MADHURI VEERDHAVAL CHALUKYAversusBAJIRAO KRUSHNATH KHEDKAR AND ORS

                            (1)                       wp-7487-2024.odt



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
             WRIT PETITION NO.7487 OF 2024
Smt. Madhuri Veerdhaval Chalukya,
Age: 60 YEARS, R/0 A 158,
Indira Nagar Housing Society,
Vijapur Road, Solapur.                         ..Petitioner
            Versus
1.    Mr. Bajirao Krushanath Khedkar,
      Age: 45 years, Occ: Advocate & Social Worker,
      R/o Ghotwade, Tq. Panhala, Dist Kolhapur.
2.    The State of Maharashtra,
      Through Secretary, (Industries),
      1st Floor, Annex Building, Industries,
      Energy and Labour Department,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3.    Shri. Rajeev Surendra Doddanawar
      Since Deceased through LR's
a)    Smt. Subhadarani Rajeev Doddanawar,
      R/o House No. 1029, Ram Jeevan, Giranar Hill,
      Hindwadi, Belgaon.
b)    Bhamhi Rajeev Doddanawar,
      As above.
4.    Directorate of Geology and Mining,
      Plot No. 27, Khanji Bhavan,
      Shivaji Nagar, Cement Road, Nagpur.
5.    Chief Controller,
      Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur.
6.    Regional Controller,
      Indian Bureau of Mines,
      Madgao, Margo, Goa.                      ..Respondents
                          WITH
               WRIT PETITION NO.7488 OF 2024
Smt. Madhuri Veerdhaval Chalukya,
Age: 60 years, R/o A 158,
Indira Nagar Housing Society,
Vijapur Road, Solapur.                         ..Petitioner
      Versus
1.    M/s. Major Pralhad R. Desai,
      A registered partnership firm
                            (2)                      wp-7487-2024.odt



     through its Authorized signatory
     Shri. Yuvraj Ananda Patil,
     At. Ghungur, PO-Bandiwade,
     Tq. Shahuwadi, Dist Kolhapur.

2.   The State of Maharashtra,
     Through its Addl. Chief Secretary,
     (Industries), 1st Floor, Annex Building,
     Industries, Energy and Labour Department,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3.   Directorate of Geology and Mining,
     Plot No. 27, Khanji Bhavan, Shivaji Nagar,
     Cement Road, Nagpur.
4.   Regional Controller,
     Indian Bureau of Mines, Madgao, Margo, Goa.
5.   Mr. Bajirao Khedkar,
     At Post Ghotwade, Tq. Panhala, Dist Kolhapur.
6.   Shri. Rajeev Surendra Doddanawar
     Since Deceased through LR's
a)   Smt. Subhadarani Rajeev Doddanawar,
     R/o House No. 1029, Ram Jeevan,
     Giranar Hill, Hindwadi, Belgaon.
b)    Bhamhi Rajeev Doddanawar,
      As above.                                    ..Respondents
                                …
Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar a/w Ms. Rashmi Sajanikar a/w Mr. Raufa
Shaikh a/w Ms. Radhika Kurdukar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Abhay Khandeparkar, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Dilip Bodke
a/w Mr. Sharad G. Bhosale and Mr. Amar P. Dhumal and Mr. Viraj
P. Dhumal, Advocate for Respondent.
Mr. J. P. Patil, AGP for Respondent-State in WP/7487/2024.
Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for Respondent-State in WP/7488/2024.
                                …

                         CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

RESERVED ON   : 27th FEBRUARY, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 26th MAY, 2026.

JUDGMENT:-

1.   Rule.   Rule made returnable forthwith.       With consent of

parties, matters are taken up for final hearing at admission stage.
                           (3)                       wp-7487-2024.odt



2.   The petitioner impugns order dated 19.03.2024 passed by

Revisional   Authority/Joint     Secretary,   Ministry    of     Mines,

Government of India under Section 30 of Mines and Minerals

(Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act,

1957’) and Rule 36 of Minerals (other than Atomic & Hydro

Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (for short ‘MCR

2016’), whereby revision filed by respondent no.1 has been allowed

directing execution of lease in name of partnership firm i.e. M/s.

