Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S.Standard Metalloys Pvt.Ltd. vs Union Of India on 18 September, 2020
Bench: J K Maheshwari, K Suresh Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT! (Special Original Juriadictian} FRIDAY, THE ENGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWh THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE NONGURASLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI JITENDRA KUMAR MAHES ; AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.QURESH REDDY WRIT BETITION NO: 8446 OF 3028 Beahveen: Mis.Standard Metalloys Pvilic.. irrough is Authoriged engi Se. Su um Vr path, having Regd. Office at 845, Naurang Hou 90, 21, K.G. Marg, New Deihi- 44060 4 AND PETITIONER ~ Union ¢ i fadia R Ren by is Seoratary, Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhawan, New Malki ie Addition acior General and Administering Authority, Gedingy Survey of inca, ¢ aSit nee 2x, Saminary Mulls Nagpur440006 . Deparime sont of Atomic Ener ray, Rap by ds Secretary, Anushast Bhawan, Mumbal- S800 RESPONDENTS % L "3 we vn bad lp Petition uncer Article 286 of the Cansiitutien of india praying that in the y circumstances stated in the affidavil fled {herawith, Ihe High Court may be Meased fo G) Issue an sporosriate wri, omer or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari ¢ quash notification dafed 27.7.2019 issued by the Depariment of Alamie Enargy as being ullra vires the OAMOR Act and/or the Atomic Energy Act, and or (issue an sopropriate writ, arder or direction in the nature of writ of oartcrari fo quash order dated 6.17.2019 issued Sy the Central Government, and/ or fiplseue sn aprrooate wrif, order or direction to declare Rule GA of fhe Off Shore Area Mineral Rules, 2006 as ullra viras the OAMOR Act, 2002, andar ~ faiissue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to direct the responders to exeaite and sign the deed of exploration Hognoe with the patitioner in furtherance of order of grant dated 54.2011 and in terns af the inter party decision of the Nenble High Court of Dethi under compliance to this Hondle Coun, @issue an appropnate writ, arder or direction in ihe nature of writ of cerlorari reopening of PE No, PE AC1 2012 AOQ0S already closed earier by the CRI vide ee B. wots, "o or quashing of reference dale OG. 2018 made by Minisiry of Mines to Ci for slasure report dated 28.4 2073 [A NO > 1 OF 2020 Fetitien under Section 161 CRO praying thal in the circumstances stated in the afidavli fled in support of the petition, the Nigh Court may be pleaser! to Pass ex- nara and interim orders in favour of the Petitioners and direct stalus qua be maintained wih regard to the ofishora Bisoks mentioned with regard to the offshore tdocks mentioned in nolfication dated OF.O8 2070. {A NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in ihe circumstances stated in the alidavil fied in support of the petition, the Nigh Court may be pleased to Pass ex- rane amd interim orders in favour of the PeiNionera and stay fhe operation af the ™ order dated 6.77.2019 and notification dated 37.07 2078. fatnsel for the Petitioner: SRI DYASNHRAJ SINGH DEQRA for SRI S.VIVER CHANDRA SEKNAR Gounsal for Respondents: SR) A.HARINATH, Asst Sel General for SRE PASALA PONNA RAQ, SC for Central Govt. The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ; AMARAVATI CHIEF JUSTICE 1.K. MAHESHWART & JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8410 of 2020 Havi ng Read. Office at 819, Naurang House, New Delhi -110001. Versus i. Union of Indie Ren. by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Hast Bhawan, New Oeihi 110001. . AddManal Uxrector Ge Geology Survey of Incha, GSI Complex, Serninary NHis Nagour-440008. bad tas : Rep. by iis Sacrefary, Anushakt! Shawan, Miurnifal - 440001 Counsel for the petitioner Counsel for the rescondants Date of reserving the order Date of prammuncing the order p2i, RG. Marg, Department of Atorric Enere ts Authorised Si igs snatory 5 Sh. "Sumi it Tripathi, a Petoner eral anid Acininistering Authority, hespandents fir, O. Yashral Singh Oaora for Mr, S. Vivek C Chandrasekhar Mp, N, Hacnath, Assistant Soficitar General 81.49 ORG OR PER NARA ANRRSNSESNANNOO Per U.K. Maheshwari, C3 invoking the jurisdiction under Articie 226 of the Constitution of Inia, the petitioner fled the present writ petition, seeking to 9 of the fend quash the palicy decision vide notification dated 27.07.2601 Department af Atomic Energy (hereinafter be referred as 'the DAE' for brevity}, Le, respondent No.3 ss being aire wires to the oF Feud Offshore Argas Minerals (Developrnent arki Regulation) Act, 200: Chereinafter be referred' as 'the OAMDR Act' for brevity}; to quash the consequential order dated 06.11.2019 issued by respandent Novi ~ Ministry of Mines, Government of India; to declare Rule 34 af the Offshore Areas Mineral Concession Rules, 2006 {hereinafter be referred as 'the OAMC Bules' for brevity) as of provisions of the OAMDR Act: fo quash the letter dated 04.04.2019 addressed by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, to the Cy entral Bureau of Investigation for reanening of the Preliminary enquiry Gearing No.PE ACL 2012 ADOOS, which was clased sariler vide closure report dated 28.03.2013, for further investigation; and to direct the respondents fo execute and sign the deed of exploration licence in favour of the petitioner in furtherance to the order of grant dated 05.04.2011, 2 The present case has chequered history, wherein the issue of grant of exploration licences under the OAMDR Act has already undergone two rounds of [Ngation upto Kon'ble the Suprerne Court 6£4 and an both occasions, Han'ble the Syprerne Court has refused to es interfere with the fAndings of the High Court. White dismissing S.LEYO NO. S530 of 2014, vide order dated 31.03.2014, against the judgment of Bombay High Court, Hon'ble the Supreme Court upheld the process of selection, legality and propriety in granting exploration ficences in favour of private parties including the petitioner herein. J. The facts which are net in dispute anc are borne cut from the record are, the GAMDR Act carne inte force on 15.01.2010, Respondent Nol appol inted the administering authority uncer the orovisinns of the OAMDR Act on LL0S.2010. The sald administering authority issued notification dated 07.06.2010, in terms of the mandate of Section 10 of the OAMDR Act, which required the authority to issue notification within six (6) months of the Act, indicating the offshore areas available for grant of exploration flcences. By the said natification, 62 offshare blacks ed were notified for grant of explaration licences. Pursuant to the said notification, various applications were received seeking allotment of the blocks. The authority concerned! accordingly bas constituted a screening committee consisting of experts fram Indian Bureau Of Mines CBM}, Geological Survey of India (51) and National Institute of Oceanography {NIO}. The screening committee has & HOGS 4389 WEL 84 30 of SOG drawn up guidelines based on the requirements under the provisions of the OAMDR Act, more specifically Section 12, and undertook the selection pracess recommending the names by a fist fottees for grant of exploratian licences on the website or ie 22.02.2011. Thereafter, the administering authority, in exercise of HS power under section 12 of the CAAMDES Art issuecl orders dated O5.04,.2011 granting exploration licences for the 62 blacks to 16 successful applicants, including ths petitioner herein who was granted six blocks in the Bay of Bengal. The said blocks granted to the petitioner for exploration are adjoining the coastline of Andhra Pradesh State. 4. Assaling the pracess of selection adopted by the sdministering authority, various orivate parties, though not participated, approached different Nigh Courts and tried to stall the allotment. Several Writ Petitions were fled before this Court, the High Court of Macias and the High Court of Bambay by different parties. In the meantime, based on the news item sublished | newspapers, which sought ta raise sussicion on the allocation of the locks, the Central Bureau of Investigation initiated a preliminary enquiry, However, afler conducting a thorough probe, the CET submitted a closure report dated 28.03.2013, having found ne evidence of sate Ade on the part of any public servant and no evidence of any quid-oro-quo bebveen the public servants and the NOY WE No G4 1s successful allottees. In fact, the CRI also came to the conclusion that there was mo evidence to suggest any financial loss to the oublic exchequer ar any corresponding gain to ary crivate persan in the whole exercise undertaken by the screening committee for "ant af exploration licences. However, the CEI seemed to suggest that the alleged criteria for selection was fixed and adopted by the screening cormmittes after Inviting the applications, which may amount to an irrequiarity. The report of the Cal was accepled i by the Ministry of Mines, because the Minister of Mines, Government of India, in a reply to a question in Parlament, stated that no misconduct was found by the CBI on the part of any official, thus nut the said rnatter at rest. 5. The private parties, wha were seeking fo stall or nullify the grants somehow or the ather, did not meet with any success in ary os of the Courts. The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Sench, bafore which the entire selection process was challenged, including the criteria adopted by the screening committes, which was commented upon by CBE as being irregular, has not four faut the procedure adapted for selection being in accordance with law and upheld the same. Vide detailed judgment dated 17.09.2019 passed in W.P.No.1802 of 2011, the Nigh Court of Bornbay was pleased to hold that the selection process adopted by the administering authority Including the laying of the guidelines by the screening committee even after receiving the applications was fair and just, The Court was of the opinian that the guidelines framed by the Cammittee were merely an elaboration of the criteria prescribed under Section 12 of the OAMDR Act, as such the selection was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and by Following the procedure. The High Court observed! that laying down the criteria to carry out the proavisian of Section 12 was, in fact, to avai arbitrariness in exercise of discretion. It is important to mantion that before the Bombay High Court, respondent No i defended the action and the criteria adopted by the then administering authority in the process of selection, SLP GD.No.5530 af 2014 preferred by the orivate party against the judgment of the Bombay High Court was also dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, vide its order dated! 31.03.2014. Accordingly, the validity of the selection pracess and the same being In accordance with law attgined finality. its * Even thereafter, the issue of execution of the exploration licence remained pending before the administering authority for a considerable period on the pretext thet one of the cases filed by a private party before this Court was pending and had not been Gaciged, Af that stage of me, there was no indication by the administering authority regarding any error in the notification of the blocks or its intention not to grant the blacks. The change in the atthude of the adrninistering authority seems to have occurred when the then Secretary (Mines), in a meeting datecl 14.07.2015, directed 18M to explore a way to cancel the allotment of the blocks so that the same blocks could be re-oranted. It is the cantention of the petitioner that the said exercise was obviously undertaken to benefit certain orivate parties who had not been granted blocks | the previous alohment process. Pe Since the administering authority was not execuiinc the is 55 exploration licences to the allottees despite the selection proces: having attained the finality by the Court, some allottees aporoeached the High Court of Bombay and the High Court of Delhi seeking writs in the nature of Mandamus to direct the authority to execute the exploration Heences. These petitions were Mes sometime in June, 2016. On service of notice to the administering authority, ina hurried marmer, order dated 20.06.2016 was issued seeking fo annul the notification and grants so as to defeat the pending writ petitions in Courts. The petifioner herein challenged aid order dated! 30.06.2016 in WP (C).No 7537 of 2018 before oe er th 4@ Delhl High Court. Vide judgment dated 06.02.2019 passed In the said writ petition alnng with batch of connected wrif petitions, oss the order dated 30.06.2016 was set aside by the learned single judge of the Delhi Nigh Court, directing the respancients to execute the axploration licence. The Court, in te judgment, recorded WEE 8g S825 of findings against the officers of Ministry of Mines indicating their maa Ade and the manner in which the cancellation order dated 8. Based upon the findings in the aforesaid Judgment, a complaint was made by the then administering authority on LLO22019 to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The CVC, vide order datecl 15.03.2019, directed for an independent investigation against the officers of the Ministry of Mines. Being influenced by the said development, officers in the Ministry of Mines immediately wrote a letter to the CRT on 01.04.2019, making request to reopen the Preliminary Enquiry closed earlier on 28.03.2013 after thoraugh investication. 9. in the meantime, the said arder dated 06.02.2019 of t learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court was challenged by respondent No.1 in LPA No.i85/2019 & batch, which was upheld by the Division Bench vide judament dated 25.04.2018, wherein ONce again seriqus strictures were passed' against the conduct of the officers indicating their ma Age in making a reference to CBT an 01.04.2019 for rengening of the PE. Agarieved hy the above g ¥ C3 Judgment, respondent No.1 preferred SLPs, lead case keing SLP (C). No. LiS9 of 2019, before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, In the said SLPs, vide order dated 23.05.2019, Hoo'ble the aupreme Court directed the Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, to fle an YALE. ne. A affidavit sbout the golicy decision of the Central Government, asking whether they want to go by the bids invited or they want to interelict all orivate players, if so, haw they can de so in view of the provision in the statutes. iQ. In response to the sald order, the Secretary, DAE, Med his affidavit in July, 2019 and deposed that any policy decision of the Government as adapted under the OAMDR Act could "be implemented only pursuant to an amendment in the OAMDR Act The Secretary, DAE, Immediately issued the Impugned notification dated 27.07.2019, referring Section 8 of the OAMBR Act and Rule L8CiMivyb) of the GAMC Rides, anc sought to contend that it has é powers under Sections 3 and 14 of the AE Act to cancel the grant orders for exploration Hoences and that tao retrospectively. By the said notification, grant of operating rights were prohibited in a 'egpect of atomic minerals in any offshore areas in the country, including the sixty-two blocks, to any person, except fo the Government or a Government Company or 4 Corporation owned or =e os controlled by the Government and all actions taken in this behalf by the Central Government under the OAMDES Act priar to the date of the notification were rescinded, Li. When the SLPs carne up for hearing, the saici policy decision was produced before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The Court, after having refused to interfere with the judgments of the Delhi High ~ WLR S830 of BORG Court, alsa has not cammented on the merit of the policy decision dated 27.07.2019, and was pleased to direct that any policy decision taken would be grospentve in nature. id. Even after the above proceedings, the petitioner did not get to anjoy the fruits of the long drawn tigation. Respondent No.l within a short span of the dismosal of the SLPs, issued shaw-cause notice dated 19.08.2019 to the petitioner, by relyinc gq ugon the notification dated 27.07.2019 issued by respondent No.3. The celtioner fied cantempt proceadings in Contempt Petition (C).No,967 of 2019 before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. During pendency of the said Contempt Petition, respondent No.1, after hearing the petitioner, passed order dated 06.11.2019 under Section 7 of the OAMDR Act prematurely terminating the order of grant of exploration licence dated OS.04.2011. As the order dated O6.11,.2019 came to be Issued, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, vide order dated 27.01.2020, disposed of the Contempt Petition, granting liberty to the petitinner to challenge the sald order dated Q6.11.2019 In appropriate proceedings before the High Court. In View of the same, the present petition came to be filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned notification dated 27.07.2015, the ander dated 06.11.2019 and to seek the reliefs above referred, ig. The contention of the petitioner is that the notification dated 27 Q7.2019 is Hable to be quashed, being oie wires to the g uu Re APNG BS - orevisions of the GAMDR Act as well as the Atomic Eneray Act, 1962 (hereinafter be referred as 'the AE Act' for brevity). Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred amd relied upon various orovisions of the GAMDR Act and the OAMC Rules with speciic reference to Sections 3, 3, 5, 6, 12 and 12 of the QAMDE Act. Further reliance is ofaced on Rule 18 of the QAMC Rules to contend ae at the DAE does not have any discretion with regard to grant of exploration licences for atomic minerals, therefore, the said authority is seeking fo achieve something indirectly which could not peed re have been done directly. ig aisa contended that the issue pertaining to interpretation of the provisions of the OAMDR Act is no longer res dxfegee Inasmuch as the High Court of Delhi, in the x proceedings inter parties, has already held in judgements dated £3 x Q6.02.2019 passed by the Iearned Single Bench and 25.04.2019 of the leared Olvision Bench, that private sersan or companies can be granted exploration licences for atomic minerals under fhe provisions of the QAMDR Act, and the statute does not restrain such grant. Therefore, the notification dated 27.07.2019, which Is merely an executive instruction cannot override the statutury provisions which have already received judicial exarnination by the inter-party judgment. Tf is also contended that the issue is also barred by res fuotcata and the respondents cannat be permitted fo reagitate the said issue. With regard to ure wres of the said notification to the orovisions of the AE Act, is contended that an at sections 3 and i4 of the AE Act, sought to be refled "par, do not confer specific powers and cannot be said to relate to the object sought to be achieved by the notification. It is further contended that Section 30 of the AE Act requires rules to be framed to give effect to the object of the AE Act prospectively, The ressondents have not framed any rules to the extent as is being sought to be provided by the executive instruction. The Rules framed are the Atamic Energy (Working of the Mines, Minerals and Handling of cribec! Substances) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter be referred as the Rules of 1884 for brevity). Those Rules deal with the contingen ey of discovery of the prescribed substance during mini nq. s, the AL Sct ar the Rules co not restrict grant of operating right to private parties, If is cartencied that where law requires a thing to be Cone in a particular manner, the same should be done only in that manner anc in ne other renner. It is alsa alleged by the petioner thet the rules framed are requirecl to be placed before both Houses of Parliament in terms of the requirement under section 30 of the AE Act and in that case, they may likely to be rejected by the Parlarnent. Therefore, the respondents have er oa sought to sidestep the mandatary orocedure prescribed under law by way of issuing the irmougnec notification. It is further cantencied that the sak! notification seeks t3 undermine the statutory provisions that is Parliamentary law viz. the GAMOR Act, and the mecretary, DAE, who has issued the said notification was Fuily canstious about the legal position as is evident fram his affidavit fled before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, wherein he had categorically admitted that any policy of the Government could be implemented only after an amendment to the OAMDE Act. In this fact, the said notification travels beyond the scope of the QAMDR Act as well as the AE Act and therefore, is required to be quashed, id. With regard to the order dated 06.11.2019 cancelling the order of grants retrospectively, if is cantended that the sais order is fable to be quashed as the same is in violation of Sectian 7(2) of XN * the OAMOR Act, which embocies the | principles of natural justice otherwise quaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contends that though show-cause notice was issued and hearing was fixed, but the sald process was nothing but an empty formality as the authority had already made up fs mind to cancel the allocationfgrants of the exoforation licence. Learned counsel, referring the language of the show-cause notice as well as the stand of the Government before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, camended that the decision to terminate the grant was pré- determined. On the issue of challenge to the sald order on merits, tis contended that it suffers from fetter of discretion which the Central Government, Le. the Ministry of Mines hac fo apply. Heavever, the Central Government, instead of exercising ifs own Independent consideration on the situation, Aas im turn solely ag WEE A KER, | WAP.Na. S836 of 2029 mpressed upon the notiication dated 27.07.2019 issued by the DAR, however, passed {he order impucned. or oe ma 33 at = a iY 3 cy & a se wh = i ~~ wy aa: ct ist re ae re provide arty mestriction on private companies being granted atomic A. minerals as defined under Part B of Schedule-T of the Mines an Minerals (Development and Requlatian) Act, 195? (hereinafter be referred as 'the MMOR Act' for brevity}. In the alternative, it is contended that Rule 34, being subordinate legislation, can in any event not apply retrospectively or impact or affect vested rights. The issue pertaining to vested rights already stands settled bef a the High Court of Delhi wherein the issuance of order of grant dated 05.04.2011 has been recognized as conferring vested night to the petitioner. if Lastly, & is contended that the letter/request dated 01.04.2019 issued by respondent No.1 asking CBI te re-open the investigation with regard to the grants is out of vindictiveness and bas been done to undermine the order of Bombay High Court and iS @ Malicious exercise of power. Learned counsel placed reliance, firstly, on the CVO, IBM and CBI enquiries itself, which were held prior fo the jucigmert of the High Court of Bombay dated 709.2012 in W.R.No.1802 of 2011 and the respondents themselves bad defended the action of the then administering authority as well as the screening committee before the High Court of Bombay, which, on consideration of the factual and lege! situation, specifically arrivecl at the finding that the screening committes had acted in accordance with law and the criteria framed is traceable from Section ig of the OAMBR Act and no irregularity of any nature was found in the selection process for grant of exploration ficences. The High Court further held that the criterla adonted by the Selection Committes was to avoid arbitrariness and as such, the findings of CSI to the extent that there was procedural irrequiarity steed impliedly overruled by the High Court of Bombay. Tt is further contencled that Interference to the said judgment was refused by Hon'bie the Supreme Court in the SLB. ff is, therefore, contended that request to reapen the x CBI investigation after @ lapse of 6 years Le. by ietter dated OLO4.2019 by Respondent No.1, liself speaks volume about mee fides. If any investigation was further desirec by respondent No.1, was always apen to the said respondent to have requested ihe CBI fi renpen the matter immeciiately after the closure report dated 28.03.2013. However, they did not do so, knowing fully wel that there were no discrepancies in the entire orocess. In fact, the saicl closure report had also been accepted by the Ministry of Mines and a confirmation to this effect was also given to the Parhament by the Minister of Mines. It is only when the respondents realized that their legal attempt at cancelling the allocations vide the order dated 30.06.2016, would not hold water in Court, that the respondents startec) making allegations against their own officials. Learned counsel further cantencis thet aa fe of resoondent No.l ig a@ wrt Jarge on the face that the said letter dated xy Ve 04.20, pes pod 3 Sac been written by Mr. Niranian Kurnar Singh, the then Joint Secretery-cum-CVO of Ministry of Mines against whom the CVC had already initiated the Investigation on 15.03.2019 and iy arder to mislead the CSI, crimiel material facts vie. Judgment Gated 17.09.2013, order dated 31.03.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the O.M. dated I5.03.2019 initiating indepenclent & investigation against officials of Ministry of Mines including Mr. Niranjan Kumar Singh were deliberately suppressed in the letter dated 01.08.2019 and therefore, the action of issuing the ietter was out of malice. If is, accordingly, contended that mele ot 3 a ides are to be inferred from: a tote! consideration of the surrounding circumstances, if. Learned counsel glaced reflance on the judgment of Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain', on the issuus of scope of judicial review while examining the Government oalioy. Reliance has further beer laced on ULP. State Road "YROO?T} 4 SCL PRE Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Ismail'. On the issue, when law requires something to be done in a part icular manner, © ought to be done in that way, rellance is placed on the decisions in Patna Improvement Trust v. Lakshmi bevit, Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala", State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh*, Dipak Sabaria v. State of Gujarat'. In support of the contention, the orders passed by the Delhi Nigh Court, interpreting the prov VISIONS of the GAMOR Act, since bece % 2 final on SLP being disposed wt without interfering in the judgments of the Delhi High Court and the said judgments could not be sought to be nullified, rellance has been laced on the judgrnents of Non'bie the Suoreme Court in Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa', Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India® and Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala®, In support of the contention that in the manner in wht ch the oewer has been exercised while framing Rule 3A and issuing policy decision retrospectively, such action is not permissible In terms of the provisions of the statute and is arbitrary, rellance bas been ofaced upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hukam Chand v. Union of India*®. Tt is urged that the action ee PN ba A ms 18 HOE R NSA, J WP.Mo.SOi8 nf 2030 taken by the respondents was in wolation of the orincioles of i f att natural Justice and in sugport of the ssid contentio on, reliance has been placed on the judgments in Oryx Fisheries {PF} Ltd. v. Union of India** and ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geen International Led 18. Responvent Nos.t anc 2 Rave filed thelr counter-affdavit and in terms of the averments made therein, the learned Assistant solicitor General has sought to oppose the writ petitien on the grounds that the sower of judicial review fs limited and that what js primarily under challenge in the writ petition is the policy decision of the Government to nat grant mining af atomic minerals to private companies/parties in the offshore sreas. It is contender! that the minerals in question are of strategic value anc allowing private parties to mine the same would impact the security of the nation. Various judgmertts have been referred on the aspect of policy decision of the Gavernment anc the alleged bar on the interference by the Courts in such decisions. The respondents have aso refled upon the arler of Hon'ble the Supreme Court to overcome the contention of the petitioner pertaining to the Findings af the High Court of Delhi. The respondents have sought to place relaance on the order of Hon'ble Ager Court dt.39.07.2019 passed in the SLP of the respondants challenging the order of the Delhi we "as BWV os High Court. Much reliance has been placed on the sentence "ave directions oF the High Court shal sot care in the wor fe, iniplementing fhe palicy decisforvactian', to contend that by virtue oo of the same, the effect of the judgments of the Nigh Court af Delhi are completely wiped off and the sald orders of the High Court stand merged in the order of the Han'ble Supreme Court, Bases on the same, it is stated thet urvier Section 6 of the OAMDR Act read with Rule i8 of the GAMC Rules, the DAE-respondent Nos was fully competent to exercise Ns discretion ane fake a policy decision to not grant exploration licence or mining isases £9 arivate companies for atomic minerals. The said policy, it was cont ended, is also in consonance with the policy under the provisions of the MMBR Act and the rules framed thereunder. Rellance is also pl faced on various provisions of the AE Act to contend that respondent No.3 has acted dure wres to the provisions of the sald Act while issuing the instructions vide notification dated 27.07.2019. If has been sought to be highlighted that the minerals in question, WE. ilmenite, rule, gamet, sillimaniie, zircon, are of high strategic us importance, Suggestion has also been sought to be mace pertaining to the importance of zircon in energy production throug nuclear plants. Monazite which is a prescribed substance being notified as such under the AE Act, is also said to be avaiable in the suite of minerais available in the said offshore blocks. Accordingly, ae ROY & KER: WA Ne BAG of FOI5 it is claimed that the writ petition should be rejected as BAF wes fully within its powers to have issued the imouaned notification. th iS. In-so far as ewercise of power under Sectior® 7 of the CAMDR Act is concerned, the respondents have contended that the same was strictly follawed in compilance with the said provisions and princinies of netural justice, as such a show-cause notice was £ and opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, The Central Government, thereafter, has righty arrived at the conclusion to prematurely terminate the aperating rights vide order dated 06.21.2019 20, With regard to Rule 34 as inserted in the OAMC Rules, it was contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General that the same is in compliance with Section 6fb) of the GAMDR Act, which Provides that the grant may be to an Indian company that satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed. Accordingly, under Section JS of the OAMDR Act, while exercising its rule making power, the saicl condition uncer Rule 3A has heen prescribed and as such the said Rule is sofa wires to the OAMOS Act, 4i, Lastly, regarding the letter dated 01.04.2019, § is sought to be contended thet the CBI enquiry has already commenced based on the said letter. It is also contended! that a writ petition has bean 3F3 fied challenging the enquiry before the High Court of Delhi, It is also subrnitted that respondent No.t has taken note of the discrepancies/irrequiarities in the selection process as brought out by the CBT in its report detec) 28.09.2015, which has aroused suspicion of respondent No.l with regard to the sald grants and undue haste shown by the then administering authorify in execution of the exploration Heenees pursuant to the order dated O8.11.2017 of the High Court of Delhi when the Government was stil contemplating further course af action and accordingly the said latter Inflating enquiry cannet be held to be vitlated by sala Ades. to be a Ik is accordingly contended that the wel petition desarve dismissed. my 22. Learned Assistant Soliciter General appearing on behalf of the Zr 4 uw rou respondents also placed reliance on the judgment of Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, on the puint af scape of judicial review. Placing reliance on the judgment of M.P, OH Extraction v. State of M.P.5, i is said that uniess the policy frarned by the Stete is capricious and arbitrary, interference should not be made by the Court. Further, relying upon the Judgrnent of Balco Employees Union v. Union of India'*, it is contended that the Courts should net embark upon an enquiry as to whether a hes oS wb particular public policy is wise or a better public palicy can evolved and interference with the policy decision by the Court is met permissible merely on the ground that fairer ar wiser or more sclantific cr more logical policy may be oossible. Further, on the point of exceptions available In relation to the principles of natural justice, reliance has bean placed on the judgments of Justice K.S, Puttuswarmy v. Union of India", Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India' and Mohinder Singh GHI vy. CEC'. Finally, it is urged that what is in the interest of national security is not a question of law anc if is a matter of policy, therefore, the Court is not required ta interfere, and In support thereof, s@lance has been placed an the judgment of Ex. Armymen's Protection Services P, Ltd. v. Union of India®. In view of the aforesal d judgments, ib is urged that the petition fled by the petitioner may be disrriissed, ai, On consideration of the averments made in the writ petition, courter-affidavit fled Oy respandent Nast & 2, the rejoinder Aled oy the petitioner, the rival contentions as advanced and the reliefs prayed oefoes the Court, mainly the following issues arise for determination in the oresent case: i. Whether the policy decision of the DAE taken vide Not¥ication dated 27.07.2019 is within the arnbit and power of the AE Act and/or OAMDR Act and not whe wres to the statute, ar it is dehors the AIR GOD? SC 4081 is ay: oan "4978 AIR SOP provisions of both the Acts, and issued arbitrarily < with lack of bona fides? ond 3, Whether the order dated Q6.11.2019 passed by respondent Novi is after due application of mind or merely relying upon the Notification datec 27.07.2019 and such action is In consonance to the provisions of Section * of the OAMDE. Ach in observance of the orincigles of natural justice Bad Whather Rule 34 of the OAMC Rites, as notified on 23.06.2019, Is ufre wres to Section 35 of the < OAMDE Act, and having sanction of law? 4 Whether the letter dafed 01.04.2019 sent by respondent No.l to the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation to reopen the Preliminary Enquiry bearing No.PE ACI 2012 Al0O0S already closed vide closure report dated 28.03.2013, after six years is tainted with saa Ace looking to the facts of the cases 24. Before dealing with the questions framed hereinabove and in the context of the facts of the present case and the reliefs so orayed, challenging the policy decision of the Central Government, at the outset, it is necessary to sea whether the scope of judicial raview is avaliable te this Court i ise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the said context, it Is to be noticed that in the S.L.e. arase out of the infer-party judgment delivered in favour of the petitioner by the Delhi High Court, i x fay oo : re , s c pra). & eee & S £4. Ct 63 ~"s C4 Mm an S& 6 tf f t% Me hy he ce to as 9% £8 #5 me mS é 7 : we a ee, ~ rl { tH cated ot wy g 4 cd ea oy a 4 i wl S co we eT a iG re ent on it, but v 2 ' Vi AY; 2 QODISE fis @rrpneous a z. : dated 29.07.2019, has efore the Court is not in Ourt held as thus ia) uae mae S 0 3 , % 9 & 8 S 2 ae os es a "eee RE ED Be «est hy a fm a 3 = oS G&G BB Oo Sf S as] rod oy 3 hn mR <= & 2 Ae, pu, z Be B hn é a3 Seve = & &@ BS . & 4 2 "ee he «MS ee Cy a He Mm Se Mt GY B® fo. bos ace ga ED % 8, we 4 MO nt CC = Ea : a3 fe i 2 kb & & ee ee a a rome < od a OO 4 em et EGR ge & i eo a: Re G 2 RE Bo. # fF BS i 6S Fg) ; a OME he ae ie SS fo Ce fo th me tan GER i OEE "A we Som § & " Ao RE & | «a # eo @¢ 7 2 6 &§ © 4s Bo By & EE ® a pon " a3 fee ? - wt %% a gy 3 haat tet anal fe 3 $ oe ES a3 '2 G fF bP 2 oS oy BO Bom & aon am, theok a bene : on < fo aft oe a ". hace Ge ~~ a wed 5 48, a ot an sy ae X a she we ¢ < wf: & @ ey & Gh. Ge 4M B 2 oo £ ¢ BS Py om oo raed le B Se neg soo 4. "hv, aN SS Po on oe a, ce Pt ae a 4 3 » © & & . & & # GS & & & & a 4 a0 Fa bk ie ve ee ge Be, Q 2 4 RR % ts # 4 ge oi on a a Boog FE ek gy Ege og S & & - 6 e x 6 y - 6 & &€& S&S BS y . ot a. ee 3 oh % hh poe Sk Po EF om. % yl OU me eo, & YS Fe we AB Go ew : . Swe nee ee we . es Nes wate z " A fone, 4g & ££ - B g i » &@ &@£ ste SB es PRESSE ER o ond oe y i 4 3 wh ey we = eb : i , ay "beh 1h Ct, KE 4s es a B wars @ £4 mS oo & os, ; a TR % 3 rn i 6 Gf 6 9 8 @ Be » 2. » E ge - B ah 2 xe 4 Gy te 2 4 Bed a" 6 oy BO ££ BS ye me ee eC ¢c 6 2 £ ™ B & B38 BS, oe 3 ay ey Ms " ay wo oe o % TW wm . & $F % & & G G B® 4 tA sd a3 fm BS 32 % GO PB & me Mm & = te tA ot Fea us Ra G nn a yd ye = & |g " "2 i, SS ge Pe Be "2 . a ee Pre ned # " om, eB Et E> Se uy Be ME we pe a en Sen & 3 aS om & 6 & & & & #€ & ¢ & & & & " 4 ead x Da eg ot Me a ' an, fe Ss Pn & wee ew a cw ? ms ee Lene pa ¢ we a ne ¢ g x one im oe ee 3 = oe Pe 4 a ey th het wm 6M0hUum CUM See OY ay uF odors O ' v . $90 a3 ' SK tee wm So Oh ge Po oe GP o 5 ns 7 3 f ge Oe 2S be BF ms a ~ A be 4 Gog > ¢ % 2 @ Fp ., BS » & & FE & 3 8 § © S & % @ & & 2, Pee ee SB g : 5 0 Ul OF Gf be mom & So 3 BO Oo ge © ra ue 3 & eo 4 BG a OE og oop o & % E & se cf 2 oT & Be #@ * 6 Ee Guy & Gg ST ly me na pe 00 " ox 8 3 aR eo eho US te Ee bene dew. bene ¢ CH > os % ~ he tie ren ny or a neat 6 ~~ GF -*& & g ~~ © 5 " 8 wy » & 8 2 - 4 g 8 & mB £ © Bo. Se Fos S&S & # EF FS , & £ B 43 ee uy . aye . 