,
has been recommended for grant of mining lease—ii:’n.iiivt.s
fax-*ot1r, withotit considering the merits of theiipet’it:.iione~1’_;_s V’
application and therefore, the jsainie’.isl.1ia.b1_ei”t0 set
aside.
5. Learned cowfliseli’iiiiiaipfiearing “the fifth
respondent submitted that o.pp.or}3.,i_nit}.: of hearing
has been gi:;rei’i’o;v.i.o the ap-eititioi9ie.i”vvva_S:iadmitted by the
petitioneri _itse1’f.in’ p’evt.:tio’»ni’i a.nd the notice at
A1″1I§€”.’>{L.l§”Cf~H.i’til’; .sc5«.fa’r.._as.._the comparative merits of the
petitioner, and the”fiIth”*-«respondent is concerned, since
fifth;r’es.ponden_tidoes not hold any mining lease in
.ii’\’arna.tt§11i<ya.and they tiave established an integrated steel
iii'p_1aii§_tA District, the mining lease is
reeo'rrm"ien'd"ed for its captive use and therefore, there is
2 v,ii'o<i:zi:e1'it in the writ petition and the same is liable to be
d~ivsn'iissed_
K}
6. Leameci Government Advocate appe_a~i7iif1«.grfor
respondents l to 3 submitted that the re<:o–mmiefiéiatiioti~
made in favour of 5"' responé_e.11t_hasi bee:fi';v»i2'i':1Vé'e in ii
E'i.CC'{')I'ClE-1I7C€' \\'llh iE1\'\'.
7. We have hearé the_ii’e.arne”<il VeoupriaeI""._;i_'p'pVeari1ig"'
fot" the parties and scri,1tinisje–d th–eiii<1Aate1'ialvon..i*eco1*d.
8. The material an e1’AeCoifir,:l&:vvx-roltiildwpClearly Show that
the petitioner ahc_i_ the’ii*iftl1~1reepio-noerr:are applicants in
respect” 1′? the notification dated
1f”5.3.2iQQ3_iSiSilea_i”L.1Vri’C§e}”«-,’R§_y1le 59 of the MC Rules, The
petiticmei’°~..maCle~. application on lO.:”5.2OU3.
‘V..,_ARef§.l5loz;den_t Noii5″*’*miade an application for grant of
mihi1″:g”%ea»:§eA.o_oij. i8.4.2oo-“7. In View of the provisions of
Eietgicm_l.illg}’i(>l’ the MMDR Act and the decision of this
W.Court” W./–\.No.5026/2008 and connected appeals
of on 33.6.2009, it is clear that all the
\r/’
10
12–ikC’11 {or aetcttive co1″isiCierati01i once the
not.il’ic;;tt.ion is pubiished under’ Section 11(2) of
the I\/EMDR Act in orcicr to give c.’iTcct to tho Fir:siti”h
aimci :’sCt’t)nCi pI'()Vit-3(.) to Scéctiuti 1]{2) of
MEVIDR Act or otherwise, t.h<:_y _i'«Jt:":(I()'t;1ii"l'(;_:i""
r'<:dL1nda'mt. By this i11{c:"prc''ie-1ti(Jn,—»..et:i'1_ .
}3I'{")ViSi{)l'1S of the Act aiid" ._ RL2l~:Cs– 'arcf
he-1§'113{)11i(')L.1Si\' 1'c2ac.i and gi\~'et1 C'a'."_l"c;¥'’~ t.=t*i«t}it:>..Ltt__i”.
emy i11COf1SiS1′.€’f2CC’ €itI”=._’C{)I”lfiAi'(‘1 fxt-‘1″i’év1{iSs’:i:)(;=x.I_<;;tfV,
becatisc, it" is sctticd 1a\,vi'i'th;:t the 1i*i3o1&11t,1'L"CiSg b:()I.h
pmvisions of Lh€'r' Act 2.-tz1'i:.'1" P.Lil'if3,ii"-Si"l()LEiC.i "tjv "i'c*2-ad
i'1é:lI"TTl(Jl1i(}L1Si_\,-' a1I'tCi' the p_I"()if=:'ii:SSi()iii"i.:-ii of 'tiflt' ACE. and
Rules should be it1.1.(:r_}':tfct.cCito'iéi'chiC'i1c'iithc object
of the 1n=:a1″id ~1’=F1C”C(iji’L~Jif’1v.vShfJ’§,1i(i avoid an
j’iittér1jmt5:«itioiii; it.h_eit’t’,i.\-‘t)t.iiti be irictiiisistctit. with
(in C’ 11 (J t it C r ” ~ *’
“i26.’;2().’–_ \’n?c¢–t”rc, therefore, of Com:-:.id<:rccl
op"i~ni<.m t}"m1_thc'-1.applications Filed either i)eforC
}Ji(,1Vi,J]i'(TéE¢;1.i(J11 of'1"t0tificat'i0n or bcf'or<' thc trxpirjx; of
=1i'i1iit'.?, [3f,i'VI"'i{_)iiC:i.. specified in thc noti:"i<:ati0n, oven
t:ii(J'L.t;§j}j am pI"€-'Ina-1[.L1I'C 2'-mcl shall not be
c=1"€tc:1*té31incd, from 1i"t{,' moment the :'iot.i{ic:ati(.m is-:.
