TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 1151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2 under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "MMDR Act"). 3] The petitioner, a partnership firm having its office at Kamptee, District Nagpur, vide its application dated 16-09-2004 had applied for grant of mining lease in respect of 69.10 H/R of area from village Chikhla, Taluka Tumsar, District Bhandara to Government of Maharashtra i.e. respondent No.3. On 12-10-2006 respondent No.3 notified few mineral areas for mineral concession in accordance with sub-section 2 and 4 of Section 11 of the "MMDR Act". Respondent No.3 vide the said notification (annexure-B with the petition) invited applications for mineral concession in respect of areas notified in the said notification. Entry at serial No.20 of the said notification shows that 69.10 H/R of area was notified for Manganese Ore from village Chikhla, Taluka Tumsar, District Bhandara for mining lease. 4] On 06.12.2006 respondent No.4 i.e. Manganese Ore India Limited also preferred an application for grant of mining lease in 36.63 H/R of area from village Chikhla. Total 37 persons including the petitioner and respondent No.4 had applied for the mining lease ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MDR Act. 8] Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Government Tribunal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 13-04-2011. 9] Firstly, the petitioner has challenged the maintainability of the Revision Application filed by respondent No.4 before the Central Government Tribunal. Secondly, according to the petitioner, the notification issued subsequently by the Central Government could not have been considered by the State Government while passing the order dated 26-06-2008 and respondent No.1-Tribunal was palpably wrong in testing the order dated 26-06-2008 in the light of said subsequently issued notification dated 29-09-2009. Shri Kukday, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No.1 wrongly put the burden on the State Government to clarify whether the area notified vide notification dated 29-09-2009 was the same granted to the petitioner vide order dated 26-06-2008 without providing sufficient time to the State Government to explain the situation. The learned counsel further submitted that the notification dated 29-09-2009 was produced during the course of hearing at the Eleventh hour without supplying its copy to the State Government....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te Government vide order dated 26-06-2008 is the same land which has been reserved by the Central Government vide notification dated 29-09-2009, but the State Government failed in submitting the said information which made the Tribunal to accept the submissions made by MOIL that the area reserved for mining lease by the Central Government vide notification dated 29-09-2009 is the same area recommended for mining lease by the State Government in favour of the petitioner vide order passed on 26-06-2008. 12] The learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.1-Tribunal has categorically observed that even otherwise the MOIL is a better deserving applicant considering the qualifications and or requirements provided under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act for grant of the mining lease. The learned counsel therefore submitted that no fault can be found in the order passed by the respondent No.1-Tribunal. 13] As stated earlier petitioner's first challenge is to the maintainability of the Revision Application filed by respondent No.4 before the Central Government Tribunal. Shri Kukday, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the recommendation made by the State ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submission so made by Advocate Shri Kukday, Shri Bhangde, the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that respondent No.4 had preferred the revision application against the rejection of its application by the State Government and there was no bar or prohibition for preferring such revision application. The learned counsel submitted that the approval of the Central Government was required for the grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner and not for rejection of the application of respondent No.4. The learned counsel cited the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Assam and others v Om Prakash Mehta and others, (1973) 1 SCC 584. In para 18 of which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :- "18. The High Court's view that Rule 24(3) and the Explanation to Rule 54 are in contravention of Section 8 is vitiated by its assumption that every order to be passed on an application for renewal should be approved by the Central Government. This is not correct. Only renewal cannot be granted without the Central Government's approval and not rejection." The revision application preferred by respondent No.4 was admittedly under Rule 54....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion raised by respondent No.1 as against the impugned order dated 26-08-2010 passed by the Central Government Tribunal is that it has set aside the order dated 26-06-2008 passed by the State Government on the basis of the notification of the central Government subsequently issued on 29-09-2009. According to the petitioner, the notification subsequently issued could not have been considered by the State Government while passing the order dated 26-06-2008 and the respondent No.1-Tribunal was patently wrong in examining the impugned order in the light of subsequently issued notification. 20] As mentioned earlier, it is also the contention of the petitioner that notification dated 29-09-2009 does not have any bearing on the grant of mining lease to the petitioner by the State Government vide order dated 26-06-2008, since the area reserved vide notification dated 29-09-2009 is different than the area, mining lease of which has been granted in favour of the petitioner. 21] The petitioner is also challenging the notification dated 29-09-2009 as ultra vires on the ground that the said notification has been brought in ignorance of the State Government notification offering the same area ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-06-2008, it could have been said that there is substance in the allegation made by it. However, nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to show that the area reserved vide notification dated 29-09-2009 by the Central Government is different than the area of which the State Government has granted mining lease in his favour. 