4 te. aA ow Na 2 oe gw -~ 8 me Bows oO G ee em SF § & . ae vn sham 42 ae $ Re Mad Mok we sem ce o § 2 Ss e @ £ 9 & ios aR oe wn = iced <4 - @ ow e ie ay a3 Pat oc my when 3 aoe ae ae L$ dow ood peed sony, st x ~ ~ ates £ & IAG : : g de exam hether if vie Ni ¥ hat wh ROK V as Aw r t rt may | g 4 Cou Py ke aid, if is clear 2 Sng y rrinnent, o 3 chs a fe, SOY & o ¢ "he Ae ave ¢ A Tn viey palicy of the G the fundamental rights of the cliivens or is opposed to the orovisions of the Constitution or opposed to any slatutary provision or manifestly arbitrary. Ib is clear that it cannot 6 interfered or the ground that it is erroneous or a better, fairer or wiser alternative may be available. 27. Further, Hon'ble the Suprerme Court In ffs judgment in Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Ca. Ltd. V. Bombay Environmental Action Group™, has carved out several factors on which the Court may enquire into a polley decision of the Government. Those facters are () whether the discretion conferred upon the statutory authority had been properly exerclaed; (1) whether exercise of such discretion is in consonance with the provisions of the Act; CH) whether while taking such action, the executive Government had taken into consideration the ourport and object of the Act; Gv) whether the sare subserved other relevant factors which would affect the public at large; Q} whether the principles of sustainable development which have becarne part of our constitutional law have been taken into consideration; and (vf whether in arriving at such @ decision, both substantive due process and procedural due nrocess had been comolled with. Ind ey, AEG LS. 28. Recently, in the case of Indian On Corporation Ltd. V. Shashi Prabha Shukia*®, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while dealing with the plea of absolute discretion, has referred the observations made by Lord Reid in Ssdffeld vo Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: (AC p. 203 €D} which read thus: th ey we * She ' xe eg ene, . bon DEFsons sggNeved were oot entified fo the orofection af she ceiurk © 2%, On consideration of the said precedents, it is 9 trite law to say that the policy formulated by the Government contrary to the provisions of the statute or in an arbitrary exercise of pcwer affecting funcamental rights, can be interfered with by the High Court In writ Jurisdiction. The Court, while exercising powers of judicial review, can always examine a patic icy to check whether it violates fundamental rights or is opposed to provisions of the er Constitution or opposed fo any statutory orovision or it is ad ¥ manifestly arbitrary. Simultaneously, the Rules framed without having sanction of law by the statute cannot be termed as inva vires, In view of the forgoing legal position laid dawn by Hon'ble the Sugreme Court, now, if can safely be cluded that the scene of judicial review is available to this Court in exercise of the power under Article #26 of the Constitution of India, to the subject matter in issue, Hence, we deal with the questions framed in seriatim. Question Nod: Whether the policy decision of the DAE taken vide Notification dated 27.07.2019 is within the ambit and power of the AE Act and/or OAMDR Act and sot ultra vires to the statute, ar it is dehors the provisions of both the Acts, and issued arbitrarily with lack of bona fides? " 30. For the surpose of decieling this issue, it is necessary to refer concluding relevant portion of the Notification dated 27.07.2019, which is reorocduced hereunder; ANE sons Ph se rads oe oy wey gta tie ee ° > Mines! (Deveoment and Reguistion) Ach 2002 7 ~ Ss *; wy se ~ Sy te ie ', SEAT = SOPRA REES LNBE PY OF mucho igane for ahyine NNIGENS OF ? " 2 ae top a ge " s fF etfs fe ae ihe Danartment of fhe Government of indie dealing wath Une Aforvc Energy: mee Pages SAR oi elec ofr ae oat AND WHESESS sub-cisuse (O) af clause fie} oF Sun- seorevel of the Department or Atomic. &sergy and fherefores, as fhe save Gocks are a cOrnivuky oF onshore RAY SSR, J ji é ?3 a ABOU FO con SE mw! % P ov REE ? : PBs * 3 fee fis in fe fis of + ERS Everar he, sah ein 'ON, F f oore. est OF She nah bed 2 ie BENS mailer of golicu. fe Department of At & = ny op, 3 y ont re met and hhen She said offshore en She fe FSS Soup ted. ss iv} - ae if? mr we eh Vee for explorsties and om x ee block rat of a & if Be Fi : 'B Fé, éo gro! fa? TOP B05 & ¢ anf 3 } oy J f rar & f SUE METS ent and Ge a > woke Rte 3 Wi 72S 2, ah a ee ae amt a oes A a tae "ls SAE ms X e £ ? we oes ", '= és {ev AVREE OO x * Fe ta Se #3, cans #7? Ack fem, ea Paes See 3 As 2 7 ey . ae ee 3G Hee? x y toe Central Goes, 2 ff 8 Fes gKee 82 FNS 33. On perusal, it reveals that the DAE has exercised the powers to issue the said policy ? re under & ms 3 and i4 of the AE Act and glaced reliance on Section 6 of the OAMDR Act and rule LS hoi bs of the GAMC Rites. Therefore, the relevant provisions of the said Acts and Rules are required to be discussed, Pad ' 3 Tt is to be noted that the AE Act was brought for develapment, control and use of atomic energy for the welfare of the people of Incia and for other peace) purposes and for matters connected therewith. Thus, the legislative intent arc object to bring such enactrient is to make use of the automatic energy | development and its regulation for the welfare of the citizens. As per Clause {a} of sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the AE Act, the atornic energy is defined as the energy released from atomic nuciel as a result of any process, including the fission and fusion processes. Clause (b) therein defines "fissile material' to be uraniurn 233, uranium 235, olutoriurs or any material containing these substances or any other material that may be declared as such by notification by the Central Government. As ger Clause (c}, minerals include all substances obtained or obtainable from the soil, including alluvium or racks by underground or surface working. Pg 'Prescribed substance', as has bean clefined In Clause (g), rear to be any substance, including any mineral prescribed by the Central Government, by notification, being a substance which in is opinion WIP Wo ddidiof 2020 is of may be used for the production or use of atomic eneray or research into matters connected therewith and includes uranium gutonium, thorium, beryllium, deuterium ar any of their respective derivatives or compounds or any other materials containing any of the aforesaid substances. Therefore, looking to the definition of 'inerals', is clear that applies to onshore minerals available by the surface mining or undergroure mining. The said G om athe wm 2 concent is appicable only for onshore mining not for offshore mining. Therefore, as ger the intent and object of the AE Act and laoking to the definition of 'minerals' and 'prescribed substance', it applies to onshore mining and not to the offshore mining. 33. While issuing the impugned notification dated 27.07.2019 by the DAE, the power under Sections 3 and 14 of the AE Act has been invaked. However, to understand the intention of the legisiature, if Is expedient to quote those provisions. Section 3 of the AE Act is reproduced as thus: "2. Gererai powers of Se Central Cover en ES iapect nf fe the orpwsions af fs Act ge aispase of starve ees in CYgn ay aut BONEN ae "pe & Of 8 GoveruTea satiety ap end bg tee sk SOOPER ND APP ~ o" Se ae ed 9 ree Loy ny OS. fEQUSY for or Gf connection with. the , aia sees epee oe ee BS UGUCUOE, Gave. COMI OF USE OF atOnyNe oh ot ' & Fay, wi SN ot, x oP ' f oF +8 ei Sat oy. wh Soaked Fe, ch ae Poth oy " a f Bee Se FF BOER J mH ae, Sen aye 7 So & é bed z ¢ 2 SRESCH ve ~ eg apse a OP ayy g re ne ¢ oa 2 ' x Shy o "a : if for Ge prmduchon and SUB OF from afaorvc energy and' for fexing CONGLAIVE 89 SUCH Dre nducth on ang wy pte or Saye y 2S Moet Pe & " ag for ad matters incidental Ghereto: en fe BN Mr tet este oN By Reelf or Myrouga soy authority or Se & wig ee ates iy Pity ey 8 e Vat? estaoisned By & of 3 Government fg) fo de a such Yyrigs fi oluaing the erection of ourciigs ang esscufion of works and fhe mordvig of miiaras) as Me Centra' Government COMSGESs Necessary or expedient' for fhe exercise of fhe foregoing powers, " 34, Perusal of the aforesaid Section makes it clear that It confers general power to the Central Government subject to the provisions of the Act, As per sub-sections (9), Co}, (ob) and (9 of Section 3 of the AE Act, it is clear that the power is available to praduce, develop, use and dispose of atamic anergy and other incidental matters either by Hself or through any authority or corporation esiailished by it or a Government company. With respect to the power conferred under other sub-sectians of Section 3, viz., {c), (a), {6} and (g), the general power of supervision is available only with the Central Government, In this regard, if is to be noted that in the original Act of 1962, the power to produce, develon, use and dispose of atamic energy anc to carry out reasearch in the matters connected therewith as specified In sub-section (a) and to carry out ather incidental riatters ag specified in sub-sections (b}, (bb) and 3 7 ~ Bae ; ot Nhe f gre PENT seers ken he "7 4, eee a3 Steg ft ka con a ao me " sheet 3 on Z ye Ree fo em em oe Ee) ; Ih ; BY ewe 3% soon oo on @ kt % x ae rae Epes ie 4.3 bone re mr ome ke te fo Sh "he he galt 1d aes ip othe *S pe & oe <3 RS "Or on "XD pd wee : Ss O 7 sy oe y, "Seo, SS wre Fan te ony aes, Soe, rs Se aw Rh A ied ae we, a AS : Pe et " i x ; Senter ry. in 4 ie 3 = & cy * 7 a f 3 oy 2 Ss hs ee % ~. iB ws on Ke : eet ing yaad Wh Ww 5 ad Rae a i v % fu Fe" yy Ne rn a Fs ta, W ee: "E am a3 . uw a3 Se hed Ana pe Gs ke PA Oy wy es yo vee Ge peo GO So oo Seep £8 ie ao & me = th a weak Ye ot m3 4 ae Ss WR to oO " me 6 min ee "a fe we ed ae Smee ao Aa i OS ob i > to Eg ee % be wo Te & Sw « % oe wy we GO we, GG 43 o Seve we as 7 bo oo dh MS # Je "ey x mm Sea Ls tne GF cs am HY aw i & & oo cheek 'gt ae Lia nt Red 7 es woe Pe Se EE Be = 6 & ££ 3 9 86 ©: & 8 is BE oy ee, ah es 33 ee a ed ae we teed fave ? oo he oa id * oy OTS ro ~ my ast we bet we, . buy Stn, hy, bn, EG Ee Ld nm ¥ rc OG Oo as , a i ce tA rR td wot OE A boy ed & Control aver production and use af aforiic NS e et < ey 8 dtot iO & SE aan th 8 Was mrryrient, aie rn t 3 E uy a pe nbd v ~ Cs % $ Be fe # Poa a +3 a Son ed "nas Fs "34 owe ao eS i) "8 er fe a3 wy * sf a, ek ye ey os ig 33 a SS ben 3 co) ' tht wn o ey ia ba "hd ME ie Be 4 brane FOU hen 164 rg, "hn sinh id G wy & cine "3 3 mS LE mE Res 3 tA Ss A ' a eons ; ' Fs ' En % me re Gj" fen 2 * wy oe % oo ened oe rm sh mg ew, EY se Gg ¥§ & ad 2 Go ty @ GES d, q g 3 "a em tA, hy ety, SS gtd pt ea = ow & ne) ie) Boy ty MR ieee Z 4 ae Ea) gC fess ten Pt St Ling ~, he GO aaa ai : ce) xo, ty By ak 4S Sok ee & a ; " us cy ges Rs one oh bok ad fon e me A id a us md SS a Ne SO BY x Ps, £2 hove oh. wos oe "ey By Ee 42 ke oI, Re Oh ae ay i 6h & Y tft "f, ™ p 3 ceo zo # & wah ee eo we Ch tbe ra os ree CH aS Eon om th ; Aad ~ ih a Wo eS Sp ony, tn, gS xe 4 EE - -F €& 8 f mm EEE oe iS Ss Looe EPs Ms 59] 3 3 3 so oh 'rag' Me Om hag Ane NSD hd Penne oe rss ded "ad 5 5 XS Ber <0) $ Mo Fe" 3 wt bee ry Ww ¥4 *, ts = a Nene SS BG 7 2 Oe GO x | & x - ha as ae ~~ we C3 es "ape ve rag Bee von, oN heed own, us * Mee ch $ " Ky Xs nee rat . ey . 3 howe x hw bs ty mow noe : " aed raed 04 oo eee Bo Sen 2 Pr, om $3 Reors 43 bed " be Oe ay i 2 53 a3 o a : 4 3 ed ie be a cc S G OB a #1 he cf S n corntral t Mee OF ee ? Seyi the ye deh > So ee fe y sae HE . Br ot é of wy eds es n: iS f3 B Saesnec Kes iS or As 3 went SS Shy s oe ~-- %. fae a y. * £ oo} fe we OS x wy. OF 8 r ee roe EGRET 3 ENT? oe t x fi * t ee O ? z. *D a é > - Berse °F aR 1h } Lie ey FR Pn < > i) ra oN fé A, et f Ae Pes a : Sao pass far PUN ey Jer ke rf g oe ~ ayseey eG ¢ oe & Peer g } Me 8 - . Thus, int " gens 4 ws, Seve i a3 Se a ; j 3s z jf m3 oo fen Sf fo gc ai £3 ieee bees we Bod 4, 5 oy 145 ; ae an % 3 rath te a " £2 J waite ra gorh re a read "pee a a fot ei nT. Wy Seg Me hee pe oe te te Seb % on BB " wd hee ni 7 x i wi ad gh Oe me oo oS aS $y 2 x hen oe ee Ys B "3 a a ; Cee hy feat fe Ins re ge LS "yey ys rd besa he QS oy yer x +o Ag , fy Bo oN, hee EO es me < tgs 446, its % a See ae aed Lom : ' im ra cb 3 oe ey & me] id CA te rs '6 £4 : = Coa, Ea ww Dt 3 be wy rheak it oh bee tk. i x S a ae a Sq Be S 25 Bowe & ab a o a & o Bo is ig "e * 7 ra my mee Me < cs dee, boa. at ¥ ¥ % fr nid. td ee % &~ 4s a ge i ¥ a " go a3 ay se is + a Me oR a a ee 3 x Be i SS mom eB Y ot hed es on on ea os oS = olen wy th Co Ae pS ee er, Se bd C3 ey sheof a ay Bed oh. th a ts 1. Se OS me Ae a MS te xo a a eo dee om "Su Oe Oe G5 "Fe be -- sin, id Breed t 2 " i Meee fw "RE %, Cn ee ie 5 vy 3 ye Mem oy By ony, fosoe rae co eo wwe £5 3 hm G a eo OS ie & wo we "eS "er in S son ' a ner we A bee ~ Gh « nb OS ont seen 2. had : peed i BE 8 88S a.8 B* 2 & § PG BE E 8 S 2 ay to 3 ee Oe oe coon br te ony , sped eee a ~ SE et eS GG * we a ra ee a 4 nae ny ; +, BE C3 mS oo ee Sg iw bs - fe wogs Eo S ee Sa ie @ - ee " a, a mE ws wo i. ry . bh ; "eb OH UF MP ay . coeey fen m4 si noone ifs . a " a yn, Oh RE SS 3 & oO ~ a 'bf ie % % Be yp Ba fn hs "yy ' bee 'hh Jooe a a agene g BP be we e & C 6 & ~ Eg B Ee i ge © &£ 5 % oa ry, % + fae SS te ; hore " "ahene ee 4S Pye Ge Cho a & 2 BG eae o re er 4 . ce tn ge whens, ' us eas B a es 3 Be ad scot oe at & wim, $% bet. Bey pe OS ¢ ; ate % foe m ay % eS 13 "> ae ie , ie fs Ch MD ons Meg £4 me . ue Bove cg San Sheer "net ne My Oe Ke ee foe aS ve a, bp BR ; oo - oo ve on A BERB EG © 8 4 | 4. 8 «= € & OO be Bw 8 ~ € G £ "~ BG BO, ge he ER fh = Se, Bes se " eh % & BE fae + 1 1 $n ry x ~ "eB BS ok? my ON ths y ste Son x Be rag eo bed ag ee oe ge a ke SS Me se FF & Sa oie KR owe By pes Cs 'eee wet we ven ae 3 Ly m oe Bg gh Bo det zc OE o TR , tee te OS oa a arene em re sence " ec ee me BS ong ce io © x 4 ) a fis) SL ew, ty 8S 'ome fi re ey OD Go et te "3 im w o "A _ Ae * ee o os BOS fore = "ES ven ee Bs a a cH mae a $3 BM i OR nD = mo G m _ J won ES o. be re ae & 4 t 1a gy OVEN n ACR ry 18 of th a gs m3 tra 35. °=*F om be production, p per suite fy t HC susta c "~ C if W 6th fon 14, ect ry '} 3 SY x. ranted, there & f \ matters under sub-clause {c) of clause (1) af sub-section 1, which lates to any plant designed or adapted or manufactured for the production, development and use of atomic energy or for research into matters connected therewith. Therefore, in the statute, while conferring power upon the Central Government to have control aver production and use of atomic energy, absolute prohibition is made in the matter of grant of Heance only with respect to any plant designed or adopted or manufactured for the oraduction, development and use of atomic eneroy or for research into matters connected therewith. If does nat prohibit the orant of licence by the Central Government for the purpose of mine and mineral, Thus, fhe section 3 of the AE Act does not deal with the grant of licences of Mine aad mineral, while Section 14 ceals wit ih by which the grant of licences of mine and mineral of a prescribed substance is permissible under a Heence granted by the Central Government, subject to the rules made In this behalf and the exceptions stated above, 38 The Ceritral Government has formulated the Rules of 1984 in rcise of the power under Sections 14 and 30 (2) (e), (a) and 3 of the AE Act, The said Rules deal with the working of the Manes, minerals and handling of prescribed substances. The term 'handle', aSSess, Share, use, as defined in Rule 20) includes manufacture, pe transfer by sale or otherwise, export, Import, transport or dispose of. Under Rule 2), Heencee' has bean defined as any serson wha has been granted a licence for mining, milling, promessing and/or handling of prescribed substances, under the Act or Rules made thereunder. As per rufe 2fn), 'milling' includes crushing, pulverising, sieving, processing chemically or otherwise of the ores or minerals or chemical concentrates of prescribed substances. As per Rule 2{q3, 'person' hes been defined, which includes any Indiv Adual, corporation, asseciation of persons whether incor porated) or nat, narinership, estate, trust, private or public institutions, "grove, government agency or any state or any political su ibdivision thereof or any political entity within the state, any foreign government or nation or any political subdivision of any such government or nation or ather entity, Thereby, it is clear that the cence may he granted to any person, Le, any individual private person. Rule 3 makes ig clear that Heence is necessary for mining, milling, processing and/or handling any ore mineral or other material frorm which any one of more of the prescribed substanoes can be extracted. Therefore, the mining of a prescribed substance can be pos ssible under | cence by a licencee as per the conditions specified in the leance as per Rule 4. From the above, it is clear that under the Rules of 1954, the