Patna High Court
Madan Lal Jain vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 August, 1988
Equivalent citations: AIR1989PAT318, 1989(37)BLJR326, AIR 1989 PATNA 318, (1988) PAT LJR 1116, 1989 BLJR 326, (1989) BLJ 571
JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexures-1 and '2' appended to this application. By annexure-1, the Ministry of Steel & Mines, Department of Mines, (respondent 1), the Central Government rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as the M. C. Rules, 1960) on the ground that it was time barred. Vide annexure-2, the Director, Mines, Bihar, respondent No. 3 communicated to the petitioner that his application for first renewal of the mining lease in respect of 35.42 acres of land situate in village Saidpur Buzurg has lapsed by time and as such the same stood automatically rejected
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, in short, are that the petitioner made an application for grant of mining lease of China Clay and Silica Sand over an area of 35.82 acres of land situate in village Saidpur Buzurg within the district of Sahebganj which was granted by the State Government for a period of ten years and registered deed of lease was executed on 10-9-1966. The petitioner dissatisfied with the grant of mining lease only for a period of ten years, made an application before the Central Government under Rule 54 of the M. C. Rules, 1960 and the Central Government by its, order dt. 19-5-1967 allowed the application of the petitioner and directed the State Government to grant mining lease for a period of twenty years and accordingly a rectification deed was also executed and the lease was extended up to 5-9-1986.
3. Since the petitioner's lease was going to expire on 6-9-1986, the petitioner filed an application on 9-4-1985 for renewal of the lease as required under the provisions of Rule 28 of the M. C. R, 1960. It appears that some queries were made by the State Government or by the Assistant Mining Officer, respondent No. 4 and the petitioner complied with the same. However, all on a sudden, the petitioner received a letter dt. 4-5-1987 as contained in annexure-2 stating that the application for renewal of the mining lease for first renewal stood automatically rejected.
4. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision application dt. 2-6-1987 before the Central Government under Rule 54 of the M. C. Rules which was duly received by the Central Government. The Central Government also made certain queries asking the petitioner to give the date of expiry of the mining lease and the reasons for late submission of the revision application. A copy of the said letter is annexure-4 to this application, but, ultimately as indicated above, vide annexure-1 the Central Government rejected the revision application as time barred which is under challenge before this Court.
5. Mr. Thakur Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that this being the first renewal of the mining lease with respect to a mineral not specified in the first schedule of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act'), the petitioner is entitled as a matter of right, to the grant of renewal in view of Rule 28(3) of M. C. Rules, 1960 read with Section 8(2) of the Act. According to the learned counsel a mining lease in respect of China Clay and Silica Sand not specified in the first schedule can be renewed for a further period of twenty years. It was further contended that China Clay comes under item II of the second schedule and Silica Sand comes under item 24 of the second schedule of the Act Thus, the petitioner is entitled, as a matter of right, to the renewal of his mining lease for one more term under Sub-clause (2) of Section 8 of the Act.
6. In order to appreciate the submissions of Mr. Prasad, it is necessary to quote Section 8(1) and (2) of the Act which reads as follows : --
"8. Periods for which mining leases may be granted or renewed. -
(1) The period for which a mining lease may be granted shall not exceed twenty years. (2) A mining lease may be renewed for two periods each not exceeding ten years.
Provided that no mining lease granted in respect of a mineral specified in the First Schedule shall be renewed except with the previous approval of the Central Government."
Rule 28(3) of the M. C Rules, 1960 reads as follows: --
"(1).....
(2).....
(3) Application in respect of mineral/ minerals which is/are not specified in the said Schedule shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 8, be granted by the State Government."
7. From a mere perusal of Section 8(2) of the Act read with Rule 28(3) of the M. C. Rules, 1960, it is abundantly clear that in respect of non-scheduled mineral first renewal "shall be granted" by the State Government. The period for renewal, however, shall not exceed twenty years. If an application for renewal of a mining lease is made to the State Government in form 'J', within the prescribed period before the date on which the lease is due to expire, the State Government shall grant renewal as envisaged under Section 8(2) of the Act read with Rule 28(3) of the M.C. Rules, 1960.
