Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, C.J. and H.T. Narendra Prasad

ORDER

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, C.J.

1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Considering the narrow controversy involved, the matter is forthwith taken up for final hearing.

2. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 29th May 2013 passed by the first respondent which has been confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 1st January 2016 in the revision application filed by the petitioner.

3. By order dated 29th May 2013, the first respondent rejected the application made by the petitioner for renewal of prospecting licence. On the earlier date, a submission was canvassed across the bar that the said order was passed by the first respondent without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as required by sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'the said Rules'). Today, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, on instructions, states that there is no material on record to show that an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the order dated 29th May 2013.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent invited our attention to the order of the revisional authority and the findings recorded therein. He submitted that one of the findings is that requisite documents were not produced by the petitioner. He submitted that passing an order of remand to the first respondent will be an exercise in futility as the petitioner will not be in a position to produce any document before the first respondent. He also invited our attention to the findings recorded in the order of the revisional authority including the finding in paragraph 9. He submitted that the issue based on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is pending before the Apex Court.

5. We have considered the submissions. Rule 12 of the said Rules reads thus:

"12. Refusal of application for a prospecting licence

(1) The State Government may, after giving an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse to grant or renew a prospecting licence over the whole or part of the area applied for.

(1A) An application for the grant or renewal of a prospecting licence made under rule 9 shall not be refused by the State Government only on the ground that Form B or Form E, as the case may be, is not complete in all material particulars, or is not accompanied, by the documents referred to in clauses (d), (e), (f) and (g) of sub-rule (2) of the said rule.

(1B) Where it appears that the application is not complete in all material particulars or is not accompanied by the required documents, the State Government shall, by notice, require the applicant to supply the omission or, as the case may be, furnish the documents without delay and in any case not later than thirty days from the date of receipt of the said notice by the applicant.

(2) An application for the grant of a prospecting licence shall not be refused on the ground only that, in the opinion of the State Government, a mining lease should be granted for the area for which the application for a prospecting licence has been made.

PROVIDED that where applications for the grant of prospecting licence and applications for the grant of mining lease in respect of the same area are received on the same date or on different dates........