Major Pralhad R. Desai by quashing and setting aside orders dated

28.11.2018 and 29.08.2019 passed by Government of Maharashtra.


3.   Brief facts giving rise to present petitions can be stated as

under:

     Major Pralhad R. Desai (retired) submitted an application to

State of Maharashtra for grant of mining lease in respect of landed

property bearing Block Nos.1005/1 to 1005/8 at village Sittur turf

Varun, Taluka Shahuwadi, District Kolhapur.          On 15.02.2000

State of Maharashtra forwarded proposal for prior approval to

Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Mines and Minerals

Department, New Delhi. On 24.05.2000, Government of India was

pleased to grant approval under Section 5(1) of MMDR Act, 1957

for grant of mining lease in name of Major Pralhad R. Desai. On

22.07.2000, State of Maharashtra pleased to sanction mining lease

for period of 30 days for bauxite minerals from non-forest area of
                           (4)                      wp-7487-2024.odt



Kolhapur District in exercise of powers conferred under sub-

Section (3) of Section 10 of MMDR Act, 1957 in name of M/s. Major

Pralhad R. Desai. The lease was expected to be executed in terms

of final order after getting necessary sanctions from various

departments subject to provisions of MMDR Act, 1957 and MCR

2016. However, Major Pralhad R. Desai sought various extensions

quoting difficulties for submission of mining plan.    Accordingly,

several extensions were granted. On 24.05.2000, Major Pralhad

Desai submitted application for approval of mining plan to

Director, Indian Bureau of Mines and sought further extension of

six months awaiting forest and environmental clearance.                It

appears that, till 2017 extensions were granted in favour of Major

Pralhad R. Desai considering various difficulties posed by him. On

12.07.2016, last extension was granted.         Unfortunately on

29.03.2017, Major Pralhad Desai passed away.


     On 21.05.2018, petitioner made application for transposition

of her name on the basis of registered Will dated 24.06.2015

purportedly executed by Major Pralhad Desai in her favour. On

28.11.2018, State of Maharashtra approved for transfer of mining

lease in name of petitioner accepting her to be legal heir of Major

Pralhad Desai.    Immediately on 30.11.2018 petitioner sought

extension for execution of lease. On 15.04.2019, respondent no.3

filed objection to orders dated 28.11.2018 and 11.04.2019 granting
                             (5)                         wp-7487-2024.odt



approval of transfer of mining lease in name of petitioner.                 On

29.08.2019, State of Maharashtra passed order holding that mining

lease was individually granted in favour of Major Pralhad Desai

and upholding individual right of petitioner for transposition. It

has been observed that original application for mining lease was

individually made by Major Pralhad Desai.                  The Central

Government approved grant of lease individually in his favour. As

such, by invoking Rule 25(A) of MCR 1960 upheld deemed

substitution in favour of petitioner.


      The aforesaid orders were subjected to Revision before

Central Government/Ministry of Mines, New Delhi under Section

30 of MMDR Act, 1957 r/w Rule 35 of MCR 1960 by respondent

no.1 and M/s. Major Pralhad R. Desai/partnership firm. The Joint

Secretary   and   Revisional       Authority   allowed   both     Revision

Applications, thereby setting aside impugned orders dated

28.11.2018 and 29.08.2019 and directed State Government to take

necessary steps for execution of lease in name of partnership firm,

M/s. Major Pralhad R. Desai in terms of MMDR Act, 1957 and

MCR 1960.      While allowing Revision Application it has been

observed that State Government vide order dated 22.07.2000 has

granted mining lease for bauxite minerals to partnership firm M/s.

Major Pralhad R. Desai. Thus, subsequent transfer of lease to Smt.

Madhuri V. Chalukya/petitioner accepting her right to be legal heir
                            (6)                        wp-7487-2024.odt



of Major Pralhad Desai is void ab initio. The State Government

representative has accepted during hearing that as per record of

State Government lease was granted in name of partnership firm.