8. Mr. L S. Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that no person has fundamental right to the grant of a mining lease and the State Government has the right to refuse grant and renewal of a mining lease if the application is not in a form or is violative of the provisions of the Act or the rules. Learned counsel drew our attention to Rule 24 of the M, C. Rules, 1960 which deals with the disposal of application for mining lease. Learned counsel also pointed out that under Sub-clause (2) of Rule 24 of the said Rules, an application for the renewal of a mining lease shall be disposed of within six months from the date of its receipt and if any application is not disposed of within the said period, the ' application shall be deemed to have been refused under Sub-clause 3 of Rule 24 of the aforesaid M. C. Rules.
9. In the instant case, it has not been pointed out by Mr. Sinha that the application was not in form or it was violative of any provisions of the Act or the Rules. I, therefore, hold that the lessee of non-scheduled mineral is entitled, as a matter of right, to the first renewal of a mining lease for a period not exceeding twenty years provided the renewal of the lease-hold area is not in contravention of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The same view has been taken in the case of Bindeshwari Jha v. Union of India, 1985 Pat LJR 256.
10. In the application, it has been asserted that when the petitioner received the communication from the State Government vide annexure-2; he thereafter filed a revision application dt. 2-6-1987 before the Central Government under Rule 54 of the M. C. Rules which was duty received on 17-7-1987. Rule 54 says that to any person aggrieved by any order made by the State Government or the authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Act or these rules may within three months from the date of communication of the order to him, apply to the Central Government in triplicate in form 'N' for revision of the said order. Of course, the application should be accompanied by a treasury receipt showing that a fee of Rs. 100/-has been paid into the Government treasury or in any branch of the State Bank of India. There is a proviso as well which says that any such application may be entertained after the said period of three months if the applicant satisfies the Central Government that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within time. It was argued by Mr. Thakur Prasad that the communication dt. 4-5-1987 (annexure-2) was received and the petitioner filed the revision application within three months. Therefore, the Central Government should not have rejected the application on the ground of limitation. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the State Government that the petitioner should have filed the revision application soon after the deemed refusal by the State Government: The question which arises for consideration in this application is whether the mining lease in respect of China Clay and Silica Sand which was granted to the petitioner, should have been refused or not in the facts and circumstances of this case. It appears from annexure-1 that the Central Government has refused the application on the ground that the same is time barred saying that the application has been filed late nearly by l 1/2 years and no convincing ground for condonation of delay has been advanced.
11. I may point out here that under the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 54 of the M. C. Rules, the Central Government has the power to condone the delay caused in applying for renewal of lease. A renewal application should not be thrown out on the ground of delay alone and such rejection without giving cogent reasons is improper. In annexure-2 i.e. letter dt. 4-5-1987, it is already mentioned that if the petitioner so wishes, he may file revision application before the Central Government. "Atah aap chahain to Bharat Sarkar ke samaksh punrichan aawedan parastut kar sakte hain". Mr. Prasad has rightly argued that in view of the above assertion made in annexure-2, the Central Government should not have taken drastic view that the revision application has been filed late nearly by 1 1/2 years and should not have thrown out the application on the ground that the same was time barred. In this connection, I may point out a decision in the case of Harkaran Das Mangilal v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1734 wherein their Lorships made the following observations : --
"It, however, appears from the order dated June 7, 1974 passed by the Central Government in another case (No. MV-i/5567/78); that in appropriate cases the Central Government has the power to condone the delay caused in applying for renewal of the licence. If that be so, we do not appreciate for what special reasons the delay in the instant case could not be condoned by the Central Government".
12. I accordingly quash Annexures-1 and '2' and direct the Central Government to dispose of the revision application of the petitioner for renewal of the lease on merit keeping in mind the relevant provisions of law which govern the renewal of leases. This direction should not be understood as requiring the Central Government to grant the renewal of the licence. The Central Government while, dealing the question of renewal will be free to consider every relevant aspect of the matter including the circumstances arising out of the delay caused in making the revision application for renewal All that I hereby direct is that the application for renewal will not be rejected on the ground of delay alone.
13. Accordingly, this application is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Uday Sinha, J.
14. I agree.