<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that an applicant cannot have an exclusive right in seeking a grant of license of a mineral unless facilitated accordingly by a statute. </p>.<p>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. <br /><br /><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/supreme-court-alters-murder-conviction-of-woman-who-killed-husband-to-culpable-homicide-1242904.html">Supreme Court alters murder conviction of woman who killed husband to culpable homicide</a></strong></p>.<p>"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.</p>.<p>The court further pointed out that for a right to be vested, there has to be a statutory recognition. </p>.<p>"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.</p>.<p>The top court set aside a Rajasthan 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. 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. </p>.<p>On an appeal by the Rajasthan government, 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. </p>.<p>"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.</p>.<p>The High Court directed the state government to consider pending applications as per amended rules.</p>.<p>"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.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that an applicant cannot have an exclusive right in seeking a grant of license of a mineral unless facilitated accordingly by a statute. </p>.<p>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. <br /><br /><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/supreme-court-alters-murder-conviction-of-woman-who-killed-husband-to-culpable-homicide-1242904.html">Supreme Court alters murder conviction of woman who killed husband to culpable homicide</a></strong></p>.<p>"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.</p>.<p>The court further pointed out that for a right to be vested, there has to be a statutory recognition. </p>.<p>"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.</p>.<p>The top court set aside a Rajasthan 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. 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. </p>.<p>On an appeal by the Rajasthan government, 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. </p>.<p>"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.</p>.<p>The High Court directed the state government to consider pending applications as per amended rules.</p>.<p>"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.</p>