Similarly, in written submissions of State Government dated

28.06.2021, 18.01.2022 and 22.05.2023 same fact has been

reiterated. It is further observed that there was no provision for

mutation of mining lease or composite license in favour of legal heir

on death of lessee or licensee in MCR 2016. The said provision is

inserted through Rule 23(B) on 02.11.2021.            As such, State

Government was wrong in invoking provisions of MCR 1960 while

dealing   with   petitioner’s     application   in   year    2018         for

transfer/mutation in her name.


4.    Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar, learned Advocate appearing for

petitioner would submit that Major Pralhad R. Desai has applied

for mining lease in his individual capacity. The State Government

with prior approval dated 24.05.2000 from Government of India

granted lease under Section 5(1) of MMDR Act, 1957 for period of

30 years in his favour. The respondent wants to take advantage of

typing mistake in final order dated 22.07.2000, whereby prefix as

“M/s” occurs before name of Major Palhad R. Desai. By inviting

attention of this Court to application for lease, he would point out

that application was for grant of individual lease.               It was

recommended by State Government to Central Government for
                            (7)                      wp-7487-2024.odt



approval.     The approval was accorded by Central Government

individually in name of Major Pralhad Desai.       However, while

preparing draft of final order, letter issued in name of M/s. Alatge

Stone Crushing Company was referred. The prefix “M/s” in that

letter was carried forward while issuing final order against

application of Major Pralhad R. Desai.


5.   Mr. Narvankar would further invite attention of this Court to

various extensions for execution of lease individually granted in

favour of Major Palhad Desai. The last such extension was granted

on 12.07.2016. Mr. Narvankar would point out that Rule 62 of

MCR 1960 prescribes “procedure for change of name of applicant

which needs to be intimated to State Government within sixty days

of such change”. In present case, application for lease was made on

26.09.1995.      The respondents contend that on 17.06.1996

unregistered partnership firm was established in name of M/s.

Major Pralhad Desai.      The alleged application for change of

applicant in name of firm was made on 07.03.2000 without

explaining delay of approximately four years. He would submit

that there is no reference of partnership firm in subsequent

communications to State Government. The Revisional Authority

erroneously relied upon inconsistent stand taken by State

Government while accepting contention of respondent that lease

was granted in favour of M/s. Major Pralhad Desai/partnership
                           (8)                         wp-7487-2024.odt



firm. Mr. Narvankar would further submit that under Rule 25(A)

of MCR 1960 legal representatives are entitled to seek mutation in

case of death of applicant seeking mining lease.            He would,

therefore, urge to quash and set aside impugned orders and restore

orders passed by State Government in favour of petitioner.


6.   Per contra, Mr. Abhay Khandeparkar, learned Senior

Advocate appearing for respondents submits that although Major

Pralhad Desai had individually applied for grant of mining lease,

on 17.06.1996 he entered into partnership with four partners in

name and style as “M/s. Major Pralhad R. Desai”. On 07.03.2000,

he requested State Government to issue mining lease order in

name of partnership firm.        Accordingly, Director, Geology and

Mining Department forwarded noting to State Government for

change of name of applicant as well as area of mining. Accordingly,

final order for grant of mining lease in name of partnership firm

i.e. M/s. Major Pralhad R. Desai has been passed.                         Mr.

Khandeparkar    invites   attention    of   this   Court   to     various

communications made by partnership firm to State Government

and Director Office for execution of mining lease and extensions of

mining lease period. He endeavors to bring to notice of this Court

subsequent development in the form of change in composition of

partnership firm, MOU executed between Major Pralhar Desai and

respondent no.1 about partnership firm, newspaper publication
                            (9)                     wp-7487-2024.odt



made in this regard and transfer of amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to

Major Pralhad Desai on his retirement from partnership firm. He

would further point out that petitioner is not real sister of Major

Pralhad Desai, but she is caretaker/foster sister. The Probate in

respect of Will is not produced, rather application for Probate was

withdrawn. The respondent no.3 has instituted Regular Civil Suit

No.1116/2019 before Civil Judge Senior Division, Kolhapur raising

challenge to Will dated 24.06.2015 allegedly executed by late

Pralhad R. Desai in favour of petitioner. The locus of petitioner to

claim any right over mining lease on basis of alleged Will is

disputed.