;)"L1.§,3ii.*3i1(.'Ci; stttth appii<':ettit'ms 2:11':-.'. tmtitlccl to bc
"gte::I<:cti For active ctonsiderzztiori. In short, such
applicatitms applied belbrc-3 the notilkration
\/°~
11
remains pzmssive and bec:.ome active when the’–..
1mtit’it*a.1tir>1i is isstiecii or whet”: the :~s2.1me is ta_.§’t’t:7_1i’~,_
{or c(msiciem:.ion under Rule 59(2) of :_.
R’u]es.'”
9.}. In the instant case, “t«he;’_i_irr;’ate1*ia’iea
woutd Show that notice \»\»’as_ i1’S.SLt€d.i’€0 they V-petitioner on”
30.8.2007 affording iOf~…heie1rir1g to
present its case anet”ete’cijr_ci’iijigi%ei.’:_thepetitioner has
presented %t s..t;:ase iiriiesporadent and
theref”o:”e, git vi’ti}:i:tjb<)rttznit_t-' of hearing has
been gfaih ifeiépoihdent to the petitioner
in exe1;iCisie.i_of on it under Rule 26(1)
of the MC' LR-.2 .11é:-ts.._
9.2.. E.h'"thi:~3 regard it is relevant to extract. Rule 265 of'
i";'t3e.._t\/I(fi"titulgéea.Etvhich deals with the power of deiegation
2inct"'E.he=.iAsa1i*§.e reads thus:
Deiegation of powers: 3) The Central
('i()\-'{"l"l'lITlCI"l[ ITl2–1_\-", by m:)ti£'ic.'2.ttio1"i in the 0tTiei:-:1]
g.{a:':t'rtt
21
()¥Tic’er, there is no division c)T*,
1*es;’J<)1'isil}i§it\f of l'}e'e.3t'iI'}gg and
wliiie. deiegatiiig the power of ¥.i1Q..S2;-rte V
(}m='ernment." it
37. in View of our a;.:1isi\\-‘e«_r? to ti_7t(‘.”i’c’.-iii_)’t)\”C’,”~V’
C’]L1C-S?.i()I’1f-3, we hoiri that C?C’i=i]?g&-.l:ti'()i’i: <)i'~_.t){_mf'e;* <)».§'~..,,,ii
State under Section 2,F:}{;2_) 0? 1°h_e"'MML?»R'"Ar';t to
the Director of Mines £1n(}e4i,Ge:c)iog_y-' ii)-W.\_f Ii'c2ii-1ficti;t.ioi1
detect 18.1 3.2003 is valid—irfii"lé1W:..__."
9.5. In the ibroceedings of
hearing 26(1) of the MC
Rules, Secretary to
Industries Department.
discloseitriiat has given an 0§3I3Ortunit_\-
of Vlqieiiing healrdfluto the petitioner and also to other
,Aappi1cairavit.s,}5efore recommending the grant in favour of
‘the-_§:c>n’tesf.__iz’rg’irespondents. Therefore, in View of the
.V deciiisierigirheridered in Writ Appeal N0.]O95/2008 and
‘ig:e”m1r;.eetVed appeais disposed of on 26.8.2009, the
e’c’}1’1ter1t.i0n raised by the petitioner in this regard fails
\}
23
obtaining a. prospecting licence or mining lease;-.__
as me case may be, in respect of that land
any ofi’1erper’scm.’