24] Shri Bhangde, learned counsel for respondent No.4 brought to our notice some of the observations made by respondent No.1-19 Tribunal in its order passed on 26-08-2010. Facts stated in para 12 of the impugned order reveal that Shri S.S. Kulkarni, Secretary, Industries and Energy Department who was representing State Government, when was asked to comment upon the averment of the representative of respondent No.4 who was the petitioner before the Central Government Tribunal, that the same land granted by the State Government of Maharashtra vide impugned order dated 26-06-2008 has been reserved by the Central Government vide notification dated 29-09-2009, Shri Kulkarni had contested the said averment and submitted that the land reserved vide notification dated 29-09-2009 was different from the land recommended by the State Government vide ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... special powers of the Central Government to undertake prospecting or mining operations in certain lands. Section 17-A permits the Central Government to conserve any mineral and for that purpose after consultation with the State Government reserve any area not already held under any prospecting license or mining lease. Section 17-A(1-A) is more relevant in the present matter since the alleged notification dated 29-09-2009 has been issued by invoking the said provision. Section 17-A(1-A) reads as under:- "(1-A) The Central Government may, in consultation with the State Government, reserve any area not already held under any prospecting license or ming lease, for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through a Government company or corporation owned or controlled buy it, and where it proposes to do so, it shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such area will be reserved." 29] The petitioner has argued that mining lease of the area reserved vide notification dated 29-09-2009 has already been granted in his favour by the State Government vide its order dated 26-06-2008 and as such th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernment has invited applications by notification in the official Gazette for grant of such permit, license or lease, all the applications received during the period specified in such notification and the applications which have been received prior to the publication of such notification in respect of the lands within such area and have not been disposed of shall be deemed to have been received on the same day for the purposes of assigning priority under sub-section (2). 33] In the instant case admittedly the State Government had issued the notification on 12-10-2006 inviting applications for grant of mining lease in 69.10 H/R of area from village Chikhla which was subsequently reduced and or modified by the State Government to the extent of 58.60 H/R vide corrigendum dated 17-11-2006. In view of the proviso referred to hereinabove the application submitted by the petitioner on 16-09-2004 was liable to be considered though the notification inviting the offers was published on 12-10-2006. 34] Rule 22 of the M.C. Rules describes the entire procedure commencing from making the applications for grant of mining lease and further steps for processing of the said applications by the Stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere is nothing on record to show that after the decision dated 26-06-2008 was communicated to it by the State Government recommending the grant of mining lease for Manganese Ore over an area of 54.80 H/R situated at Mouza Chikhla, Taluka Tumsar, District Bhandara in its favour, the petitioner has taken the further step of submitting a mining plan to the Central Government. Even if it is presumed that since the order dated 26-06-2008 was challenged by respondent No.4 before the Central Government, no further steps were taken by the petitioner which are envisaged in sub-rule (4) Rule 22 of the M.C. Rules, the fact remains that there is no compliance of Rule 22(4) enabling the State Government to grant mining lease in favour of the present petitioner. 37] Rule 31 of the M.C. Rules relates to the execution of a Lease Deed on grant of a mining lease. It provides that whether, on an application for the grant of mining lease, an order has been made for the grant of such lease, a Lease Deed in form-K or any form as near thereto as circumstances of each case may require, shall be executed within six months of the order or within such further period as the State Government may allow i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the mining lease by the petitioner. 40] Even in the order dated 26-06-2008 the words used are " I recommend to grant mining lease for Manganese Ore over an area of 54.80 H/R situated at mouza Chikhla, Taluka Tumsar, District Bhandara to M/s Vidarbha Mining Association". It therefore cannot be disputed that the order dated 26-06-2008 is a recommendation and not the grant of lease. 41] From the facts which have come on record, it is explicit that the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the state Government vide order dated 26-06-2008 had not been culminated in actual grant of lease and therefore the area mentioned in the said order cannot be termed as the area already held under the mining lease. This fact gets crystallized by the later part of the State Government order which says that "all NOCs from the Central Government, State Government and local authorities be obtained by the applicant", meaning thereby that only thereafter the recommendation will be culminated in the grant of mining lease. 42] Thus, there being no approval from the Central Government and no Lease Deed executed between the petitioner and the Government of Maharashtra the area contemp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, it was subsequently revealed that certain portion of the area recommended in favour of Monnet was reserved for public sector exploitations under two notifications issued by the Government of Bihar. The Government of Jharkhand therefore withdrew the recommendation in favour of Monnet Ispat. The Government of India accepted the request of the Jharkhand Government for withdrawal of the mining proposal made in favour of Monnet and some others. The said order was challenged by Monnet and the matter reached up to Apex Court. While deciding the said controversy the Hon'ble apex Court held that "no person has any fundamental right to claim that he should be granted mining lease or prospecting licence or permitted reconnaissance operation in any land belonging to the Government". It was further held by the Hon'ble apex Court that "recommendation earlier made by the Jharkhand Government in favour of Monnet was only a proposal and it was made very much clear that it was to be approved by the Central Government prior whereto it could not be construed as containing a promise". 45] The challenge raised by the petitioner to the notification dated 29-09-2009 is about the manner of exe....