Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has declared that no one can claim to have an exclusive right in seeking a grant of license of a mineral unless facilitated accordingly by a statute. 

A bench of Justices A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh held there is no right vested over a pending application for lease of a government land or over the minerals beneath the soil in any type of land over which the government has regulatory control. 

"In other words, a mere filing of an application ipso facto does not create any right. The power of the government to amend, being an independent one, pending applications do not come in the way," the bench said.

The court further said for a right to be vested there has to be a statutory recognition. 

"Such a right has to accrue and any decision will have to create the resultant injury. When a decision is taken by a competent authority in public interest by evolving a better process such as auction, a right, if any, to an applicant seeking lease over a government land evaporates on its own," the bench said.

Allowing an appeal by the Rajasthan government, the top court set aside a High Court's judgement declaring sub-rule (10) of Rule 4 and sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 as unconstitutional. 

It noted the Rules were brought by the state government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 for regulating the grant of quarry licenses, mining leases and other mineral concessions with regard to minor minerals. 

The bench said the High Court totally misconstrued the issues ignoring the fact that there is a delegation of power to the state government which was rightly exercised as conferred under the Act. 

"There is neither a right nor it gets vested through an application made over a government land. Law does not facilitate hearing the parties in bringing an amendment by an authority competent to do so," the bench said, citing its previous judgement.

The High Court directed the state government to consider pending applications as per amended rules.

"When the government decides to introduce fair play by way of auction facilitating all eligible persons to contest on equal terms, certainly one cannot contend that he is entitled for a lease merely on the basis of a pending application. The right being not legal, apart from being non-existent, it can certainly not be enforceable," the bench said.

By a notification issued on April 3, 2013, the Rajasthan government introduced the amendments and all the pending applications were declared as rejected while facilitating grant of 50% of the leases through auction except for categories mentioned thereunder as entitled for preference. By the impugned orders, the division bench of the High Court declared the amendments as illegal on three primary grounds, namely; the applicants have not been heard, and their applications ought to be revived in view of the earlier orders passed by the court on the principle of legitimate expectation and rights having vested in them.

The apex court, however, said legitimate expectation is a weak and sober right as ordained by a statute. 

Advocates, appearing for the applicants, contended that the Rules have been brought forth only to nullify the effect of the judgements.

"We do not think so. The appellants have duly complied with the orders passed. Even otherwise, law is quite settled that basis of a judgement can be removed and a decision of the court cannot be treated like a statute, particularly when power is available to act and it is accordingly exercised in public interest. In such view of the matter, we do not find any legal malice in the amendments," the bench said.

The bench declared, "There is neither a right nor it gets vested through an application made over a government land. Law does not facilitate hearing the parties in bringing an amendment by an authority competent to do so."

Case Title: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. vs. SHARWAN KUMAR KUMAWAT ETC. ETC