Mining agreement and consent order dispute: exclusive possession may breach transfer restrictions, while a perfected order was left intact.

An agreement over mining assets may cross from an interim working arrangement into a prohibited transfer where it gives exclusive possession, control of collieries, and authority to work, raise, and sell minerals, even if formal lease execution and government approval were contemplated. On that analysis, the document was treated as infringing statutory restrictions on transfer of mining rights to the extent it conferred an interest in the mines, though it was not characterised as a wholly void present demise. A perfected consent order, once acted upon and relied on, was not recalled or set aside; the court instead preserved controlled operation and directed supervised management of the assets pending lawful permission and further orders.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agreement dated 11 February 1964 created a present demise or transfer of interest in the mines so as to contravene Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. (ii) Whether the consent order dated 7 February 1964 could be recalled or set aside.

Issue (i): Whether the agreement dated 11 February 1964 created a present demise or transfer of interest in the mines so as to contravene Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.

Analysis: The agreement was not a completed lease in form, because it contemplated governmental permission and future execution of a formal lease. However, its operative clauses conferred possession of the collieries and engineering works, authority to work the mines, raise and sell coal and coke, and control the assets in a manner that went beyond a mere permissive arrangement. The arrangement therefore contained elements of transfer of interest and exclusive possession inconsistent with the statutory restrictions on assignment, subletting and other transfers of mining rights. At the same time, the Court accepted that the parties had not intended to violate the statute, and that the structure of the document was internally inconsistent between an interim working arrangement and a lease-like transfer.

Conclusion: The agreement was held to infringe the statutory restrictions to the extent that it transferred an interest in the mining assets and conferred rights to exploit them, but it was not treated as a present demise wholly void on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the consent order dated 7 February 1964 could be recalled or set aside.

Analysis: The order had been perfected, filed, acted upon, and implemented; the respondent had altered its position and invested money in reliance on it. The earlier order of 22 November 1963, which remained in force, had already contemplated acceptance of the offer subject to governmental sanctions. The Court also relied on its power under section 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, to pass interim orders regulating the company's affairs, and held that the proper course was not to nullify the completed consent order but to control its further operation consistently with the law.

Conclusion: The consent order was not recalled or set aside.

Final Conclusion: The completed consent order was maintained, but the further operation of the agreement was suspended and the company's assets were restored to the Special Officer for supervised working pending lawful permission and further directions.

---