(2) Xx XXX xxx V _
(3) Tfze matters referTe(f*fc..1’n su_ib–seeI’~:;:0’r’1.(2)
are Ihefollowingrw 1 ii i V V’ i ii
{(2) any specials _know-ledge ‘or*;
experience ‘ ‘r*.econ_naisSa’ncVe
operations, prospecting Operations or
mining operatiQns;~(:zsV.;_he case _r’_nay9 be,
possessed the (1pp.Zl”Cafii’I,,f ” ”
(b) the finci;~”.’cTi–al’a i’;re}eso’tci’ces»»_ of the
applicant; i __
[C] rag’ ._nat;ure”zand«..j–.guai-;«:y of the
;tec~7??nicaVE. Staff “em’p’i’cyed or to be
em;i=I_oyeCi fkae a.pp–?ican.f,-
.. e.(d)_ u”~t_F:.z”e”< :1:-,2'z.:e».s'm1_erczif "-«–.7J.2}2'ic}z the agnlicrcmr
Av;'2»3io[)o'se?s .:o'«::{1.i1ke m the mines and in the
.indi1-.sAtf_:,1b .based on the minerals; and
"(.e)i' _suC%_1 oih'er "m_c2:t1.ers as may be prescribed,
{4} ,xf_,i=<;'.
V ‘ ‘ {_5)xxx.x’.x’ xxx “.
i”ii1O.i4.V;”s:’I__:5:Ru1e 35 of the M.C.Ru1<–:-s reads as
'V._»hereund'er:
“35. Preferential rights of certain
persons.~ Where two or more persons have
K)
24
applied for CI reconnaissance perrnit or a___
pr’Ospe>(‘Fi?lg Eic:er1c:e> or (2 zrunirlg lease? in re?spr besides the rr1aVt»t§?:fs rne*ii.fi.__ fr’3_1:rn1eraZ.’V_-fry’ ». tfiié
appIz’Cam””.
10.5. The mandatgry 17<43'{i'1'L1'£zfE'r11\"c:*1j1t. 0fé§O1':'1"p§iance of
Section 11(3) of the 35 of the MC
Ruies has a!.z'e'a_d;\-' béjeni Court in Writ
Appeal of on 51" June, 2009.
Writ -‘disposed of on 11″‘ June,
2009 an«d=\_f_\/1″ifEv ~66/2009 dispcmed of on
8%”,..l%fg§Ey;~2OO9’.”V. _ A:
Appeal No.5026/2008 this court has
hsiid-.33 Vf’u-Rio vVx;’;-si
‘ j’2’E3:4.VTbc? w(>r(_§s cmp§0ycc.i by the Par’1iamc=n1 zmdcr
S’0sti()11 §}(3}(C] \-‘iz., ‘such. cnziecar maifcrs as rmw be
H , ‘ ‘_«,0rc=%_<~:{'r2'}.J{?(.'J'5 i11<?iLzdC the 1"r1attcrs p1'cscribod zmcicr
K?'
28
making any allegation against the policy decisions
nor challenging the same, but all th8.’€”:V:lL’I}.£:’,’i’.,..V”‘.
petitioner seeks is, only to give effect to tghe l”
decision of the State which is …9.cl_fn.ittetlIy
implemented by the State.
19.3. The Apex. _cour4t,.A;in SHRHLEKHA-:i”‘
VIDYARTI-II (KUMAR1} STATE ‘
PRADESI-I [(199141 sco1_2″1t2] held t.hat;__
“27. Unlike a”‘-private acts
uninformed by_…re:asori..qfi;d_–‘mflue.ncecl by
persorzat ‘ — predilectfons in a …_.contractual
matters if .- __ “?”_esu_lt:,: adverse
corcsei;u1encesi_. to alone uiithout affecting
1§fz;b1i£§’§_’ir;:¢4ra}._si;. any” such act of the
State even in this field
‘would adve:*se–lyi’_affect the public interest.
“holder of a public office by
ofwzihich he acts on behalf of
, the._iState or public body is ultimately
it “‘v’iE.f;coii4jrt’table to the people in whom the
vsovgzreignty vests. As such, all powers so
‘vested in him are meant to be exercised for
“public good and promoting the public
interest. This is equally true of all actions
even in the field of contract. Thus, every
D
32
wherein other more important
considerations may outweigh what wouid’
otherwise have been the legitiin.atevvV.’V:’*–..it ~’-‘
expectation of the claimant. A I
decision of the public authority rizachediii
this manner would satisfy the ~.*”‘equ’irementu
of non–arbitran’ness.*and withstand judicial
scrutiny. The doct’ri:ne of legitimate
expectation gets assiniiiated in the–..n.iie
of law and opeiates iinvlegal system
in this manner and ”
19.53.” ‘I’n;,1;.’:1¢ giasei Oi7’F:2(Jx¥AI;vVi.IQUIDATOR
v. nA.YA§a:A§i’I3′-vorepo:*.i¢a 12903110 sec 1, the
Avpexv _Co1irt71.:gyhiiei:c1eaIi¥.ng-.with the doctrine of
Iogitimatev.t:xpéctaticohh…observed that:
‘r’fI”0_2. concept of “due process of
law” played a major role in the
development of administrative law. It
genszires ” “”” “fairness in public
administration. The administrative
. “autho.ri’ties who are entrusted with the
T ofideciding iis between the parties
or ‘adjudicating upon the rights of the
indiiiiduals are duty–bound to comply
~ with the rules of natural justice, which
are multifaceted. The absence of bias in the
decision-making process and compliance with
audi alteram partem are two of these facets.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation is
K)’-
34
unionism among civil service. For this, the Civil
Service Order in the 1982 Council was issued.