7.   Having    considered    submissions   advanced    by     learned

Advocates appearing for respective parties and after going through

record tendered into service and reasoning adopted by Revisional

Authority in impugned order, it can be observed that there is no

dispute that Major Pralhad R. Desai had individually applied to

State of Maharashtra for grant of mining lease over non-forest

property owned by him. The State Government had forwarded his

proposal for prior approval to Government of India and same was

individually approved.   However, there is serious dispute as to

presentation of application dated 07.03.2000 by Major Pralhad R.

Desai requesting to issue mining lease order in name of

partnership firm i.e. M/s. Major Pralhad R. Desai and that final
                         (10)                          wp-7487-2024.odt



order dated 22.07.2000 was issued in name of firm M/s Major

Pralhad R. Desai.


8.      Section 5 of MMDR Act, 1957 prescribes for “grant of

prospecting licenses or mining leases”. Section 10 prescribes for

“procedure for obtaining prospecting licenses or mining leases”.

Prior approval of Central Government is necessary in respect of

notified minerals.   Section 13 provides for “framing of Rules in

respect of minerals and for purposes connected therewith”.           In

exercise of powers conferred under Section 13 of MMDR Act, 1957,

Central Government has framed Rules namely Minerals (other

than Atomic & Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules,

2016.    It provides for Forms and contents for application for

prospecting license. Rule 25-A of MCR 2016 provides for status of

grant on death of applicant for mining lease. It stipulates where

an applicant for a grant or renewal of mining lease dies before

order granting him a mining lease or its renewal is passed,

application for grant or renewal of mining lease shall be deemed to

have been made by his legal representative and where order

granting or renewing a mining lease is passed, but who dies before

Deed referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 31 is executed, order shall

be deemed to have been passed in name of legal representative of

deceased. Rule 62 provides for change of name, nationality, etc. of

applicant or holder of prospecting license or mining lease.           It
                         (11)                                   wp-7487-2024.odt



mandates holder to intimate to State Government regarding

change in respect of name or nationality or other particulars

mentioned in relevant Form within period of sixty days.


9.   Perusal   of   order       dated   29.08.2019     passed      by    State

Government/Hon’ble      Minister,         Industries      and         Mining,

Maharashtra State indicates that objection was raised by M/s.

Major Pralhad R. Desai, a partnership firm to transfer of rights in

name of petitioner contending that Major Pralhad Desai had

entered into partnership agreement in year 1996 and State

Government was pleased to sanction mining lease in favour of firm

and not individually in name of Major Pralhad Desai. Therefore,

petitioner has no locus standi to claim any right over mining lease.

However, it has been observed by Hon’ble Minister that letter

dated 07.03.2000 purported to be submitted by Major Pralhad

Desai for issuance of mining lease in name of firm was not part of

record. The copy which was submitted on behalf of said firm before

him contending that said letter was an intimation under Rule 62 of

MCR 1960 about change in status of applicant from proprietorship

to partnership firm established in year 1996. The Hon’ble Minister

found that said communication is not in conformity with time

stipulated in Rule 62(1) of MCR 1960. It does not refer to specific

Rule or even does not make any request for change in status of

applicant in Form-I, which was under consideration of Central
                        (12)                           wp-7487-2024.odt



Government.      Eventually, approval is granted by Central

Government in individual name. Therefore, only because prefix is

added before name Major Pralhad R. Desai in order dated

22.07.2000 does not connote that mining lease was issued to

partnership firm.