mining of a prescribed substance by amy person is nermissibie under a ficence. The restriction under Sections 3 and 14 of the AE Act is not anplicable to the mining operetian by a person being ficencea even for the arescribed substance. The general restrictio WP ROadio a under Section 3 is wi gispose of atomic eneray and carry out research inte any matters connected therewith, while under Section 14, the grant Gf Heence js restricted only to the extent of any plant desianed or adepted or manufactured for the production, development and use of atomic enerny or for research into matters connected therewith. Therefore, the legislative intent is very much clear that production and use of atomic energy should mot be done by any individual but if ought to be done by the Central Government and in furtherance to the said legislative intent, the amendment in the AE Act has been brought in the year LOB. 37. Thus, under Sections 3 and 14 of the AE Act, the mine and mineral operation of a prescribed substance by a Hcencee, who may be any person as specified in the Rules, is not restricted, but the production and use af atomic eneray by a private individual is restricted. The petitioner at present has only applied for an exploration licence and in terrms of provisions of the GAMDE Act, it mas nothing to do for the production, develooament, use or cisposal of atomic energy or to carry out research ints any matters connected therewith, Therefore, the various provisions discussed above would not even came into play at oresent when all that the parties are undertaking exploration at their awn cost to prove the 38 existence of mineable quantities of the mineral, that ton, without kmowing which mineral or substance may be goassibly found at the stage of exploration fcance 38. The impugned notification dated 27.07.2019 has been issued in exercise of the power under Sections 3 and 14 of the AE Act, by which the Central Government orohibited grant of operating right in respect of atomic minerals in any ofshareg area in the country, including 62 blocks, to any persan. As discussed herein, it is clear that if grant is made regarding mine and mineral from which a prescribed substance can be obtained In operation under a Hcence granted under the Rules of 1984, the general prohibition with respect to minerals containing prescribed substance do not debar gperation of mine. Therefore, reference to Sections 3 and 14 of the AE Act prohibiting the mining operation in general as per imougned notification is misplaced anc it cannot be resorted to prohibit the grant of operating rights under the gravisions of the GAMDE Act. Therefore, the exercise of the power under the provisions of the AE R p ts Act is contrary to the leqislative intent, obfect anc also against the scone of the provisions of the AE Act 39, Moreaver, on a consideration of the provisions of the Ak Act, itis evident that all minerals which are identified as atomic minerals under the pravisions of MMDR Art not protected under the said Act. Rather the Act seeks to govern only those atomic minerals which are natiied as "prescribed substance" as defined under Section 2{g) of the Act. The objective af the Act is to control mineral from which "satornic energy" can be harnessed. The petitioner is seeking to explore the availability of other minerals like imenite, silimanite, zircon, ruthe which admittedly are no longer prescribed substances, Ressondent Na.3, in fect, issued 4 notification dated 20.01.2005 by which the said minerals were specifically rernoved fram the list af prescribed substances w.e.f OLOL. 2007. Admittedly, the said notification or the Beach Sand Mineral Policy of 1998 issued by respondent No.3, with intent to promote private participation in mining of the aforesaid atomic minerals, are mot withdrawn wl date and govern the fisic. ae Pursuant thereto, number of mining leases for such minerals namely, imenite, silimanie, ruthie and zircon were granted te orivate parties onshore which are stll in operation. It is also relevant that these atomic minerals are also being exported from the country by the private parties as is evident from the Notification dated 21.08.2018 issued by the Cirector General of Foreign Trade (OGFT) and recent circular dated! O1.08.2020 of Indian Rare Earth Limited CIREE). 4Q, The power under Section 14 of the AF Act is not absolute and subject to the rules in exercise of the power under Section 30 of the Act to carry out the purpases in Section 14 of the Act, which fh. are the Rules of 1984. Under the said Rules, any person handling mrescribed substances has to apply for a licence and such an apnication would necessarily have to be considered on a case to ease basis. The respondents have not framed any rules to the extent as js being sought fa be provided by the executive instruction and in fact, the said notification is in the teeth of the Rules which already exist under the AE Act, which otherwise da not 04 rict ts applicability only to the extent of the Government oF Government Companies or Corporation. Thus, the impugned notification would amount to supglenting the provisions in both the Act and the Rules by executive instructians contrary tm the of provisions of statute, which itselfis not permissible. In ather words, the grant of licence of mine and mineral to the nrescribed substance permitted by the provisions of the AE Act anc the Rules of 1984 cannot be allowed fo be fettered by executive instructions issued vide Imougned notification dated 27.07 2019. 44. In addition, as per sub-section (4) of Section 30 of the AE Act, any of the statutory orovision brought by way of amendment woul apply prospectively and not retrospectively, Therefore, the applicability of the fmpugned notification dated 27.07.2018 to the grants already made, thet too, with retrospective effect without there being any such power under the Act and the Rules, is arbitrary, Thus, the notification dated 27.07.2019 Is contrary to the statute and aqainst all cannons of law, 42. Reverting to the reference of Section 4 of the OAMBR Act and Rule L8CUvy)(b} of the GAME Rules in the impugned noufication dated 27.07.2018, the said provisions are required to be considered, On perusal of the intent and object of the OAMDR Act, R clearly stipulates to provide for develonment and regulation is of mineral resources in the territorial waters, continental shelf, exclusive economic zone and other maritime zones of India and to provide for matters connected therewith or Incidental thereto. As per Section 3, the Act applies to ail minerals in the offshore areas including any mineral prescribed by notification under clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the AE Act. Therefore, the applicability of the OAMDR Act to the oravisions of the AE Act is confined to the extent of clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the AE Act. Under clause (b) of Section 4 of the GAMDR Act, the atomic minerals would include the minerals specified in Part B of the First Schedule to the MMODR Act. Clause {1} of Section 4 clarifies that the minerals include all minerals except mineral of and hydracarbon resources relating thereto. 43. In view of the foregoing, & is clear that the mineral prescribed by notification, as per clause (g} of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the AE Act anc the mineral specified in Part B of the ay HEIR KOK, WLPLNe. SS of BGR First Schedule to the MMDR Act included in the atomic minerals, have relevance for the purpose of OAMDR Act and not otherwise. i is necessary to clarify that the operating right would include the right of a holder of a reconnaissance permit or an exploration ~~ licence ar a production lease. In the sald context, the Hinitedd rate of 43 espondent No.3- DAE has been specified, while dealing with the grant of coerating right, which can be rede to an Indian national or a company as defined in Section 3 of the Campanies Act, 1856, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. While giving power of operating right, by oroviso te Section 6, a rigour has been put to the eifect that the grant of produc Hon jease for atornic minerals or orescribed substances may not be made without consuftation with the Department of the Government of Indis dealing with the Atomic Energy. Therefore, for the purpase of reconnaissance or exploration, the onerating right can be granter even without consultation with BAS, to any person, in terms of Sections Li and 12 of the OAMDBR Act respectively. exercise of grant of procluction lease shall be done by the administering authority as per Section 13 of QAMOBR Act. Thus, by Section 3 of the GAMDO® Act, the legislative intent is clear that any of the mineral as specified in clause (9) 0 weap, sub-section CL} of Section 2 of the AE Act, is found during eyoloration, far its oroduction lease the role of DAE comes into, otherwise, they dave no mile to play. Thus, legislation added proviso to Section 6 of the GAMDE, Act regarding consultation with the DAE at the time of grant of production lease. As per Section 8 of the OAMDR Act, it fs clear that by way of notification in the official gazette, any offsha grea may be reserved by the Central Government not already held under any operating right, for the purpose of operation by it, specifying fs boundaries, but the said areas may be de-reserved by way of notification of the Government. The necessary implication of the said provision is that the Act aupiies to all minerals in offshore rea but certain areas may be reserved by the Central Gavernment a for operation by them under Section & of the GAMDR Act. Therefure, under the O4 MDR Act, the operating right even for atomic mineral or the prescribed substance specified under clause (9) in sub-section (1) of Section (2) of the AE Act, in any offshore area can be given to any private individual or private company and as per Sections 12 and 13 of the QAMDR Act, the grant of eperating right is not restricted to the Government, Corporation awned and controlled by if and its instrumentalities, 44. Section 38 of the OAMDE® Act also confers the rule makin Ng power fo the Central Government Sub-section (3) of Section 35 specifies the procedure as to how the rule so framed may be placed before each House of Parlament and in case both the Houses agree, subject to modifications, if any, the rules may be nobfied, but thase rules shall be without prejudices to the validity af ad tS we. why Ly "Ey C3 sen o 2 a3 Gi ££ 2D 'et i oe &, were "C4 ny / foe aed ~ 2 & ~ 2 ® eC @ " Soon mt rc tent "3 von, fn *Yny ae, ey " "sy 5, ens % ay, me, iy " : 7 - ' a om, * we By wy ie oe "KS ; peo S nH ed i wy oe oh & ty Pa fae Ry BP pe get ob xy oe oe on 33 om we, 2B oo ia "me me oe Be % my & ee ey, fe Ay wy o 3 % sae He mH op Rt 63 OO Ee; Fi -- oa Es B 3 os dew as sigs es sy ivy ae es) aS % ee hes mh ifs oe Bf fee . 8 Bo "& wee & go 2 & GB E = ~~ » 2B & ® YB Bot & fs Bou & B , & a mB 2 @€ 68 & m2. SS ~ ou B 4 BR a SG 2 B= & & Be Be = . Fred be? a i ee . ae ESR, O ty % % . 52 fore we mo eve fe & fe Ph hy SOY ' ORS ' tt oe 3s oe % sS ot a F _ & Se CE &e hE gt qe te Gs oo "4 oe wt oo Abe % "s ey Bee, we 3 $s re A ws, os Se ae bee oe: rot dene : i % ORS a me OBB OS 5 Sore Re on rm et P 5S =, Ue te % tn ~ fx as ot on. re & re tect teen & rai 0 Been x, at Cc % PS, gy % axe aa i, ee ae ee *§ oy om 7, ri s he oe GU an Oe oe ge Nd i scbook ood 4 G my Ge ee "2k te AG me "ee hee 4 % vere h * oD en eS Gs om Re ge Bt a3 ox > ee ~ ot ia eae as OG bok SE fo Ee me AS Bo fF OS So ae "-- 6 8 6 BP & 8 © ie 2 & & # pote i. & 8 & , &» BB », BRE we 8 Y B B per i ea rg . 2 PF wy a "4 de a ot "eos "t aes ee MRS a ope Ae Kn "ee no ae dee G2 pe £ GG 8 Be & ae eR set eo wh ED ; % nae oS RR Be & fot 7 ag t 8 & EB BB «- TE BW ge Be RE a me Om o S 6 be Oe g BE 8 BS A BP apy es ee --y gg t& 8 3S w& ¢£ ne er a a a ae x a we ee a @ a a a % BR mS ROH a OR wo 7 & & © Oe " ao ~ , Ff GE cs ie » Bee BB e a Shown ma 4 bret hood % ved ne Bin BS 5 s my we see fan, + f a od ue oo GO mo PP & ER eS e® &$ Ge w 2 8 gE + - wy re) boos a be %, @ & of a me P - Ow mB YU ««~ 8 & & #8 ay & 4" ££ Bb 7 @ Be & wv bee. Sete 4 "eas eerd ae ae Ge 4 Lt . oy in a Bos " aid re se a eS ££ 2B om #F & to eye 2 BO & € y, Be & F 2 & a H oo Poa ieee "23 C4 ne a. tee ge tk oe me 8 gow & " Be gem ee ey te ES OG we OS a od Gb fe 2 PG EF @ ££ OE on! ws 5 anne ey VA ae, inten Sy 'ee $ 2 foe ue we Ce = oem opt es bey Bene "wee Sar. vee, ae a0) a iy hood ao S * Ae x ogo A Pe. " 5 me ee ss eh oP $e, wy oS mA ay ge vm eo vee eG eh OS i @ & fF we fe ge ? , aed San we book $3 e a and er 2 th4 oh, ee Se oy SE se C3 ed we es w ted tm os cs fh Fg, % nas a oy " pd t ees fad be aa "ey is . " yr ew Bo pF Hed ras 3 we ee 'ies Ce ne x ceed "a fr Z wR a, Se Pe Og es " £2 ao Ay © Be Re, ES te ou re Fs oy, Ene mM Nh a ois Le on + Ts Rhone oy at od Ge : ' oe ae eh 7 ee a s Bs rt a " an b. en 3 rd S 2 8 % G RO: am FB rnd RN & B 8 »- 6 yp SB EE ? e # 2 oy , ry greed oe oie xo oes Pe ye * & 6% eo i: Sone 'od word oe a owe CRB Wes) ti? cS af on, g a no fs o me ge By mn, he se" ed 3 = ' "Me, He & oo, neon sm od we oy one a tN Fo secdn Mr = 5 on Monee "Nexen eg ©£ © & 8B » &§ € BF =e D8 oS mE . & SE Cp "4 QS Me te - Sod -- wn on Ee "~~ ag 2 od Bb et me 3 , = 40 Le eed . on "aay al oS OG om fore cn hr on 3 ; j = £3 4 CoP aot = one ft ead hy Ss 7 : Me SS ; ; ey 5 mx affecting \ ' a a y year Rive 1b & : appl ar W Fr a 4 34 HES. KK} WAP NOS 2D ovdrate, off saads or anv offer Ayorocerhon cormpouns, f0 ihe acemaestevig authoaritv WINMA & Geriod OF sixty Gays fron? the date of SuOP encourler who 7 turn shall pass an fhe avormetion (9 te Secrefeay to fhe Goverunent oF Jodie jo ghe Minty of Pofrofeum and Natural Gas: Provided fiat Ao fee explore OF ALO ation Heer mvc Energp © condition prescribed in exploring the mineral ur therein is discavered | administering author "C3 ; reporting, in the gas hydrate, oil sands or any other hydra: SEY the said mineral shail exploration losence de Be see sete of cards wy Fe = eye, . ye. atorue syneve! Shad be inefuded in of fhe Oapartment met ona ey ot = FOS BRRIOUE A perusal of the above Riie makes it clear that in acidition to in the exploration licence granted, the this Rule would be applicable. While nder a lice fF any mineral not specified . 2 awily, AHERIN or such included exce@ot the mineral cis narnely es Aya Ou, Qas, Ory fod arbon compound, The proviso to this Rule would restrict that on discovery of the new mineral und er a ficence and intimation to the administering authority, without agproval of the DAE, the atornic mineral shall not be included for explorat ooies in @ case where Curing exploration, any new mir on. Mearing thereby, the aforesaid Rule exploration licence has been granted and eral has been discovered. Thus, it on at a 54 & yy fice nce fo = i . SREY fled under the pri an Nt ok Act DR Section 6 of the QAM the Judgment Rules, . THe case t gurt is refeyvan Peal By s by iter-party Heence an 05.04.2017 to the YON 5 3 RE rotfice os g \w exrecutec ot % s F Was ng s S 3 He r WEVEY, " x OQ i 7 30.06.2010. Pas Me ReCU : rection of 5 3 further di g Ni ana oo * as thu fog obser f and 89 ~ a < i] PS S gran ie ? 4 Lok way PI? OY mR A ¥ ae ay f & ae 5 dw, gE 3 we fnergy ~ oY Ase % hay Seperiment 19 NCIS ESR Le uF ¥ a IVY e ce ne ¢ Ww resent case. © Se apelicabis to fhe. > NGS ~ ae tf EAAMDR Act. g ferniphasis supplied) gs ; Fy, + e Ww As & ny " 2 fs of ke O oywas fe 8n 203 36, S s fs 0) vane ey ym & & - Gs @ SZ 1S Boge gow es % BO ag $i oe a eS . a gt 3 & Bor oR ee ex 63 , a Se hee ig 2 ae © © & & oo %S ~ a ee ee ze eS ee OE 4 i ia fo hee a fo % m ot e a J iA G ae ep 2 ow te "AS gy & = Fe rt bos @ aes . " Md ra ee , ne fe & Be aN fo AS aN. rie ms ny re - ' ws wane ee Se ee é . o 53 gy . % fed oe CH Gf om to ms ° ~ % ee, 3 ~~~ eal. ge Co to 2 we Sony Sed Fed Pah ce wage AS tA of so as MS Ab Be 3 a Rath oO cS " peers Os $3 wy kp tr = om Bi ke ee AB a a = wd 3g poor LS an / Siee Sone ne 3 ae iim 6 ge xe ba oS % ms 7 on Ci ~~ Ee % Ste Se ah 3's i, OE * ech agen , 3 ae & 3 i 5 2) "ee os a3 wos ES me * te wuetee veers ik eo "Ae, tf . Ty, 8 i o ve : fd poe y Ee toot 2 fe how 13s on ; Pe te , EG oF _ S BH ' vince BBs ty "hen, Be he a , yok ns A a3 4 ras 7 i BS ~ fe wee ° . ere GB : ~ oe any wae ine. 0° rt A ; tr 29 8 G , 6 GB @ BO & 2 8 ow & sx "ee 3 ie SS ee 3 Fa re ' f4 x * rn ad ' 3 5 a a i me eG '2 ea OR ame we KSI a, ; on oO "i td ae ; wn, 5 5 i £3 So a a ey BS fi, Bee eR RS te ~ wy fu Tee . oo ne as} Po aa 2 ot "Oak eS Le I 4 for bn | ie a5 ts 3 ree: 3 .? aS os an im on tr Xe "Ss 's % * e TS sega, 7 Sy &3 me it ; reo oe % 'he oo ed i 4 roe Lo re % ined e send bir, : bos le te a 2 a in o% a Re te : sd ee a Sree bg AA ee Re et ee : x we eK ~ mm a me oy tm Ay met "es $4 o fod vo & 2 eS - welt ; "thd oe, Fe sna te 'ft ; Ry ze ee ME Ss fs Bg oe os a, B & & @ 5k 'ee yr Sead <7 tes fs + x sngney on o oh 2 eG ee BS 62 8% ££ 3 2. & ns " Poa 2 ay LS i A re wn ree we x oy Ae, Foust, 3 sad aan Sion Ut ES "he Sc TM hy wy fr ge eo mm ed a wt "Gy 7 gE aed a a of ae 2 4) o & © Re Bo Q 2 a3 x 3 Ro te x SS eR Le B3 & ; Th rae' 03 oh. th ot RS we 4 wH i & = - Boy 4 Cr oe * ean ZS 4, fe ag as By Ss tid tng a ccod "eS Sa on - 5S ocd ox "3 tke Bm RS : S 6 & Hy ~ & PE me | ay eS ip sis a " 4 & Gy Eo " ae e ep 8 a & a 4 " 5 ty = ge tt ~ "aS a "a 4 be: " ie yn oy: ad "a3 mm ge % Off a eons a % : iA ge en % ah he Sn say 7 ot xe 3 . a SE ge te %., ee pheve "Kd i "ey 3 wm OE x ' ee ee ind or, & fw S37 sone & = A OO be 48. ne ny R e ry , ~ fae PON * whe 52 ap Pos ee RFE, fF eS = ~. t ze SS Gi # "e Eneee sree Be yy an 2 eee: ihe FR : S a 'S e e £ < Sh M Tao yah z 2 a ? = o < ee. O. agfoag ecred é ? oF TFIO Oued a M - PENT f ue ww iE ae ale ek ey ahien eet wa ay ¢ Pe iS Vahe Bo + = a e TON £23 we re ies ae opts PERF s oe Rile woes ele o we Nee eee x bi ee, fs ne ow fe g oy: te z "£2 z _ a TSS & ae Reary, PR fy ae] a for & ¢ Fae Ce ~~ & '¥ Bs oy Lee ?. Fi PENNE & as < ee 2 fee x < xx a <, k So i oo "4 © g fect ealing D, SEICD? k "? BEL IG é ae y i BS » oH "-- & ma ¢ 3 oe ti%3 4 td a, me ot oe, C3 Nowe ia) ct th reape Og y 3 Ww 5 aE hus q RS CON & L8(1yivyb) of OAMC Rules and on the aspect af grant of operating rights to private parties for atomic minerals and the said decisic being iofer garties, are binding on the Union of India, which was peek ge ih ce = 73) qe. oS 2 23 it ean oe fal party to the said oroceedings. SQ, The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of