The Court of Appeal declared that the Minister
had acted unlawfixlly in abridging
fiindamental right of a citizen to become’*,a’*<:'~l.
member of the trade union. The House is
approved the judgment of the Court of Appe.dl..and =
held that such a right couldizhnot tie atalpen
without consulting the civil seri;'ant.concerned;.V «. V K
105. In India, the ‘courts have if
recognised that while administering the a_,§fair.s5 of
the State, theft” _G;ove;_rn.nzent”~t _ and its
departments are expected the
policy st:cite.merits i’treatV’ the citizens
ioithout’li’-angfvidiscriminlation. The theory of
legitimate’e2i;r:ectation”first found its mention in
Navjyoti Coops, (}rou’p;Housing Society 12. Union of
India. thatv_case the right of a housing society
to priority in the matter of registration
recognised in the following words: (SCC
Vpp. ‘4’§2–;z~95, paras 15-16)
V \’ “.15. In the aforesaid facts, the Group
“Housing Societies were entitled to
‘legitimate expectation’ of following
consistent past practice in the matter of
allotment, even though they may not have
ya»
33
a nascent addition to the rules of
natural justice. It goes beyond statutory
rights by serving as another device ford’-.2
rendering justice. At the root of the ..
principle of legitimate expectation is§”th’e[f is
constitutional principle of rule ofxlaw,-, in
which requires regularity, predicta.bi’lity..V:
and certainty in Government’s .dealings
with the _public——J. Raz,[ Theg}iuthoriAty«._of..’~._gr,__gA
Law [(1979) Chapter 1 1]. The “legal certainty”. ”
is also a basic principleg of European’
community. European law is based upon
concept of vertrauensschut”z (the honouring
a trust or confidence). fo’r__these “reasons
that the e2cisten’ceV_&of a legitirnaieéexpectaiion
may even in the a.bsAenceij_’of awfight of private
law, justify its recognitionlin pu_blicVIau::.
103. In Halsbury—‘s’ Laws of Erigland (4th
Edn.), “legitimatecsipectation has
been€’des:cril5ecll._in thefolloiving words:
_ _”}1″.g–vuperson«.Vp “may. have a legitimate
gxpectaiiogngofu being treated in a certain
“way by._an ‘~adm_inistrative authority even
thaulgh he._has”no7’legal right in private law
. to receivevsuch treatment. The expectation
“may a’ri’sev___eitl1er from a representation or
C ifupromise made by the authority, including
an, “‘~-implied representation, or from
— ;”‘«.consis_tef,nt past practice. ”
formal statement on the doctrine of
legitiinate expectation can be found in the
judgment of the House of Lords in Council of Civil
in r jtfservice Unions v. Minister for Civil Service. In that
case the Government tried to forbid trade-
K/9*
35
any legal right in private law to receive
such treatment. The existence of ‘legitimate
expectation’ may have a number of
different consequences and one of such»:
consequences is that the authority ougghtuyl
not to act to defeat the ‘legitimate”
expectation’ without some overrid__ingj’rV.. ”
reason of public policy to justify its””d*oing
so. In a case of ‘legitimate expectation_'”if V
the authority proposes to defeat. personis ” f
‘legitimate expectation’ it should afford ..him 2 V
an opportunity to make representations
the matter. In this connection rej”erence”may
be made to the discussions on ‘legitimate.
expectation’ at p.152′ -of Vol. 1(1)
Halsbury’s Laws ~ of ..;3nglan*d,u{lt’h.p Edn. (re-
issue). We may also”reji=3gr’ to*a_ decision of
the House of “Lords ;Counci~lfV.of Civil
Service _ Unions’ Av. Ministerifor Cit-.i3’V Service.
