Summary
The Court upheld Rajasthan’s amendments replacing pending first-come applications for government-land mineral leases with the prescribed delineation and allocation system. Merely applying created no vested entitlement to a lease or to the former rules. Legitimate expectation and prior judgments did not prevent the authorised public-interest change, and individual hearings were not required before the legislative amendment.
Issues
- Whether pending lease applicants had vested or fundamental rights to consideration under the former system.
- Whether legitimate expectation, natural justice or earlier judgments invalidated the amendments.
Provisions considered
- Section 15(1), Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957The delegated power to regulate minor-mineral concessions supported the State’s amendments to its lease-allocation rules. (¶¶ 3, 17, 21, 22)
- Rules 4(10) and 7, amendments of 2011 and 2013, Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986The Court upheld the challenged delineation and allocation changes and rejection of pending applications subject to the express statutory exceptions. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 17, 22, 23)
Held
- A pending application alone creates no vested right to a government-land mineral lease or to disposal under the rules existing when it was submitted. In the absence of statutory protection, the governing rules at disposal apply even after delay. No fundamental right compels the grant of a government mineral concession. (¶¶ 17, 18, 22)
- Legitimate expectation cannot freeze a lawful, non-arbitrary change made in public interest. Moving to a fairer allocation system open to eligible competitors defeated the assertion that a pending applicant must receive a lease under the old priority scheme. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- The earlier judgments did not prohibit the amendments: their subject matter was narrower and the later judgment had expressly required consideration under amended rules, not first-come priority. The State had complied, and the authorised public-interest amendment disclosed no legal malice. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22)
- Individual hearings were not required before the competent authority enacted the rule amendment. The High Court erred in treating pending applications, expectations and the earlier orders as grounds to invalidate the rules generally. (¶¶ 14, 17, 21, 22, 23)
Result
All appeals allowed; High Court judgments invalidating the challenged amendments set aside. Pending applications disposed of. No costs.