the Oeihi ag x High Court was put to test before Hon'ble the Supremes Court by ry Ana S.LESNo.ii759 of 2019. In the said SUP, the Court, vids interim order dated 23.05.2018, directerl the Secretary, DAE, to Ale an affidavit about the Central Government policy and decisior 2 by the tics Invited or they want to whether they want to go | interdict all those private players and, if yes, they should explain as to how they propose to do so, particularly, in Wew of the grovisions 4 the statute. Relevant portion of the order dated 23.05.2019 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is reproduced as thus: MET BP gee fan fy BOY ngog soot By the next dats, the affloawt by Secretary wha is RS ba wtf "5 ke 3. Me Ss ae mv ore fhe Aighest a7 sank an tie Gegarten en of Agoovc &eny. ~ int fee Fay yg Ss tre Rix f ay fea oyy oe ~ ame gn ape te P sSoui fe Med Sefore fs Court aGout fe Ceynrey = OPS ote ¢ * " z se eek tine i a ees SOF the Bio's jovifed' ar Shey marr fo interdict af Giose pyvte ap et BE ae be wey pd ee fead pisvers and & pes, Shey shou? axqne -- os BAS .: pon at e ~ toy Sas DPODOSE OO 2G SO per Sous 3 in visny oF Me DHS 3S FF Ge 54. Pursuant to the said order, Mr. K.N. Vyas, Secretary of the DAS, has fled his affidavit and in paras 44 and 50 thereat, he has denosed that the QAMDBP Act is required to undergo necessary eS and to ~ © AME ; wv eral as e ; wv th rin MIX O aA Fhe mn o ben * & i} = resto of so, Su ae A Story PRS. gon > adonted ir MENGE 2h "ts fa sy Ie is? if os iF f t i 'S REPS i ~*~ 3 ic Ay < £ my | rh ~ Nw a fe Res ny g XK <2, 3 oS & a ae ex f RA . g YHA & y f ? ¢ ne $ ; J, Fhe A ? & rat ah 3 aye VE! Sey 3 i Ne eae % f w a ow g Rs Ne # if of antral US BG " § 80 ast ¢ «ee fee an, Ms y er ti ey ee OF 3, rn g rar roduced as u encin 2 YY e "ss & eytey rat ie a Act a ay is the Department of day i the aft € & Y HS ¥v a Ps x DBR Act and the & v A yY was cles @ OAs j nm the next date of : r 2. g & i e +f G y the matter of grant of © k Ten Hon | 4 ay ow ic wey st YY t ay : x Tr, 2»: grou eunde ¥ i " Rs te r * understanding tha Rules framed the a mY ¥ he & 2 3 a r x \ : x Bye 2 the 2 we bi w & sf a nahts to X > mifpent, 7 wa : < oi A A, athe 3 ont im a ty a; ty te 45 ey , g a ge & 6 Be ty By & a "e Shy Ad 4 a ; oe goo | ey (3 ORS oe: Si oo 42 oe 43 te v ie on e ty ayes yy a we ames ae . booe oo Pane & es 3 in wf is cy oat e, oe Ld re AY & foe we fs me Ets % 2 i % a 3 Pisa ie tS foe o a ke OS eR Be re So 4 BS 'hs a $n B o i p> at ee A uke , ie Fo hy ne ed x a ae "te = eS wm M4 wie ge Rho 2, 4 46 Bron, ent £ Koy vt Pe, s. un 5 hes ~ nd a poe os, % a so ih opie ky %, : i) We ie be oo em 3 ob @ ~ ans By %e NS 2 ee ee we oS Me " % $3 a % wo OES mi mE rox | 'hook o 4 as 1 thet Ron we, a OS we AG Oo Ms i & © g a Pa a & fs 3 SS % £3 a 7 rh yn oh. . en gw 5 $y cs "Yee ti, Se Hs 2 SoM w i q; & i os fog eG ope ood tH ; . oo is a an 4 OS OM 25 3 toes i Xe wee i gS "RS gh eo re Gy " i i, wm ae omy 23 : 'i ewer 3 is in od Me "yn, Pd eet th wm Og 8 BS 2g 8 u © S ne & a my he a, 1 Sa a os a a 38 won Lo oad % "OF Ye a & Sy id So i wee yd Nooe "ent OP al a a 2 EG 5s , oy be & 3% 4 ae ia ed Le om 3 Sy & go tb Se os % oo be = ne 2 gd te, Bg OK % 2 e 8 @ s ~ g Be & e 8 ' , etetate, Oar, "he n 'ee M, ~~ o 3 Sea tone % H . 3 ~ u & ae . Prot 4 iore . re + nt es $ Re Hee wit a aoce fond " & Ao-o * Be BG BRR SR 7 ge & es SA ty 133 us % a) Gb ty, en '4 tt Pe we * ~ "? ct i OR Spe RPO oa ae Ab ES of wn & ch. A wm -k o« 8 OR Hey ge % ca we oe 5 ny pe Fg BO, Ad SE Ind send wkd i is we fe ot bee ke es is oe St gn BP RU eB Ae cay al ms ea e » & & 8 @ © "M GC ee = Bb . 8 Sx a nd +4 tyes "7 ~ os "Ay ee . tl og, Ee Be Pp rr Oo 48 me » % © 8 2 » & @ Bt EB UB fb P ud ' sted aa i ben oo ee 0 ns FR OSE " et its mo S = oo i Bt ay th a ae 4.3 lh $US "en Mn, "Ss ord ws oO no me SE G 8S - B43 os 6 &£ £ £€ & 8 w fe OP ef , # SS 8 w ; ' "n me x os 4 ms ee Gh Ma gy Ea Ae EER gR fh Seon w 4 6 be me ge 3 we FE Ee ts ; . , oe oe 'si we as : ee Sed oe ale, a6 fod oO oc Bm SCRUB lk Om ORO Reg, in it a §3 ded 3 be ff ™ fe OTS SE Re ORO, SS oo = us ont . Cok & be iy oes oS o eS £93 Sore et ef es a3 tty thy '~ Gi A % nea wee z os son, "3 Ay we £0 ht og $s ¢ ee ze at Fact _ 3 fen, x Sy ~" oh, : he oe Se Boo af A Bow % 9 £ 7 BB +, 4 a cx aed a 2 Bo eg Ey we Sk RS gt é. coe) fit fi] ~ me ma x mos , Sat " a, a3 Bo hes t BOS hs we soon ee ££ oo Bt. Esa oy me & a i seed rm or reat te ~ "AE q a sae, an te ee, rt ey be, tae ae ae "+. we a es $3 43 2 ORD bd a San a ra] oA ix "he: > eS oes ir ee od oe oh, a) a3 : wed wot in eM 2 ry 7 » ry OG $y 9 i GF iF & eR i Reg A ret "y 4 Ca ww the red 3e ¢ f ios i hat vr 3 t = S " BF Tae fe per sPRRA Ver. » Gi ry faxes shaw be open fo fudioie! review an Hs own SHENG BIG pore Sify oy & okey : ie. = ments Shat bas fo fe tested an fhe anv'? af Se few ny fie is NON OR EN oe g Bes : com ane gant ~ roers Pow Browsions of the Act is asporogriste proceeanigs, FF # & CM LESER UIST GeesuGted, ay , z . mF F, ee we ~ Ff "Ve also make & clear thaé Ca! inquiry has to be un Beye. roads Fey oo J saregy ete? &e ms sf 3" oo accordance witht law and woul' be suGlect fo decision af High set me Paes fe fs Court and & caniof be confined against inoliwduel con LOGIN. eye fhe heey poe au had otared otic ment a Pending aootcation(s) anv, stat stand Oras of as. By the sald order of Nor'ble the Supreme Court, itis clear that 16 exploration licences may be cancelled as per the said solcy decision dated 27.07.2019, but the Court declined to comment on the merits of the said policy as it was not in issue before. Thus, allenge of the policy decision was eft open. simultaneously, Hon'ble the Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the ~ Delhi High Court, and confirmed the fi ndings orders gassed by the recorded! interpreting the unclinching provisions of the OAMDR Act and the Rules. The Court observed, the Government is free to take _ a decision as per the policy decision, equally applying to all glayers in the fleld anc implernenting the same prospe; ectves. Tf any action is taken, It was left open for juclicial review on its own stre sngth and merits as per the provisions of the Act in apsropri late proceedings, Thus, in the context of the interim orcer datect 23.05.2016 passed in SLPLNo.11%59 of 2019 and lecking to the affidavit Hed by the sacretary of the DAE, the amendment in QAMOR Act is required in $34 ass the matter of refusing fo grant the operating fight to any orivate oarty, because the CAAMDR Act coes nat prohibit such grant fo any nersan or jf can be granted only to the Central Government. Yrerefore, the DAE was aware thet under the OAMDR Act, restriction to give operating right af a mine to private indivicual is oft specified. 54, AC this stage, it is relevant that during arquments in their appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, siniilar arguments had been made by the respondents and in para 56 of its judgment dated 25.04.2019, the Division Bench concluded as under:- ae Piha pps cy set eee aes ged wine ogee Ve $6... Thet soar one more grovad taken before us i ine go ahead piltt & anmier SUCH @ policy decision was taken & net moicated and if tis surprising that wher the GANOR Act clearly grovides for grant of exploration Neence, 8 ihe Act S amended pursuant to any such policy decision, any SA asetien in toils regard would &e contrary fo jaw." femphasis supgiied} 55. In vweew of the said discussion and looking to the finding acarded by the High Court of Delhi, as confirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in the context of the provisinns of the OAMDR Act, if can be gathered that the grant of operating right to private party Lee WEN geo wt i§ permissible and the said grant only in favour of a Government or nd controled by if or its instrumentaflties can 2 Corporation cayned £3 be possible only by way of an ameridment in the OAMDR Act. Thus, as per the Intention and object and the provisions of the GCAMDR Act, there was no scope to the respondents to deny the execution of exploration licence deed, Hence, the Government, giving go-by to the provisions of the OAMDR Act, which aopiies to the offshore mining, proceeded to disguise the action under the AE Act, with the aid of Sections 3 andi i4 of the AE Act, which are having no application, as already discussed. As such, exercise of the power to 7.2029 in reference to the oR issue the notification dated 2°. provisions of the GAMDA Act is contrary to the Act and Rules, anc is arbitrary and illegal. |G. Ih is settled law that Jegisiature has the right to legislate the law with retrospective date. In so far as subordinate legislation is concerned, unless the fegisisture specifically confers cower on the delegatee to fegisiate with retrospective effect, all subordinate legislation wil apply only prospectively without impacting ar affecting vested or accrusd rights, The policy in question is merely an executive act, and coes not even satisfy the requirement of £ subordinate legisiatian and as such the policy can neither be relroaspective or retroactive. Even if if is presumed to be a subordinate legislation, if will be Ait by well settled princinles of law g 2 ', os be gm Ee s, et 2 © £ ep Bw 2 & 8 es - ae x 3 bs wes e oS ies hk Eh, mre % 3 5 4 S44 €@ Bes & es z . be Fo ofp mee Bh & C a, dy : 2s eye GS cof ees, " ey oo % a bs; me "eM Be a y Go" hb & OG @ gl * 2k § & RB tents oe Bf ON ge me fo o soa Bl Be Som UR Be om KS me ge Be go FE Fe a Ss ven = & = & a) BF > = eg 4 Beet gen "eat Sa, hag 4 $y ad ne Meek ne ro fg 2 iy oS Bay SE Yop # Ee Co see Be MS soe el By a fs m & & ena & @ we a oe eee "i a ve Eg seat '3 a, o8 i Be ot RE 3 eke on BS ~~ ae ee oa Si op: os ee wage ke cas oy ie s er y ' 4 4: she feng : 4 3 ay "43 So a Zk = S Fi GS BS & B £ & xy i o4 " ee ROS me sR eB ™~ BB be eu ' Se, wa, *y Nok '5 & pod 4S on ve x ce gS eg > ' ny oe oe, x ae % 3 S 5 P 2 & a oe E F & EB & rs a m& . & BB BS 8 eb fe B= & ws ei a , Sg Ee a a an a ae cm SO i oe a ge Se Foo Be pp BO GF Bg E ty . . & " we 7 8, OBS = Re Se og oe Se 6 Be LE OG kes Som Gl gw Gm bh 2 LB & ey ' E oy %; . ye oS ae 4 roa zt Ben Ww & B giom w i 6 & ft - eB ay > a > t ey I, tw, , we kag i = Ss foe Gg we } o ee RP oy, Oa Gt ee & + 2 EOS . pe © 8 Pp £ Bl a ge & RF G& LS £ S % e wv Soca ie Me i! ve 2%, te = rs saedl fence e § a Se HM & me ROSS 6 ££ & Fee 8 @ eee = Sh Sg Bw sd ne a = 63UC« mM a ee "she dR = me Ck Er Lg 0% se} vee wae . x eg: re As re oh Sop RE te By ek a fe os .&§ eg Sesges ger BH sx. 5 F 2 B SU Be fF € we 4, 8 4 @ om Se hh € © SS : ; meld in ourt hel : Chand yw & as C es ie oe a sooth y - Pt GoM Many Ee GO Paneer # ee & 1 ving princi B ¥ fee CAP EKGs the finiis of Hs sower 2 fo enact jaws with retraspective operation. authority s. Te gears fey g U8 Legisiature which Ras power yy v3 2 igh ge oy Oe oy et Sy iG 3 ws e & Oe Fea, € meoress fie same. 7) &re "s C a ASE fife gsower of maging suborsinate ait SPS sts ie a ve & es as fo act wrth ve Sovers. oe Ly 2 oF BCT YY i f » PRS io8 3 * PS ifat unl fat HOS eres, os vestod Witt aad coset Gove is ie e 2 ; a tcl at x x NE fe mH S43 es >. 2 83G of t Si. yA3 Ve fempghasis supplied) SF FU w @ BS pat State oF Ms is ¢P) Lied. if In Mafaéir Vegetable & poe 3, a wade a f; HESS SU 7 : bss Mere comlerred PahOn = ont 2S e he o £ , et a eye 2 sie ar i ANOS ot £ é i ee xe & Shes, AAG? '6 eee ade of. ea ee FSG 3 i, By ", epee o OOS Veg a Ww HS aoc PIB VESTN He Wee? Be 2 a : OS Canad aur ar i af rey In State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Xsrampgal Sahur*. at para * x go that x 3 ? at ne ee Py OQ -~ M & re : Supre i : Hon'b : g a th i? oe fy Srespec be re * iO s, ee > : PUT ary Be Oa? ¥. ay OF Ht WS a BAR) SQ, AS «3 Ke the provisions of Section 35 of the OAMDR Act and Section 30 of the AE Act, it is dear that the Rules, if any made, would have prospective application and such Rules shall be srought by @ procedure sc prescribed therein, In the present case, the SAMDP Act has not bean amended, but by way of the Imougned notification, orohibition of offshore mining was directed, that foo retrospectively. Looking to the legisiative Intent, applicability of the notification without having sanction of the statute, making & applicable retrospectively, is in excess of the power conferred to the Gepartment and contrary to the affidavit of the Secretary of the Department filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such act can anly he termed as arbitrary and with lack of bona fides. The aforesaict judgment in the case of State of Jharkhand (supra) would apply squarely to the facts of the present case. Thus, the issuance of the impugned notification without sanction of the statute is anifestly arbitrary and in excess of power. -- & 80. In the impugned notification, after referring fo Section 6 of the OAMOR Act and Rule 18CiNivio} af the OAMC Rules, i is further stated that the Beach Sand Mineral deposits in offshore fs required to be brought at par with onshore areas in their treatment in order to safeguard the strategic Interest of the nation. In this regard, it is to be noted that the MMOR Act apples to onshore areas while the OAMDR Act applies to offshore areas. The policy cecision, If any, is required' to be brought by the Government, it must be in consonance with the Intent, object of the statutory provisions of the individual Act, having its application either to offshore or onshore, Without amendment, bringing a policy contrary to the statute, in the guise of safequarding the s Stratedic interest of the nation, is impermissible, In the counter-affidavit Aled by the respondents, the safc strategic Interest of the nation has been clubbed with the safety and security ef the country without any support of law, In this context, in the inter-parties judgment of the Delhi High Court, in para 93, if is clarified that after de e-listing the atomic minerals such as jimenite, rutile, zircon and leucoxene from the list of prescribed substances vide notification dated GL.2006, more than §S0 mining leases were granted' onshore under the MMDR Act for mining of the above said atomic minerals which are being mined by those private persans. It is not the case of the respondents that all those mining esses have been cancelled. Therefore, taking a plea to bring offshore mining at par to arshore mining is an arbitrary exercise, In the said context, it is necessary to exolain that oriar to bringing the GAMDR Act, under cs) the MMDR Act, Beach Sand Mineral Policy dated 16.10.1998 was floated inviting the participation by private sectors and mining eases were granted to them for anshore areas as referred in the Judgment of the Odhi High Court. The Beach Sand minerals including ilmenite, rutile, zircon and leucoxeane are having wide WEP Nix industrial applications and uses lke paints, papers, plastics, textes, ceramics, medical and electronics appliances etc. These rrinerais are also being exported freely by the private parties, which is apparent from the notification dated 02.08.2020 issued by the indian Rare Earth Limited REL}. IREL Is an agency of the Centr 'al Government fo canalise the export of the onshore minerals, On the teeth of the said fact, reference mace in the notification regarding strategic interest of the nation or security of the nation is only to give the flavour of the security of national Interest, corftrary to the intent and oblect of the OAMDR Act and clearly shows an arbitrary approach of the respondents. These facts also show that the reasons are being manufactured fo somehow justify the action of cancellation of operating rights to the allottees, This is sat the first time that the respondents have indulged in such an act. The High Court of Delhi had also come to similar conclusion on consideration of the facts and law that the reasons were being manufactured by the respondents to try and justify their Negal ection. os 6i, Further, the polley in question framed by Respondent No.3 is at absolute variance with the National Mineral Policy 2019 which Is apnraved by the Cabinet and which specifically provicies for private participation in expleration activities including In beach sand minerals, Relevant portions of the said policy are as under: 'Sf PROSPECTING AND EXPLORATION Stever anc woul? ge Sector AN wm We 3 hie orfvate 'Pes. Fissids wes SY & wif! expend gab, et expla igke SONS HPAES. ~ as as a A Re * Fe fgg gue fon LORS, a GEncres os 2 % *" a8 y y fo! OO: oP iments are sok forteeon: Oot ervers: SVES. GOIN fs Barticuisriv GOO are sec fo attract . ive, cere Rall Se in f {Qn Ss & Be e ot ey § g ¢ CLOT NYT? OF FF 42 wi Ee "he ve as per < : POEYR ie Fi i f me Moy har aperon, Ser et OTe 4 2 oF eae f ea &.2 Conservation ang Mineral evelopment r ORCA oe aoa) Ge fWors wud Ge siade to encourage extracts fie # es w PPR ae of ae wht rata' li RA of Seach sand minerals epienishable desasi x gic are powers sexy £ - ais f of & era ? x ve - Ay LG s shable de a ae A RS x &.8 Seach Sand AM. for \ : ' ie supol ig f aS { & in State of Kerala vw. Kerala Rare farth & Mineras Re & , aft W Kerala "et z te ia on we m the & j are At x ' Stee "Lo vg w © mS EE rain se ier es wn 3 2 ¢ n if 1g icy re VO PRE fe + \ $f ao if - i uy he f a af fem Pt. *h 38 b : i ate was g i oF 2 Yay As Lf od f ss 3 : g ¥ ", - a? « Spy # . . x osequently rm Z, 4G) i} 2 a Nee Gg a e 'eS > g 2 ve £ 3 7 be coy : < 5 RE C if @ undertaken by t oS ey yy ¥ fs 2S reserved for S73 TF ern Ags avn? Ru ey 'OF } Py fi ble Cou aes 4" SE 7 ON? OY VE 3 fs ¥, oh 3 es Te acs 7g 4 mh & Wes, Su h f hy 3 a5 fh Qo 3 ' 3 a & o ey, fF ¢. 4 urt, observing | A Pp oY > ? i me < ie n o oF PR e a m ay is + £ a 3 Sy neg é e ew, on of the S$ 2 NG Ps, ig 3 vf aay Ove en A af Pees BE o & e part Gun 3 2 or CO! ee & & yak 4 SH X& SHCUE acl a & S a andi the decision of the H Sine ¥ & eo 3 5 eS RSPR 3 - 3 ort & of fo ae uF a oe a ay wate * RR & t Yo ie! PIBES +i tM ape chee oe if 4 cr : ast be HG ne nT be ho bet om * om oy iy € 5 vn, eh OF oy tor, ke. Re oom ow Aored 4) 5 fecte Ow "oe Bey haa eS oS beed a. tre AD e oe c we dg. '2 Bs hy BD me SS Re gO te f + tne heh yA Fe ee te Tn " a wah th < mn & -- . Bo Be pom Ag see av 2 wes Po wg B o a 2 a OES we ee & te mg #& Ee oy q f ae 47 vos som Se gee, A $30 ja "Sy Seve ae ed oe whe +e i fe Be. aw C : Ee hy, @ 3 BB Se an as ey re 2 Oo & Be me & Bom bo Ow Be x a j * vane = bbe an ge £2 op gq rf % cee he dn & 8 B&B &F = DP & - DO ty OO oe Bex E "Se f gen e we seat on £3 7%, Ee ks SG a Oe or Ye, fon B fe c a ee : {RM oe RO es Ge te J me b&b B £ 6 38 S & 8 & ("SE om 2S ps & Rg . '3 mm Bed 3 1 , 'ede is @ Se ee it ee e% a te fe Be a ek, ws BE £ % we !