It has beeii held €in'”the’ said’=d.ecision that
an. agg.rie.ve_d pe:r.<;_o'n.. wa"sV.entit'led to judicial
review if he""couidy.sh'ow that a decision of
.the'l'publis;._yauthoz7ityit(affected him of some
benefit_ or fladaiantage which in the past he
had been}-perznitted.. to "enjoy and which he
'-.legitimately_"~ .expected to be permitted to
c'ontinue"to lenjoyijeither until he was given
reasons for withdrawal and the opportunity
V or to comment on such reasons.
_ _ It may be indicated here that
theldoctrine of ‘legitimate expectation’
.–._”imp’oses in essence a duty on public
‘authority to act fairly by taking into
*=consideration all relevant factors
relating to such ‘legitimate
expectation’. Within the conspectus of fair
dealing in case of ‘legitimate expectation’,
\/’
36
the reasonable opportunities to make
representation by the parties likely to C
aflected by any change of consistent past,
policy, come in. We have not been sh_o’_wn’»f ‘
any compelling reasons taken *.i_nta9=._ i
consideration by the ‘–Cen..t’ral”~, é
Government to make adepartuzre gs-om
the existing policy of=__all:otrrient
reference to seniority in”registratio.n ‘by; V’ ‘
introducing a new.gnidelin_e.’ ”
19.6. The Apex Colman TA’miRoN AND
STEEL co. LTD.vv.zUNIQ’I’l or iN;)_1A repel-tee in
(1996)9 sec 709,:la.pptoi§ir;g”they.View of the
Committee appointedvihby the Government
pursuant t::.._t_he Court of
Orissa,* ‘ =.sen’_’ior_’ officers from the
Ministrjytyyo-f Bureau of Mines
and of India, that the
National having been tabled: before
both ‘th_ellHvotis_els’.of iiiarliament, is a guiding factor
_£u~the deci.sion’éma’king process of the Government
both inth’e”‘National Mineral Policy as well as
, – ., ‘vth&V’VI11’d’t3:’étVria1 Policy of the State of Orissa, captive
been recognized as a fundamental
A determining the criteria for granting
mining lease, held that the Committee made an
” estirnate of the captive mining requirement of
each of the parties appearing before it, after
l”;
Wh-
38
addition making it clear that mining as a stand—~__
alone industry needs to be encouraged
provides large scale employment; new r;n’inera,l_’ 5
based industries should be set up to ma.t_chjp”thVe h
available raw material resources»; existing and’ne’w,:j_
industries should set up facgilitiesy:’to7.bring ‘th:e..__ ‘A
available raw materials up Wtofl the ,,vrt:ci_uiredl’: 3
specifications by processes, like bene’ficiaVtion,l
pelletisation and sintering; “and __these ” industries
will generate more. e5_mp1oyr:.1_ent>., and spawn
auxiliary industries.
22,1.’ are, therefore’, ‘satisfied that (1) the
proposed.mine’r,als by the applicant;
and(ii’)’~, Vt}li£3′.::._ captive” ‘congsufnption and value
additionmine,ral«s,”-shou.ld be the prime criteria
for ‘granting_dmin’ing–~lease”, because the steel plants
coming-._up in-__a ‘relatively under–developed areas,
,,._iwil1e*.ensurepfurther employment generation in
V”l”e.stab]ishment “of roads, ports, transportation,
” giwatcri ».resources, railway infrastructure, supply
“–c’hain–.V.business domain and allied industries such
has ».fpower plants, slag cement plants, ancillary
units, etc., leading to improved infrastructure and
it ‘overall development of the lifestyle of the public at
large of the locality and region”.
\/3\.
40
the petitioner already owns two mines in the State of
Karnataka. The evaluation made by
respondent would clearly show that all
including that of the petitioner
in view of the provisions of _4Sectior_1iii’1 1(3)
Act and Rule 35 of the reeqfnrneridation is
made for grant of the fifth
respondent. Itis well Court cannot
make a and demerits of
each of Court is mainly
iollowed in arriving at the
decision’. are that there is no error or
illegality. in re’eornrner.ding the fifth respondent for grant
iof.1_fri1ir1iiig !.ea–se.
i’i11_. the reasons stated supra and applying the
ratio ofrlecision rendered by this Court in Writ Appeal
i V~:if”1\ipiSG.26/2008, Writ Petition No.5022/2009 referred to
i above, we are satisfied that the recommendation made for
\J–
41
grant of mining lease in favour of fifth respondent is
justified.
12. Accordingly, we hold that there is-no in the ‘v
writ petition and the same is dismiséasedi.-.. i
Chief. Justice
ind<::»i:i 'Yes/No ~ V V V
. /
. .i_,j'N¢b..H0;St:Y::$'/NO _____