10.   Perusal of impugned order passed by Revisional Authority

depicts that State Government changed its stand in written

submissions contending that lease was in name of partnership firm

i.e. M/s. Major Pralhad R. Desai. Even representatives of State

Government accepted during hearing that lease was granted in

name of partnership firm. Accordingly, order of State Government

was quashed and set aside with further direction for execution of

lease in name of partnership firm as per provisions of MMDR Act,

1957 and MCR 1960.


11.   This Court finds that when Hon’ble Minister has specifically

noted in his order dated 29.08.2019 that communication dated

07.03.2000 purportedly submitted by Major Pralhad Desai to issue

mining license in name of firm was not part of file and same cannot

be treated as intimation under Rule 62 of MCR 1960.           In this

bakcdrop, Revisional Authority could not have jumped to

conclusion that lease was approved in favour of partnership firm,

particularly when application for license was individually made by

Major Pralhad Desai and it was individually approved in his name
                          (13)                            wp-7487-2024.odt



by Central Government.           Pertinently, Form-I is prescribed for

application for mining lease under MCR, 1960. In sub-clause (iii)

of Clause (3) separate column is provided for individual application

or application by Company, Firm or Association or Co-operative

Society. In present case undisputedly application was in individual

name of Major Pralhad Desai and same was approved by Central

Government on recommendation of State Government.                In this

backdrop, in absence of application by partnership firm, prima

facie, there was no reason to issue mining lease order in favour of

partnership firm. The possibility that prefix “M/s” before name of

Major Pralhad R. Desai in final order is typing error while carrying

forward proforma of previous order issued in name of firm cannot

be ruled out.


12.   In light of aforesaid observations, inconsistent stand taken by

State Authority during course of hearing of Revision Application

ought to have been thoroughly examined, particularly when such

stand was against observations made by Hon’ble Minister in

impugned order. It was expected of Revisional Authority to atleast

call for original record and examine veracity of contentions of State

Authorities before reaching to conclusion that mining lease was

issued in name of firm.


13.   The aforesaid exercise was indispensable, particularly when

most of renewals granted by State Government to execute mining
                         (14)                            wp-7487-2024.odt



lease were in individual name of Major Pralhad Desai.                The

documents produced before this Court do not show that change of

name of applicant for mining lease was approved by State

Government before issuance of final order dated 22.07.2000.             A

copy of forwarding letter dated 18.03.2000 issued by Geology and

Mining Department alongwith draft for change of name and area of

mining is brought to notice of this Court, but there is no final order

accepting change of name of applicant, that culminated into

passing final order in name of firm.


14.   In this backdrop, this Court holds that Revisional Authority

failed to exercise jurisdiction in judicious manner and committed

serious error while relying upon inconsistent stand taken by State

Authorities without actual verification of record to satisfy itself

about rival calim of parties.      It was also open to Revisional

Authority to relegate matter back to State Government for

reconsideration and passing appropriate order after verifying

original record. It cannot be countenanced that State Government

is taking contrary stand against its own order before Revisional

Authority   and    Revisional    Authority   relying   upon    written

submissions or consent of representatives of State Government

reversed reasoned order passed by Hon’ble Minister.         In result,

following order is passed:

                                ORDER
                                                  (15)                             wp-7487-2024.odt



                    a.       Writ Petitions are partly allowed.


                    b.       The impugned order dated 19.03.2024 passed by Joint

                    Secretary and Revisionary Authority in Revision Application

                    Nos.17/02/2019/RC-II-15/2024             and     17/01/2022/RC-II-16/2024,

                    hereby are quashed and set aside.


                    c.       The matter is relegated back to Revisionary Authority for

                    reconsideration in light of aforesaid observations.


                    d.       Parties     to   appear     before    Revisionary   Authority       on

                    17.06.2026.


                    e.       The Revisionary Authority shall endeavour to decide afresh

                    Revision Applications after perusing original record leading to final

                    order dated 22.07.2000 granting mining lease.


                    f.        Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.



                                                                  (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                                           JUDGE
                    Devendra/June-2026



           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJU
RAJU       DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD    Date:
           2026.05.29
           16:54:49
           +0530