@ -» B B a (S&S Ee & xs Son s gat * se t - " vat Ah A ~ ie et ie : ty oe _ #s a Bey BB ss ge 8 me ee DO ™ pk BOR 2 gS gt Cho me Sy © st (4, Be GB Y By & wy ihe Seed "e re foe x 5 5 AD ws 5 we AE OS see Oy Saw 3 Ese 55 xy iL M3 cs oe z Be oe My, ee a x 'e, an a oe jw aa $s oh Ch a oe a4 we eee; oud es hey Fed : By QWs £5 ba, oo : Pe ioe on £3 % we A ES : Z aa a ae wm BE o we oS io a 9 Bw ye, YG aa ON £%, £ son Ww % tf PA oe A OOS wry, Se ne 5 OE By , if = ce on ae > es wl ef ie Ex' ES np wy ce *, ay ry te % eS 8 G@ tb te Stee RE a wo mg" ye Bo eo oo Boe S 3 > ao =~ ® & Go ge be x = if "4 RS 7 2 ay My My ORD Se 3 OS "5 2 om 3 x Le mini sought to dev the In e r Me quashed by u A o 6 2 hone £ Sod Saad yo aot be < ¢ Vines, ? 'OPS @ act ay i ¢ Ha safe o oy yee oy ~ weds areas netere ort F Soe $ 2; oy oF ¢ : GF Sur ge i aSy es 4 FOG INE 2 ore eke ent Palicy, However. runs contrary to te governed erfcs & 2 3 Bae oe. Fre Séevées a Se, wn, % Sy rier, Ie fh Ne a £ Sha 3 aah ae oy a et Ss Xe é Hover 2 = iy G8 Fornulated 28 oo e National Mineral Palicy, Government of Ind insorar as es. i ¢ try of & Ps: a, See £ dees not permit a mining feass in favour oe are se entity other than 2 Sisfe-owned corporagan or * Sy be EPPO BY EO pt 44 " fee SONY 53 wo fx, went é es " ov HRS tr? g aaisy Py f sey tah ant -- be ag rove be? Soy is ae f ake & bad. s $ CONTIN 3. i 7h, i LAF8 ie eee mre yp oo 'ved products. 3 tO, Ore re SUE a PX ong wy eng LEP RASE & ee SVS. o AK EPR o Nae ae IG é me Seg y Qatit heey & - . SG £ YE ES i a3. TP hey GOvVOP Na 3 fect) CHT EN f fempfhasis supe MH ie 3 SUCH area RoE nreasent Case as Sh. 3 Re & ment of Atomic 8 the art Dye éed fo moke @ ein Des : SS I#YS "ais : a SPD POR j 3 Ss appl y in State of Kerala « Kerala Rare rf A We art ye Ay ee Ro ee Po. 2X {ti og ive power cannot be reservation dehors Section 27-A." f ul © Satan sae f¢ ins, FP is grits that the State Governments general exe: Farts & Minerais Lid te dy and on this ground also, 5 r Mineral ; i WAP NG. Sai af 2Q20 fOona 5 fication is contrary $ < $ ta the Nat imipugned not = FO me cy He ¥ ce oF th x al Bo y 3 > ees ad, is iSSual iv ' x 3 issue 1M = & irs Py. uy S hus, the Wea i ¥ ¥ yh nerg mic meé is arbi £ fo the Nathan &. P 3 i ' a <i 4 tn, % 3 u 8) Ae 5 8 8 sce xs a 3 a on 6 Ly 5 3. oy th ty fs % oy a ee se ee we ge 5 4 ~ ae ig, toes &S -3 25 iz New map aad aed ben gen poe pos "ea a be ~ peal over thr the Supre x S eS fF 2 impermissible in * Oy EPSON £ Ss & ' CoS PS Shan? ® Guyrdial Singh under gard, the law laid down by Se 5 2 3 & tot Z one =~ Py ak Be - ee a SS ' 2 a 2 @ ROS ae 2 " ot. a 8) a wi Ye OS uy x ye von es I = i On "a -, a) LL % as tend x 6 5 ee oe bod fans as ft <3 AB me a a é Ke ii eo ce SB - Se @& 8 3 = Bb ww 4 x ove. ene rae Ps ws oo my, , uh wy eal 4 d p Eo & & ¢ & "Sm 5 € 8 es ee ar se E t 2 " w & JF BOM OM rea ~% oe vee Gs t- < Z in, mA Sen "2 fe kt eo FS hme Og EO Pes SS € fe mB ee Ai oY te nS fed rm, ee mt ay hy hey ty Ee "rs o-- wi ' rs M as fe Eg, ge RE - oe . pase an i is Bh 5 S & & ce BB & © fe & Wb foo wm © ~ £ S&S 8 Bf E Pad Dat! % stheoe ty Co . Fens a Be % beat wD hag ee hs ei Ge me 4 ve Mey ae me % 3 oy eS wf Oe ey ty OG % ; 5 iced mS "heck i arbors % 3 Y S3 & By Bg n a, , ie "es / ee € ny ty 43 we a % eon oe Shane Se hog Sea yg yn b ° A ee of oi , om v G OD oo me se wo 46 ie eh ok a be C3 g £3 fies $5 ie Oo oa. BO & ' = sf e eS . Bs on wm gh OE ~~ FS BUG Oe & we oe BOE ge a & & be 6 w on a me GR w -- 4 os. ed oe oe Peed Me Say, mM we = ; a 2 os ke Ro thes i ey ae , im ; qi Be OS ee "hy oe ams aed 'a Soeet oo "ow te OE i os i ; wine 4s an S o 2, Toe on Se om se eS ay oe oem see oe ¢ a + os ate, 4, % * = oo EB ee Se % BO G@ Sw ee 5 om Ee EG , 7 9 ££ gg & me a odie done r ; dot hh " + YS Bat 0) "ein, 4 G3 rhe 3 toot a 4 'G GS so me ONS f 7 en wB ~ ee mn wh, ae Me > tS 8] UR OS oy 4 x ie . SC & ££ § w GF @ mo ee SB Ss oR og 6 A & ms 3 a3 fd Be Ye ED me SS £ ge & os $ £0 Fl £% es ° x . ts : nee ED x sted Q é \ Fn, . 8 fy te ae & # CO 6 » $F b&b FF + B PF euowR wy & SB o 6 & MOE fi % x, Fee] ' ee 5 * z ¢ Oo v7 Bi rm tate sed 43 " Se & e YB % © a, * Ee a @ 8 "ap Sf & Gy fo G we he i f toe _-- i Se - ~ ro eee - a bred Be af ot +e a) B bot %. " a BR Ge Eg Ee "og gs a Sone ~~ 4 "ey <3 oo an oe Kon > ne % me Pee a we Le $4 oe rong fom g a Rut "i ms we nd a ob s Mm BS oS & & & re Sy 2 me i & my OF, GG & 3 OD me Le ace ~ &@ 3S EF & > tay ae an re ° > tee 1% ot sft sy se g 2 YS eB #2 & Oo 2 we OG Ge seo OF ¢ HS EKENTH a wy had oS bs) ws Sy Fs Bot he " & & ee Sib : mot Bs é Beng ¢ 4s my ; BO @ Lg Bee € BSB % OF "hy ht ee a, Mi 43 Of 3 = % Ge ws tS Boo o 2 ey, tf BG 2 es So 2 : 2 2 & @ os @ 2 Se # ® we S ms @ % eS es N &% ts Re EB "nd ays ene mS $5) ed A ee ee BR gt Re eS @ & & ee "a ¥ : eS om Oe Oke 2 G oR oy un a me on a) 3 ee wm shes S fo = ee) ek f A ot 6 OR lg OO $x ae ied a . & s Xs ce So ee "OR ge OE fee i or By he tye eR 7 8 toe 7 a % z he am bt one * ' " ae ' y . s = os a wh ts, 7 % "Ey #2 Se SS ay 2 E = 1 % * oe = 2 s = # ~ B@ eb o B G & Bf ) 4 Sg, © x 4, fb ao, % an "te oo gM. % © US 8 . & SY 2 a a ; Se Se 2 & BS B Gg & v~ Me 2 Pr vp ~, En 4 mS jee - p ani eR, ee a ar 7 . 8 5 s = 3 moet ED te eit % Gm UE gb ss a "ao Wee hey ame & G& % fe . 4 FB #2 e; i ky © & feb 2 Sb oD Pad a" F sds st nie had fe Te as ah ea ae wy, 6 '6B HH 5 j re ORR Bag OR os & 2 UGS £ £3 af e se BS 5 wre ed wt & ¢ Ee ee es cre a ben oan? x ep Ma tis Ry me ' y Be we we be £ ah * oy a3 es See red Be oS ey 6% oie RO RO es & & Og S a + Ay ° 33. es th gh . m4 : "Pe ve ae wo ot Rm Bt ou og OS Bo tebe Sy se 35 bene oe ¢ ca Sy A ~ RS Neng "sh an = a 4 we Ro bet gp te wg OM fe Be wee & i Bind eo - B.S Be A Fe" ee eG Be be a x SB By & we - & a oS GL ug 3 © 2 & wi B BG Gm eB 2 SG & BO 5 oh es oe $e " os 0 yO ae a 4 oe * ~ . ww be 3 Go we Ea e & Bo. # » 2 = By seme ot # & My Se OB, my Hg Br BOR OOS ee = G, gh oat 7 ge FR gM my BE o i 2 th 4 & E 7 fe ae. St % EE es Piece sae " Teal: ay vege ent pees one? wr Ch ited 7 ™ fr to S i) ey en, $ mee, at Ae 2 yee ' y . x " oon te oe "eek ae "poe oe a By me 'Ct, ee oo ™ # oe og os Boy, me TE TF & st on, BG Re a a 4 i, m Ral ae em he EE ee ES we gS yO Bee ot 2 wo SOY S eB ge we geet o Be By , aA ig, Oo Fb @ Boy x Se & BoM Seb & go te Bb gy s Sy AS ny fe ay as 1 7g ', ce ; be ES - , cg FR oa oS wg ub me i i we to Ho @ or ne & & HB , 35 - 2 Bo: Bg ar a a Me, gar 4 % 5 + ~ LG 4 fg § By % ~~ & BP 8 we &® &§ B ys BE . ge BR & fo By & PB & tM £ eS Mo 8 © © ge OPS * me AS Cc 7 ~y no mo nh a S. eS an oy fT - , tos ty, uy ae ins oT ea Sk £6 » & E65 & € & 8 eS = % ei gs & foe & % "Boa # a B & Eo = mG BF zy 5 & mn @ @ 8 RB EF & moO = ey Oe ~" > a, thnk % tM $4 Fae & rons mm ' 13 oe, oH ou "ood * ma, SA % red ae ie TS pe oR mm & uo * A Bo on 3a a ifs uD aT Ro . HEY & ASR 3 otpers. wich iotent is manested by its Jafurious acts. ~ femphasis supniied) 6G. In the context of the discussions made hereinabove on the facts and law, the arqument regercing res jucloera on all issues as raised) by the petitioner, is net germane looking to the separate cause of action and issuing the notification in the context of the provisions of the AE Act, though the findings as recorded in the arevious ligation regarding interpretation of Section 6 of QAMDR Act and other Acts and Rules are well covered by the principles of res juolcede and being relevant, have been duly considered above. An argument fas been advanced by the espondents that the observations made by the learned Single Bench ar the Division Banch of the -- ath High Court are nullified in view oF the observation mace by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the re order dated 29.07.2019 passed in the SP. (CO) No 11759 of 2019, that the directions of the Delhi High Court would not come in the way while Implementing the policy. In this regard, is to abserve that in the order passecl in the S.L.P., ib is made clear that the policy decision was not under challenge before Hon'ble the aupreme Court, however, the Court has not touched the merits of the policy. Simultaneously, the Court was not inclined to interfere ry in the orders of the Delhi High Court. In view of the same, the meaning of the werd 'directions' v sould denote the direction part by which the Delhi High Court has directed the authorities for execution of the exploratinn licence deed within hwo WEEKS, Therefore, the abservation of the Supreme Court was oniy with respect to execution of the said licence dead in view of the policy. Now, the said policy was fot found in consenance with the provisions of the AE Act and not having sanction of law either under the AE Act or the QAMDR Act, as discu gga hereinabave. Po Therefore, in that view of the matter, the argurnent 3s advanced is of no avall to the respond ants and is hereby repelled. 67. in view of the foregoing discussion, fis fo pe co neluded that the DAE does not have power either under Se 3 or i4 of the AE Act to deny operating rights t private cariies for mining of minerals, The said provisions fo grant licence in favour of Central Government or any authority or a Carporation astablished by the Central Government or a Government company is limited to the acquisition, production, passession, Use, disposal, export or import of any plant designed or adopted or manufactured for the production, development, and use of atamic energy oF far research into matters connected therewith, areal sot for the mining operations. Simultaneausly, the OAMDR Act permits grant of exploration licence to any privatise persan oF COMPEAy si nd if is aniy wed fag NOI RGR g WEG S439 of By at the stage of production lease that the consultation with the DAE is required. In terms of Rule ISON} of the OAM Rules, it applies in & situation of discovery of any MEW Mineral not specified iN exploration cence for which approval of the OA£ is contemplated. Therefore, the issuance of the poHcy datec 27.07.2019 is contrary to the statute, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is Hable to be quashed. It is further tO observe that as per the discussion made hereinabove, the policy has been made applicable with retrospective effect, which is contrary to the provisions of the statute and therefore, f has been issued arbitrarily ancl with lack of bona fides and an this ground also, it is SS. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the legisiativ intent fo bring the OAMDR Act and the AE Act and | interpretation of the provisions of law are clear, In the said fact, the judgments of M.P. O1 Extraction v. State of M.P, {supra} and Balce Employees Union v. Union of india (supra) relied upon by the learned Assistant Solicitor General in support of their contention that the Court has no power to interfere in the palley Sion, are of no hein to the respondents. Accordingly, Question No.1 is answerer, Question No.3: Whether the order dated 06.11.2619 passed by respondent No is after due application of mind wef as WIP NaadT® of 2050 or merely relying upan the Notification dated 27.07.2019 and such action fs In consanance ta the provisians of Section F of the GAMDBR Act, In observance of the orinciples of natural justice? 69. Regarding the order dated 06.11.2019 passed by respondent Novi, is to be seen whether the saic order was passed observing the princioles of natural justice inscribed in Section 7(2) of the OAMDR Act or ff is only relying upon the policy decision dated 27.07.2019 challenged in this case, After issuance of the said ed notification dated 27.07.2019, the petiiener was served with the show-cause notice dated 19.08.2019 by respondent Novi. The said shaw-cause notice is mainly premised! on the saici notification and as ger the fanquage of paragraphs 10 and 11 of the show-cause rs} notice, it reveals that a decision to cancel the operating nghts with regard to 62 offshore blocks had already been taken by respondent No.i. For ready reference, paragraphs 10 and il of the shoaw- cause notice are remraduced as thus: "FO Ascondingli. os fhe anferest of fhe conservation ant Cenye! Government in exvernise af the powers conferred under Section ¥ of the OAMOS Act. in consufadior with the aarnnisteing eubionih, Aas gecided to fenninate any operating right in respect af the 62 offshore mineral Blocks sotified vite Se aofificstion dated OF, 08. 2088. iy. a7 wew of abeve decision of He Central =" Government fhe sotice is Aeraby served under Section wh Fn a "y o FES we 8 Reo ieee ae * fnpeer AS ae os py OF fhe OAMDR Act as fo way te ander for grant of Exploration Licence issued by the gaministering authority sion PISA Beker SEY SOS SS y oD oe vide Chelr No ISk&OSMCOR EL COT GIL ECOOM-SOR-S Dated : : Peaeis Bie FO FF ¥QO #¥ OS. C4 2 2 PO} ik fer &fock AOR. é & fey a &. fs woke. w sat Ay fron, op 2 2, iy 4 bury x ee eer Bengal sector shad not be fennnated femphasis supplied} 70. As can be seer from the contents of the show-cause notice, it is clear that the Government wanted to exercise the power under section ¢ of the QAMOR Act in the interest of the conservation and regulation of atomic minerals in offshore areas. Therefore, after consuitatian with the administering suthority, the decision to terminate Ure operating rights in rasmect of G2 offshore mineral mocks was taken. In the sak! context, the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner fl, Looking to the show-cause notices, the gower has been exercised under the OAMBR Act. Section ¥ of the GAMDR Act deals with a situation where the Central Government is having right to prematurely terminate any operating right In respect of any mineral in any offshore area, after consultation with the administering authority, Fis af the opinion that it is exoediert in the interest of development anc regulation of offshore mineral resources, preservation of natural erviranment and orevention of pollution, avoidance of danger to pullic health or communication, ensuring safety of any offshore structure or conservation of mineral sed st resources. As per the show-cause notice, the Central Government wanted to exercise the power in the interest of conservation and requiation of atomic minerals, It is made clear here that Section 7 of the OAMDR Act refers to regulation of offshore mineral resources, So far as canservation of mineral resources is concemed, ib is to observe here that the OAMOR Ack was promulgated in the year 2002 and the OAMC Rules were pramulgated in the year 2006 but came into force an 15.01.2010 by the issuance of notification dated 13.02.2010 by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. As ner Section 10 of the OAMDR Act, the administering authority is required to notify the offshore areas for which reconnaissance permit, exploration licence or production lease may be granted. Such notification was issued on 07.06.2010. In furtherance to the said notification, the petitioner applied for grant of exploration fcence to which the aliotment was made on O5.04.2011 In terms of Section 12 of the OAMDR Act. Similarly, the allotments of other offshore areas notified were also made in favour of other persons who were found to be eligible. After such grant, exploration cence deaec was not executed in favour of anyone for a long Hine due to pendency of itigation in Courts on account of challenge to the selection process for grant of exploration licences. Even after the saich cases were th decided sgginst the private individuals upte Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the selection process attained finality by judicial bronouncement, the exdioration licence deeds were not executed in favour of the allottees and instead, a notification dated 70.08,2016 was issued cancelling the said grant jn terms of the CRe notification dated 06.01.2011. Tt is net out of place to mention here that the Delhi High Court has conclucied that the said CRF noavificatian did not restrict the grant and issued direction for execution of the exploration fleence deed in a time bound manner, yet the deads for exploration licences were not executed, Instead of executing the exploration cence dead, once again, the exploration licences were cancelled by the order dated 06.11.2019 in terms of the notification datecl 27.07.3019 of the DAE. ¢ 72. In the above facts, if is dear thet after comme ncement of the OA&MBR Act in the year 2010, by way of notification dated OY.06.2010, for the first time, the offshore areas of CRP-IV¥ were notified for grant of exploration licences, which even after grant, at Were not executed in favour of the getitioner or anyone excent in one case in which under the direction of Delhi High Court, the exploration licence deed was executed, If is te abserve Nere that the OAMDR Act has been brought with intent to expiare the mineral resources in offshore areas. Therefore, the offshore blocks were notified for grant of exploration licences, but in view of the above facts, the ficence deeds were not executed til date and the matter was kept pending In litigation. Therefore, while cancel ing the grant of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 06.11.2019, using the expression 'conservation of mineral resources' is flimsy and fake. The purpose for which the OQAMDR Act was introduced by the Central Government and after natifying the 62 offshore blocks for the first time, when the deeds for exploration licence have not been executed even after grant, the question of conservation of mineral resources does not arise. It is to be noted here that the exploration is 8 process by which the Government may arrive at 3 conclusion what are the mineral resources available in the offshore area and when this protess itself has not cammenced, teking 3 pretext of conservation of mineral resources [5 completely misplaced. 73. Tt is also highly significant to sbserve that the intent behind "Sonservation of minerals' has been explained under the heading 'Conservation and Mineral Development' in the National Mineral Policy, 2019 pronounced by the Ministry of Mines, respo mndient No.l, after iL was aporoved by the Cabinet, Government of Inca, Selevant portion of para 6.2 of the said policy are as under- "#2 Conservation and Mineral Development a oy o s yf Sse bld a " ow dane: - Cpnservedian af mvnmereis shed Be construed Noo #7 ote ~ fares ° See " feSPRYVe Serise af BQUTSIOe AN COM RETRO? Oe Ms s ey ty y "~ x oy wat : SEVOWESLO OSH SS foe uwitimare goal and e@ n SK, "oe poe BeONE os os ee é fo ei COMBE fo orsvent sub-ootimal aod unscientiic mining. Ee concept of collaborative avning amangst MunINg Concessionaires located in large mining bet shall be encouraged to ensure ootum exvacton af eunerat Pale aduition and genera! customisation aF product yi! be encouraged Oy prowolng fiscay snovor aon-Ascay incentives. " #4. 'The Intent of the Government with regard to conservatio 0 and development of mine canservation of rm cor the distant future augmertation of reserve/resay mining approach in order fo encourage mining SHE Ma LOMrces extraction of minerals ane fsovernment is to pravide fis SG, FOW could respondent Ne, Policy, could pass order cla exploration of minerals in the ne which is completely in the tee other Rane minerals for Government controled tented conservatio inevais shall not be but as ted 06.11.2019 terminating grants _ 7 the intent of the oof rriinera + ral resources is very clear that construed in the restrictive wuMpHoN or preservation for use is 3 & postive concept leading to ce base and to focus on zerc-waste prevent uriscientific mining and to an holders fo ensure optimum » 3 En heir value adefition for which the cal and/or nan-fiscal incentives. Bel Ag uthor of the saic National Minera! 1,38 for me of conservation of minera th of the salcl Mineral Policy, On the os woverTignt is to conserve these tae companies, then if cannot be xm Red and rather if can only be WP No Sag termed as reservation of minerals in the name of camservation. 'Therefore, in both the scenarios, use of powers under section 71} of the GAMDR Act for conservation of atomic minerais is unjust, unfawful and contrary to the National Min Policy which cannot be accepted. 35, Tk is nat out of piace to observe bere that the OAMDR Act was enacted in the year 2002 and brought inte eect in January, 2010 with intent and object of development and requiation of mineral resources in the territorial waters, continental shelf, A exclusive economic zone and other maritime zones of India. This development and reguiation can only be possible wher some mineral resources have been expioredd and their details, such as types of minerals, quality, quantity, geographical location inc tuding depth in sea bed at which minerals are located, are broudht to the notice of the Government. Prior to its exploration, cancelling the same referring the conservation of mineral resources makes the object of the enactment redundant. ds discussed above, the power of Section 7(1} of the OAMOR Act to terrninate the operating rights has been made available in specified situations. Qut of them the situation as made agolicable for cancelling the exploration Ncences by the imougned order dated 06.11.2019 on the pretext of conservation cf mineral resources is apparantly against the object and intent of the GAMDR Act and to make the implementation of wherein 0h = ance tray be seen fram the Ne use which : POP fe : he QAMDR WP of € ce i@ exercise of Pia & na' : f z POGMIG Auf an ey ¥ oy we we re 3 fourah o mt oO BE e Pees of HS 3 grant MO of & + aS sd z « Lt ee es MOY text, Seg conduct of the off & rf Sox tS yee th & s $ 3 o7s3 AS oe ca VEY 6 OH # levant 5 8 roy ast o Fo f ~ PGs rd, ¥ x ee 8S un : a Q itt ; ae , 96,02.2 é ach tory. vo.l while cancelling ¢ -- ee Rave been g 3 re ¢ *e nh IE spersions é z 30.08.2016, wh the Act nu respond a Pee a < ay wid Lak " oie bE sh ah tS feaey FOS st ae A Rae q } ov HmMe oO s a 3] ze F PY G " wD a x 3 " wB mgr SLE Be fe G&G BF Bw ES x i en vied shad ae es a eet co shook aS % iw ty Me i rk New "or, pon ¥3 ion o wy ms : ad i, : 5 wn x me ON 3 g wo @ i 2 es an) a oO te EE an £ " wee SE S| 6G ce bf eo g Mk a 8 S So ee eo 4 mus ¥ fe Et Oo te A 62 c os yee Se we i "~~ " on , Siote ty ; as an '3 ry be Ae : eR OS OB 4 Ge te Fg GG 2 ty ae) by ES i a ned ed " et ore Mk, a a oo MG & e gh coe on Z i i oS Ee 9 on ' fb $s hey e nf ; cae ee 4 as 3 o~ 4 7 £ wy OR = © & . a ee 5 UB EEE ae oe an f moO A Bo 4g Fe) cm a oe 0 « TE "SS ae gh 'nd ne re "r4 Sona sd heed £3 A 4 oe & , = 3 he a4 co i secon 7 3 hice we x + ns %. ra § we Lat SFB PF iw @ 2 & 7 & EB B82 & & @ x 4 Bs x te 3 eek bow. Ly 4 4 Son g i GB hm a & Ro & yo feo OO BB O& es "oy = f MB ot = 2" i ite cA fe hd a3 gt 5 a & =, 7 ha, ; 2 es 7 cone Shane a) os ry ce oy (OE og, 04 ee res : Q ase cs Cs ee i see te bai & vents RF Tae ee Sadar St i 4 en 2 aad Soa 3S RS fe BS ome baadk j dod Ms rea a Hoty, wy = & rn a nn a wv mw feof nom B oy es oy B 4 a ie 5 @ & ty GOD 4 fe » £ ££ @ 8B £ i ~ % EG & mo % 2B BW BB a & a a ~ & "hee fae is a wo DB a & "i of, RR RE SS tm t Ss 3: ry f _™ 2 ; a - " '< 3 te me ow £5 feeds 53 Sdpee, ag Jove Ge By ay * Me 2 A id at wana "ers ' oad ~ eR *, we on 43 w& 4 oe to wy tO 3B tt Pm. oe 3 hy mr & se GS ot wy, ho Se ke Ts, ss Se be its fee gm Ba ra "eh i we os 4 mR re ie rn B ee saad ogee aft w% + i % & Gok 3 whe iw 4 bd : ~ oe 'ney Lws Mn, ho ne ae * ot ' . eer 453 i, we weer vere re ok 8 , & b&w Ew Be SF ~ 86 8B & & & if then oe s % = oe ben Nat ae Say se i we 1 ~ eb a} i me % y ie oe aed 24 3 a fens wo fia z # R * 8 et te we Be he Gy <3 - % RE ERO here es fen 4 i +e en mE & & Ee & ee e . & € 2 Bg sB ef EO S % ie as aS dee os , et # ee 's nn are e mS e Qe a 3 as x Behe cf be & £ oes i a obs oe iy % ~ rs se a moO oy ; bem *he : o Go mB me ee MB Oo & nw & -s & Ty ot Bo "nnet eZ ~ be a ; , & 2 8 OR Kore th $k ao is 5 es aed +5 wy ewe ia, or ae ike a Ls re fee we rae ke ca ios $3 St ae Te om oy BRE & Sei eg 5 we ge, She gS SS hy er te RT Ls) Te SS hood as Secs "nee te aS rs 'had ag ey sae wie f ae 5 voor oo % ge OR yo & mS m 6 &@ ££ FS BP & SB » " Sh Boe og Pe % i Cp FS iA ke Le ie " a om w@ a te oy ~ Ste ES 3 ne = ye as id ans Ba ge TR os & Ma wa 3 " a Fs te ed a oo = pa ear we TE ee bn £ wo 4 mw a ss jm - Ee x a ge Re eo CC = va test S aS og fm Fs incr? mo 4 wn a os gs th bs 2 GF ee ® iF ' c Tou, & om a it & we wb oy EG Le $ mS 3 oo bee ie aed oe co ifs shoot "aS z x ied Sonn ifs a3 oop oo then 3 wee at eG 3 a , o £ 5 7 ri si t CORE blacks, the if the gS. of ties ey ie : 3 x OPEncip ts te f ' SVT v e notice, & athe a & : Ans : + t ACRARCAL S ideci bo rhe 3 ¥ Aus: f@ Of show ag t § mereh aring | Be e Fhe ted by the 2 st be, é 3 ty oO vita my Our abserved as of g Sah oe Mil Bf & RY > 48 MQ portu €y + sae 8 x : SUpre ~ } i ich Pua Yb Ap ¥ 'a z 3 x ty ? & of compmlance, "% Sit allty for the sak % . The Ne deci i X n Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India®, the authority in th f in view and ¥ ere al oS %, 3 t W 2 &. OFF A < f ei f ot os fo PELE: 7 pst " tote ty Efe Persoy ah if wo ES 3aE Bs CS oD % oe seg fo &e a iy % s Mat at i ake Als FOL. ares ? OPN By, SO: : Ass = wR ~ as @ aukh i g ay' oS & - S ge tae Ss Manifested év fhe fareusge fa wiich char CHIE international Lid', Non'ble the Sugreme Court has dealt with 74 ta. are couched and soaveved fa Ole gersor proceeded agains'. femphasis supplied} Similarly, in the case of OAGEC Lisl ». Western Geco 4 the issue of non-apmlication of mind and held as thus: wy eye goa gts f sont age OS; Pee yy SS. Squat smoortanl! ary Jadecd fungementa' fo £ ' sarties Sefve & de sa i i acconiance with the erincioles of naturel justice. Besides s the sary & won, < Sapti o nay NY . W Bh Saw, ~ T ad celebrated auch alferam partem rufe ane of the facets af ihe pancioies of neture! justice is thet the courvauthorty deciding the matter must apply fe mind fe ihe attendant facts and circumstances while teking 2 view one way er the offer Non-aopication af mind & a defect that is fatal fo any adiudicalon. Apoticaiion ef mind is best demonstrated by disclosure af Lhe awed and disclasure of ound i Sest dere ay recording reasons in support of ite decision wihticl the court or authacity is faking. The requirement that an adiueicatory auttoriv must apoly fs mind i i thar view. so desaly embedded in our furisarudence that if can be described as a fundamental policy of indian jaw" femphasis sugpiied) 28, ERGs St 4g S08 e285 #9, In addition to the aforesaid, the appli fcabllity of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the GAMDR Act may be in a cantingency as * specified in sub-section (1) thereaf. As per the discussion made hereinabove, the show-cause notice was afven for conservation of the mineral resourees. Once the said cont ingency kself doses not subsist as discussed above, then issuance of the notice under sub- section (2) of Section ? of the QAMDR Act is effectuated by bigs, and affording an opportunity of hearing by issul ng the show-cause notice is notin the letter and spirt of the princinies of natural justice. 80. Further, on perusal of the shaw-cause notice and the reply SQ submithed by the petitioner as referred in the impugned order 3. tisted 06.11.2019, if reveals that the petitioner had taken six grounds, which have been narrated In the termination order. None of them has been dealt with while record ing the finding against the petitioner terminating the licence, In fact, the reason of termination of the ficence Is solely based on the policy decision of the DAE Gated 27.07.2019 regarding absolute prohibition of the exploration of the atorric minerals by the private parties. The said palicy decision is apparently contrary to the object of the OAMOR Act and thal toc, prior to implernentation of the Act by alleaving the xploration done by the Heence holders, bringing such a policy fB decision speaks volume about sage Aves on the part of the o0 pi authorities in the facts of the present case in which after successfully Htigating twice even upte Han'ole the Supreme Court, the said policy decision on the non-existing contingericies has been introduced. Therefore, without dealing with the contentions advanced by the petitioner in the reply to the show-cause notice, the order impugned has been passed, referring such policy decision and under the guise of conservation of mineral resources. If is inte law that whenever the grounds have beer raised in reply to show- cause notice not arly on facts but in law alsa, if is the duty of the authority to deal with thase contentions while arriving at a concdusion tg pass | reasoned order, which is conspicuously missing in the present case. Si. As stated hereinabove, the Delhi High Court In para 73 of ks judgment dated 06.02.2019, has observed that as per the minutes of the oroceedings dated [4.07.2018, i wes clear that the Government was predetermined to cance! the licence and it further held in para 75 that reasons were manufactured by the respondent No.i to somehow cancel the grant so that the same could be re-allocated/re-granted. Therefore, the first order of the cancellation of icence dated 30.06.2016 was quashed and directed the authorities to execute the exploration fleance dead within four weeks, Even after the confirmation of the said Jucigment by the Nivision Bench anc direction for execution of exploration iicence within two weeks, the Central Government visited the Supreme ourt where a policy decision dated 27.07.3019 was producer and raiying upon the said policy decision and taking benefit of the expression 'canservation of mineral rescurces', the order dated O6.11.2019 has been issued again cancelling the grant, which, as discussed, Is wholly arbitrary, violative of princigles of natural justice and against the intent and obNect of the OAMDR Act. It also reflects that even after bringing the OAMDR Act, the officers of the Government want to make the said Act reclundant for which they are predetermined to caricel the grant for reasan one or the other, changing their stand af every stage of execution of exploration kcence deed in favour of the petitioner. Such action is in violation of the princigles of natural justice anc not as per the snlrit and oiiect of the Act 82. TRus, i it is apogrent that Section 7(2} of the GAMDR Act applies in the contingency as available In Section 71}. 9 As discussed, the cause to issue the show-cause notice is for conservation and regulation of the atomic riinerais, which is unfounded. More so, the show-cause natice is biased and oredetermined. In the sald context, the judaments of Hon'ble the supreme Court in Maiak Singh v. State of Punjab & Haryana*®', Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India {supra}, Maneka Gandhi v. Unien of India (supra) ane Mohinder Singh GHl v. CEC {supra} are of no help to the respondents. 83. As per the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 06.11.2019 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The order dated 66.11.2019 suffers from norrappiication of mind, bias and colorable exercise of power and passed with predetermined ming in a mechanical manner and in violation of principles of natural ws justice. Even otherwise, once the arder impugned is consequential to the notification dated 27.07.2019 which is found Hable be quashed, the consequential order datec! O0.11.2019 Is also fable to be quashed. Question No.2 is answered accordingly Question Noe.g: Whether Rufe 3A of the OAMC Rules, 3S SY notified on 23.08.2019, is affra vires to Section 35 of the OAMDR Act, and having any sanction of law? S34. The QAMDR Act came into force with effect from 15.01.2010 i.e., affer about 8 years of Hs enactment. brought by the Parlarnent with intent to develop and regulate the mineral resources in the 'territorial waters, continental shell, exclusive economic zone and other maritirme zones of India. To carry out the purposes of the Act, as per Section 10 of the OAMDR Act, it is obligatory on the administering authority to declare the ACES KK, 3 WARE NO. S40 af 2030 eh OF affshare areas available for grant of reconnaissance permit, exploration Reence end production lease, by way of notificatic within @ period of six months fram the date of commencement of the Act. Prior to such notifying the offshore areas for grant of permit, licence or lease, the consultation is required to be made by the Ministry of Mines with the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of environment and Forests, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministr sR o olay Agriculture, Department of Ocean Develooment, Ministry of dispute that the administering authority has issued the notification presumably after cansultation as required under Section 10 of the OAMDR Act, on 07.08.2010 to carry out the purposes of the Act. The third graviso to Rule 3(2)} of the OAMC Rules makes it clear that if any exploration licence is granted, then, for grant of praduction lease in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the QAMDE Act, separate notification as contemplated under Section LO is mot required to be issued. Section SC} of the OAMOBR Act makes it clear that reconnaissance operation, exploration oneration ar production operation, if any, is undertaken by a person in the offshore area, it can be possible with the prescribed terms and canditions of the said permit, foerice or lease under the Act and the Rules. The groviso to Section S¢13 makes it clear that the conditions so specified for grant for reconnaissance operation, exploration operation or production aperation in the offshore areas s under Section S(i} shall not agoly where such exploration Js undertaken by the Geslogical Survey of India, Atomic Minerals Directorate of Exploration and Research, Chief Nydrographer to the Government of India of Naval Hydrographic Office of the Indian Navy, National Institute of Oceanography, National Institute of Oeean Technology ar any other agency duly authorized in this behalf by the Central Government, and then also a notification is not required to be issued as specified In sub-section () of Sectio 10 of the OAMOR Act. Therefore, with respect to the notification under Section 10¢1) for grant of permit, licence or lease ta connection with Sections 5, 8 and 13 for reconnaissance operation, exploration operation or graduction lease, Rule 3 of the QAMC a5. Under the OAMC Rules, ff has not been prescribed that who may be eligible for grant of reconnaissance pernmul, exmloration ficence and production iease of atamic minerals. The eligibiily ts governed by Section 6 of the GAMOR Act, clarifying who may be given the operating right. As per the said Section, i is clear that operating right can be given by the Central Government to any person who is an Indian national or a company a defined Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, who satisfies the conditions as may be prescribed. The proviso to Section 6 of the OAMDE Act puts & rigour that at the stage of grant of praduction fease for £4 "> WUE Ng 88k atomic minerals Gr prescribed substances, consultation with the Department of the Government of India ing with the Atomic Energy is contemplated. Therefore, for the purpose of grant of operating right, which Incudes the reconnaissance permit exploration licence and procluction lease, a private person or a grivate company are eligible and commetent. The OAMC Bules were stent on the sari issue, a 86. Now, after the notification dated 27.07.2019, the Central Government amended the QAMC Rules and after Rule 3 , Rule SA has been ackded, which is resraduced as thus: "2 #9 Ge Of store Areas AGneral Concessions Aves, 2008, afer ave 3 the folowng cule shay be UISETOR, BTR 34. Prahibitier on grant af permit. Scence or fease if respect ef afemic siinerais.- Ao <> 2 POCOMMRESS ANCE DSN sogverahon soence or DPOGuEHON except the Goveswnent ors Goverynent Comosny ar a COMOnshon ouned or contoded by Me Government. © 87. On perusal of the aforesaid, it has been made mandatory that reconnaissance permit, exploration Reeance or Groduction lsase of the atornic mineral shall not be grantect to any persan except the Government or a Government company or a Corporation awaed or controlled by the Government although as per Section &{a) of the OAMDE Act, any person who is an Indian national or 4 the pe os Sy company as defined under Section 3 af the Companies Act, 1956, can be granted operating nights of atomic minerals. 88. Section 3 of the GQAMDR Act makes H clear that the Act shall apoly fo all minerals in the offshore arsas including any mineral mrescribed by notification under clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the AE Act. Atarnic minerals, as has been cefined In the DOAMDE Act, which is referred in the amended Rule 3A, means the minerals inclucied In atomic minerals sceclfied In Part B of the First Schedule to the MMDR Act. Therefore, & is clear that on Notification under Section 1O{1} of the offshore areas and as per the sroviso to sub-section S¢1}, If exploration operation is not & key undertaken by the Demartments so specified, the grant o operating rights can be given under Section 6 to any persan of Indian national arc cornmary with respect to all the minerals that includes the atomic mineral. Thus, the legisiative intent by the OAMOR Act does not debar the grant of reconnaissance permit, exmloration flcence, production lease of an atomic mineral fo any orivate individual or a private company bul by bringing Rule 2. the orivate individual or private company has been debarred. Although, under Sections §, 8 and is of the QOAMOR Act, the word used is any person', which means any Indian national ar a private company, but by Ride SA of the DAMC Ruies, ousting any Indian national or private company, the exploration licence and wave ee rks o WLS Ne S440 of BORG <5 Youd oroductian lease of atamic mineral has naw been made available ary to the Central Government ar a Government company or the Corporation comtraiied or awned by the Government. It is relevant that the Secretary, DAE, in a sworn affidavit before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, adriittec that until amendment in the oravisians of the OAMOR Act is made, ca rant af exploration eance for offshore areas tO private parties carinot Se prohibited. But, without bringing any amendment in the QAMDR Act, abruptly by notifying amendment in the Rules by Mmtraducing Rule 3A, imposing pronibition an grant of permit, licence or lease in respect of atomic minerals in offshore areas to private parties, is against the statue and thus, arbitrary, 89. In addition, Rule SA of the OAMC Rules, as brought, is contrary to the provisions of the OAMDR Act, although rule making power may be exercised under Section 35 of the OAMOR Act. If we have @ glance at Section 35(1) of the QOAMDR Act, it is clear that the Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, Make rules for the purpose of the OAMDBR Act. Sub-section (Ma) of Section 3S of the GAMDE Act clarifies that the terms and conditions of recommalssance permit, exploration licence or procuction fease under sub-section (1) of Section {5} may specified In the rules; sub-section 2(f) provides for making rules regarding conditians for grant of operating night under Section G(b) 3s ay WES Ne Sag 9 of the OSMODR Act: sub-section 2fc) provides for making rules regarding the substanoess te be prescribed under praviso to Section & Section 35 does not confer any power to the Central Government to debar any person for grant of atomic mineral. By the language of Section 6, @ is clear that the Central Gavernment shall not grant any operating fo any person urhess such person is an Indian national or a carmpany as defined under Section 3 of the Sampanies Act, (958. Section 35 of the OAMDR Act does not specify that far the purpose of Section Bla}, the Rules debarring any person who is an Indian national to grant the atornic minerals can be frarned. Therefore, the power as exercised! in the pretext of rufe making under Section 35 of the OAMDE Act, ousting any private person in the matter of grant of operating right, is beyand the power of Section 35(2Na}, (hb) and ic) Therefore, Rule 24 of the GAMC Rules is contrary to the provisions af the OAMDE Act (a}, {b) and (c} and aise x and beyond the power of Section 352) contrary to the object of the QAMODR Act. Therefore, Rule 34 of the CHAMC Rules is Tghie to be deciared offre wresto the GQAMDR Art. a0, As per Section 35¢3) of the QAMBR Act, amendment, if any, brought In the Rules can only be orospective and the notification dated 23.08.2019 regarding amendment in the Rules also makes it clear that the said amenciment shall came inte force on the date of their publication in the official gazette, Le., prospectively. Looking to the above and in view of the language engrafted in Section 35{3} oF the OAMDR Act, It Is clear that any modification or annulment made in the Rules shall be without prejudice to the yadidity of anything previously dane uncer the Rules. Thus, the grant of exploration Reence fo the petitioner giving operating rights would not be adversely affected by bringing Rule 3A In the case at rand, irs terms of the above discussion, question No.3 is answered accordingly. by respondent No.t to the Director of Central Bureau of investigation ta reqpen the Preliminary Enquiry bearing PE ACSA 2022 ANOGS already clased vie closure = Faport tiated looking ta the facts of the case? 91. In the matter of grant of exploration Hcences, after the notification; under Section 10 of the OAMDR Act by the administering authority, a Preliminary Enquiry bearing Na. PE ACL 2012 ADOOS was regisherecl by the CRI on 21.09.2012 an the basis of the source information relating to the allegations of irregularitie committed during the grant of exploration licences for allotment of offshore blocks by unknown oublic servarrts of the Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur and other unknown persons and cornparies. In the said enquiry, the allegation regarding procedural irregularities bees oe we OE ae ? ps a Os. hy ED >. wee ee vor ae FF 7 oe aw & & & & ¢ & , 5 5S ER ee # 8 #BSeEoRe SEE RES o Bg ® & & B ry a io ©: acy ee oe ; a ed Oy Ce / Be be x e ome ay ene, ht a) Ee oe SS & & 2, £$ 2h € % S&S B ® bet gs & & B® 5 Go By Ff Beep es XP BBE eB 5 Bf & 3 m8 S yw re Ska ge SPB Enea bg Oo BS & ¢ 8B & oe me hs w . ~ = € Se = es 8 & yy 3 & 2 * oe € & OS fo tts a mo Be Be Bf G ™ & & G ss a, & #2 * * che $$ te Mad: ay ay a gy ts feo§ Fees es swath om vg Pad ie . gerd "bed Md P Te 4 et went 'ened a iy Sy 2 & ¢ & & oo. fm t& 2 og B me Z we ee te Be ey 2 3 2 = £ 2 ¢ & » R 6 2 & Um & me, eS mg Be Mf ny ' % w ws x, a3 - en 7 woes % 3 ey ony me we ds : 6 & @ ¢ & & pw Gg 8 2 tp & 2 og & Sb, " % 3 : a 5 og oy RR , & % <r B Bp bt Fs oo Mg WI oe & & 2 , > B w By Se, & a gh i Ff & & 3A " om & Gh . E wos, B & B B® Mom Be om we ON es & SS & e 6 8 oe Bo RS % a 2 Ye = B dare pn pg Oe ~ Boy , 3 th, nd ie & "3 45 "Yan, é fe fe os Ei = wy es nT] e oy, eg & e Bt = e o ee A S mae " Mat % moe A, 3 . toh, $ pa A a 7 2% " a oe ee as fs ~ & © 2 oR we oy te @ © i BS a By, & % %& = 6 © £8 6 se Sy BESS Se sé hme. B @ 8 ER. 6. . * "C3 wapen 0% . ccd beh re "te ten we "ee . th oy & ; Ea ~ Be e ke ee 4 Os i 4 aed i tenn "a in ts 3 e % = es " . ky o Pe . & oy & 2 e hg % coe & ey & ben 3 we « a a3 we > a oy / " oo j , j we Bed Fh a us SS 33 & & RS Se Ste a x ' Re a ne: & & 2 & & og & og 8 e 6 & # 2 ¢ o » E & SB x '% ee rosy sy 4 te 7 aon an 's rat Bg Pe f Ses ght eser ss es ngs yes A? Sen "he * z \ 305 me x a, a » a fn ie 5 es eee SS om, & Om eS 2 Bp 3 & % 35 2 ae K bry os nn 2% oS " gee ae a tr Ba x as wn, tne ey kre] x Se, ; & ie e i uw = ty get me Og OE aS pp E kb US oh Be Bm & on" BY we SM +, 6 ~ tee x ' a 4 og Ep BPO ty te MR ssa a og aed me . wr ue % co 4 as eu sy er Ko e G we ee % t Yb ' A a j Ht . & % % "= 4g ™ ™ a te iy me ae fe ei ras te gee " #4 33 toe BRA ee 9 Jkt ne, SB mS ha ae j m & & #8 ye Hoe og & Se: oe ee & ee ao a ae OS 4 3 'owt A m a ~ as pet oa 'ne, tee oY os te ire weed . ry "h ae acd xe GS xs 5 & BB eS | SS ae & eB . & & @ fy a ee Bow, gE og we Se mM » 2 Eg 4 6 «3 Po B® Be LS ee Ss 2S fy ye BS % & a ae ce = ps FPR SSEBSRTS CRE ERS E ~ & Bey = m3 ER Be 2m. 6 » 8 ow © Y £ -B 3 & & &@ MB 2 ay oe an <3 & ed rime eh Ed eo Gwe OB uy ES 2 a "ned es oe 3 8 3 i stn eB og 1 ge GS BR ee ey oS Tas 'ES SB BB & Sp 8 . 2g 8 gS » B . * Bo BE S % gg ™ Bee s z G@ & e @ Boy b 8 aS ee 8 « B.S Es BF & GS 8 & 8 o& "y ce, 43 a my 'h 43 tea, ch = eat se. &. 5 " $e Xs & 3 ry xe 4 bck 4 So & 8 8 2B FR fF FS & © F & Be ee & & ? & & wm a @ PBS EE Se GS 8 GE oS gs & & @ 7 B we Bf 2 a m ct 5 22 OF & & EO wr m & % ta te i Oy & 2 Sf CE oe £ ts A oe OY om fees £ 3 = Neat Std th ig ae peek a 2020 M8 a & x a f WEP Woks N ap gest oy mw fF: ' e oS a aEo = istry Re OPS 3 ae fy fs f iy xo by by , sa os Re, s : i aa pode qg #2 § ey § 2 .e & © 8 & fg co ~ be > gs ® & 3 Sf & 2 Ss Coy Sou & o ww & Se fF . § 8S »w gt Go Me ME g a, " Oe St a et see Bens 'na v0, ~ 3 "4 inet G % Be tS me, ie Poe ae 2 mE eB Boy & ~ @ ¢ Bt a w & 4 Se ee BH ye w a ci ke o Ye & S pm FP Be dk Go ¢ ss Gg 3B oS % * 5 be, a ss be x We 5 .3 0) 3 2 : De " we Sen Sy . £ ¢ ww pet i t3 a ar) & ee as ce woe % a, & fe x Bos mee go 8 og Se me £ FB i ae bn oO a ee 3 Og OR ae 4 ee s gs % beet sd ta. a3 vm, ha tj om, Ty te "me jet . "aoe ee ee Xn ne Ae aye a sors het rs os won ws 'ead aa ect Toove xy : et oh Co om. te Us fy FE, gn ps oe ~ mB te aE uy 'Fed La rad fe eee hon, - det i it % ne an nb pe, kd Be a oo he Lb "yy hs oo : BE ah ~ pore Bean, wege, ay ae ee Love 3 & oS hs we Ry Hg tt QB fw om ae tat ee, Ps : SS @ 4 a <i a © a * shook oe ce ys oom, OY oe he ben oe mm oF S "se fe a ¥e LL a vn z ated tM Ree Si ge RS, ae o3 aa C3 4 md 'S S&S so ote G&G . 4. vo oe ac 45 6G OO 2 ore a od to eo fs YB Se a a ai Be ee nes bt gt "3 we Bote yD ¥3 aes £5 th Re ge See AO . OR vee or eae me net ye on ead eo i Mai ED uw $50 Lt ci ty te £% 3 Maw em 2 a3 ry S od nhs fy sah ao £3 oS i we 4 & & @¢ #2 & B® Gs Bw 2 ow Vi ty gk ie ge SO Son oe 5 i ue TS gs "oN as 4 ts im So " BR Bm & Be tn ood by ay Soo oe So ek OS eo 3 yo ee Sy Re ie eB th oe i x eS -- Be me % - ! . , -- "eoed S sen £ and Sone if" . g¢ SS 8 EES FS ZB yw 8 B ¥ Any on sce ae te Poo tee ane & we oO oS SS % tee is woes ond a on ~ 8B & & 8 B 4 By G -§ G = 8 ey 4 ed cae Bs Se OL Or. " deed om. oe Bi s Gg 2 # % 8 to x O ~ UE Pe Oe , me x Nowe BS fe Bx me 7 & eS i o ee ae aA aE hen EEG rs oe to om o E & & se 1 . ao oy a 23 2 2 * ft ¢e amt oF Bon Joee sn iL NING oe, Nat corres ns 9 > At 3X BI observed that the ov WL or i@ exercise of selection cee 'TP 3 ¥ ul Q § 3 uf ~ 2 EQ wi : 3 : 3 1@ the ergu Qe q t yy iH + J rac' ¥ * urin repan ate persar Ses WwW i joss to the op 9 ~ es ame to light d 7° 5 qui Aine x 3 to any p g i screening camrrittee p any ga any parties toot we BY * $ ; Me hs Oo ve ¢ - 4 & 3 "4 & ke Ch wee eS eS Ci a wy C4 ns pe, aot he Sarin" £3 And head £5 ao ~ ty i e ken od 43 es ws m3 i owe we) i len ">, "C4 me 4 fh & dene spay a3 oo Sew ES a % ay Ss d wt rh ed 5 o hos fs ae Ag oS $a Ld CS Ce 35 a 2 ne 3 on . vant "hoot heh! x o ot. cot ey ' 2 "3 ced @ a ei, nm . a i me on by, it a 2 € 8 & eso € BF Ee &@ ¢ 3; i + ; Mo @ S i o fe + mB & we wate foe ae 'A e thee gece ity MO we 5 Hhnok 34 ne ee oO Bh lane pes " any ' mi) 2 xe fp OU 2 a 5 © mpm Vow aot BR os a joe ~ GS wa Lb ~ 3 Lo % , &, a Ae t, wm 7 dead a ey ® ym 2 eS SB ow , 8 & & Gy age eo a ~ #8 2 # A 6 € % BT ahbee hon ee ie a ra i $i eer ie The we OD x G G5 re a Ps a fF Se ow es £ y £% ia aw 3) Seon . nae 3 oe oy £3 is ves we a w $3 ay oo weer 4 ay oh. O foe a <r « Jove es segs x we ay os wen va shot a} hes B&B oS - & Ra oe " on , ~ wh a i oe "ie fs het we OS 3 CF £2 a) iA fe Bo o & 4 & & ot i sy ~ oe Ke joed he % wm % e me ae me, & fo ae ay x ied fe oe 5 on " on oe LL s mh _ ws in te % £3 - "es 'Se x a iy eo 3 _ § & = FF BB ho 3 ibe co ry L2 > % a ' 4 ns feo ae Ld qaat py Is EG o a, ng 007 atte i ie "OE 4 OF & = a 56) i 1% B go Be dee whe vg mB Wy m ts omy ft i amt on "T% on 4 CE " x tas Mo Oks bee Be o " 2% tee i =: & we AS LA soe i i as . "EE cnt mn tee od ' OM oe Se a & Ge oe a "g i "eM A its vy th Te f 38 mn es wo Ls a a ae Bat sp Be i Ke Here BE Be fe ke mc' 4 3 we ™ 4 fe 4 me eo "es is i eed © 3 we, ty | . oY rn be v4 bee dod % i AL ie 3 seed a OG Fo . 4 a e ry po GRO x we 23 63 $h3 i m3 3 a * ee OF ne $3 a ene x e~ oy pened. gt G * Be BS Lae week fon C3 ey whore ret 4 ast eet er > ' vee Bod o ro x ay ae a3 a ae fs ws es : 7 EO B® ke ee © ~ 2 £ € §& A : ~ * os , en ~ ey be we van mal ne . SZ @ 2 = Fy * 5 Be BO BF gy a ay 3 wy ten A t+} we Brmn Summ Gs ne : ot ie is Se Seer - ie oo ae ee 63 bmn saaal ES qo te wo S Rte * mS " "= o sft * i © bed ' gC "RO % ¢ ~ ££ #8 2 3 on mA a om tect aes gs " e gy wes m es go 2 . & 6 a TRS we een Sane Poeee aM whe $0 "pe a t a th oO i ist oe Oo Bs we nw Sen ve ee ~~ @ an % bee: were _-- 2 + iA Seat % 2 a a pe . e ce, a 'e Bs te os m3 oy 2 j pes * "3 Eig oe a ber % a ne o € & © ££ 4 De - Oy oe oy RO s eI S is PPE ne 4 ah + GA? - SOMBES MME * rm) we 3 ~ : & : iy Le, is % ~~ f fe y ¢ e ' Bp otk aed Vy w § oe ty 4 x hy, 4 om 7 4 5 & 8 ae = 2 @ Se Ske BeREB SEH FAS ® B g Se bs 3 OE ~ 2 S& £ & 2 & & £& " SBS 2B EF Se OME B rm oO By os sii as nA a ot Se te eo oe me Bow bey a to nd eo ge x a & CF & 5 £& &¢ & & ae % Ae f 2 em § § GB mg om BS © Bw ~*~ SB HF Btn 7 wm, oe s, p gon =~ & t ogy z i. ct &, it & & "bn, = G % ey ay gy "a +3 % te Ss 3 OO ge me 7 ee , : : ane' , £5 ve OR mE & & MG S Rte FS 3 em 4 ap oy oo 4 | G g € ¢ aud wae ats So . Bap aS os, &, "§ x nD, ie ae Ls v aon oe os wee "Bd a > R 4 % OG Abo ge eg 5 Bye ame OE G Sp la & ios RS o. SB © bp «we *& « EF b&b # BD ROS mh G a © ~~ ORD oo Pes ' ey RA ke ee Dd me ge Rte ee ; fe $ re oe bad, ver, hay BM Nm fe p Patt oe Ne ty at i Ay dd ~ a % rey" aa we RR me eS ho 3 8 mR Sy & DS BM & 7 OO = 2B BP BS Be ® FS 3 2 a Se = , © © 3S FY & 8 A} o, > 4 mS © os OG Be x an, hob, hd BS ay ae oO i RT By | COMM OD ee wed 3 ks ee a 2 & 2 oS & oy, 2 8 EF x go EN ee A iat hy mS A o x "gn Y fmm g Fo arc fae eS x q pe eke & ay ONY fia So OR fp mB me he fw ew, 68 oR OR A b> a a fe Rag a5 4, tae 4 ed Rt hy, Gs wed n 4 hee, aes Piel at a , '. fea ee ", on 3 Ry tag % i ed B og $2 h BB owe Som 6% ee, a4 "en ts a - oe @& oh se MO oS a SE a De EE Be 3 ke Se! em & my Ree ye hy G Gh fy se on By tm yO te ER 2 Ag Be ge OR Mh Oy 43 me a So ey Feet A Bf fof cb fe te Se Gy £3 G "2 * i om Bg Eg Se gOS ty ty, 4 5 is) cen Ss fe gd oo 2s Sh Se Boe po om oy me & fen + oe o w fe Sy. = Be S ™ G 2 es G&G RE &® & ££ B&O % a, on. ge @ Ry. 2 - & 8 S$ & 8S BE 4 & SB Oe tte a ; ae BM & wm Ee Ff Soo, Se ow YS ye BS t i B2 a ss OS tng Ee we RR Ay Bak SS uy 3 & Os a weg es fod a a gs nahn, a," wm OP m Bee be mg 6 ht 2 & tm gp BS we gf Py Be we Rs ete FF ocd So & 6 @ @ % bi hed "4 tee "EOS a @ a & Ee tm Sg, o oa Ss Lae ye ae a fon sf rd aed, te Soa ¢ as at if a Spey Ong at we oy tee n. a £5 I. ies Rs heat .o sot i S "AS a om fy, = Gs Me %® ° wm fe TOE Ge Ee S 4 4 bye e mh a te oe RS 4 Oe lg St OO SS & © & & % <b So ee ge 3S i SS gs t+ © & 2B Rm GG & bd ARS wa " o w 8 ee Ss 8 . Mb 8 BY % 4 e & & fr ¢ eas ocd ee A en? i ™ * ae « nem "pes se. ™ a5 os an vad Ne, i te me ES re Sx ae wy 4 "ee &, Re tee ts ee % o i wy hm i (ow ob * S&S . @ fF & tO a i ds & a 'ae B® 2 & BR « ain Me Rm a OR x a Tp ty fine 5S wo t Vio ak os G§ 2 2 ge Sw " ze & me fey SS hye oy St, TAP Bs yg "3 : ca og mR - & See a of & «& BB = & & S es ~ & B "~ B _ rm me 5, ay on oy he vs ot mb Kae, "Ope, hae Ie 0 ye 2S ee 8 8, eS Se 8 & Be . SF Se PS Bw. B 7 'men 4 Ny "ea, : = fem, a % ' oa en 7 vie. ay o Fs ra SS & 6G £ © SF ROY ow QB ~ se 8 8S eS fn meg xe ad So OS OD me OT Om oe YS OE UM OB ~~ ty wld of a = a ay se SS si) gy 3 m | Se ke xk a ~ , '. : Y . Lay he x a Spel Yen, -- ce a & tn me Ww DP 6 & BB Re Hh se 4, G BS & . ER a 8 & SBR ee @ B Bo pe RB eR @ @ & EF ER ¢ a G9 ye © % te os a SS SA SA OM > S78 e, a % ' Ie es a ee o Ry fF 8 t Be n Pee x Seve ad 3 £ ed & & » fon gg, s & nee 4, & me Me oe b & «#: B 2 % bs ~ yn is a ™ Oo Be ge ts id nner % mm fr ty we 6 £ 8 4 TH a & at 8 ke 2 Sy ~ ee x & a a ae as & ae a be Be eS ee oe % 2 = 0G i ', 's a " "> " Ree ~ < im 'ee Se os 3 83 a ae A re, & boon, Sy, ey Eines Apod e ben a Seo, eS pews. 3 + 0, hs 3 tn . A oy os ge, we Ry % ed a3 tyke € cook aon - g se an £4 & Bi Fee et "KS O qed ot Pst fe oa "hn, NAb *% we fn gir SE "oad ~" 5 mo th Eh ke ree vey Ogg fe ge ag OM & Ts Bg" ~ e ww Ct ae go Rey 2 Be uM o& 4 & ae fy ge mG B42 BR gp ee BO pt i og ae 35 % wee a ce 4 CR ie. eS 3 hee Po wot on 2 OE oe 2 Be © ES YY i os * fro Be wm ty sy " -- 2 BO et "ig BS ey % wa " ax ge o om i % wh bea' ad on eck, 3 wot we ee EE Sh - tr « 8 & og Ly Esp a " ed wy pre hh uy we a5 me ay th on i BB chy a A % BR om, GE as ni tw £2 te ed ee ro BY Soe & we By fo an BoM Fe 2 Ee ne ee me " wo Beg As C ane * 2" 8 & & oe Beg PB Be Fg 2 oo 5 oS t a % i mo, "yn, axe 5 { , og SB EB & § & & " & BE 8s eg f& % rt ions me y ee SF TF ge a = Fy ee "4 & ws ee con oe $ gy whe "oF vbw : bee ox . a Ee EN at, is ono Ae . #& she 2g, "i, PO ty ea Soo ty ay & & op EM Ry es "ee es aS 7 ae oo ted teak tS i » hy By Jd fae Ba a a wo Ee ™ Soe a OE i a3 mal ty wo ERE, os G3 3 . $0, é ty Py a a $ snd ee, ' b. fe te | - eh cn my TF t & hone & Ste a Zz be ee ke = ed aS > aks m5 "nd ™ ra Se 7 S wae bad tf Te as %, ee $ ty OE 5 tere a s £& & SB By Bw BON B Boxy gs z 4 re ne wt Se hey iC dP $05 : a 7 a, wry wa ti 2 8 % B nw & 2 £&§ Sh 2m E R & wi ay , im "s Z tr eae Beek Nat oe me a ee Ln aay », ESO SS " 4 iS wm SE am, 4 3 e % a So OF Bg oy be ES 6 & Bo. A Oe a ws @ mo me aS we OB ge BE eM & « * mE % a a 3 me 8 Mg ve sa me fy % "3 Bm 7 ¢ 6G -» # wm & Ae ' i) BF ge tk oh os & 2B RF & wa Bw & * Sy 3 oe "ad Fever fe "g0 Ke se md ay Fi @ be 13 oaaze on ¥ | € ey a3 a ie Bo GR & rea a Ch. been £ 2 ce Gra] ft s nit 4 at te tne 1) Pain Bova fy on te % . heed, de, 3, 2 * 4 So @ tt S = 2 & @ mM eon a oS y ay x Ls Sty oe > xy 4 6 fe Rk Ge thy Ss rs % 2 Se M oe J ee YP PS Be eR we te uF od age, ; " Ss ae who oS lh OARS , : eG ~ gt ns cy mY % a. ty 3 yy c o Nt a on, Bs ne, 3 wh, A, OE a 'be - hh i. aX ? ge a rx oe £ cy ~ % te . > vs me OG eS ay Re a SS we ED o t ad re ay t~ nd ae ae Yer ene f¢ Re hd Wy aod = fo Se os fe, ES moe RD cs. ee gS hy Me Se Ey MR ROK { High Court ratory MB re : x and ex "3%, % Bon law, ural The es in civirig ¢ 3 3 ~ wath oe { eme Cou try of Mines while : 3 rus ye Mi Mm r rion of this Court, the al pronouncement and son 21.02.2014. & Parliament firmed by the Sup: , won 2 137 BO @ Z 2 = oa a -- a4 2 8 8 go5 ne a SNE os oor ane a an) wy = wy a OL 4 toned oe, Xeheee we ee, iy on wy igs fr hot ort po hove 2 oh. aoe 4 ay a fh se nA @ om, bed ag te 43 - r= CO ff o te o FA 3 oy OB " OO so So fe 3 u A a be ee ms i) 73] vos ee " on 2 hove es oo oom x By as a . ses vie ik a (ke os vez eS gang ES ry ¢ 3 ane daw shh gc ae Le ve Op Ley a3 Sone 903 «acct % < me oe a my 9] 9 ay us eo my of a ao | 6 ey ot om i mS Se : oh ao fe oe " "ey me to ~ 8 £ 2 & & & me Tg ig oe a o vn C5 pont ah OB seed ee a 3 no x #3 oe "4 oe 13 wa ess 3 M4 g ed s En Sd bee ay 5L4 Koa : et 23 a) "ts Sect eed eet" go i "a "yu a wt tof fis he. Se . ~ WE * Qh 3 Ls Sod Fea a g oh. a oy a con c " ye o = 6 £2 «2 | & 8 re te e & 8 & ne ae % ~% ° ff a EO So 2 8 e's a tA Oo we bf ii 4 a oa a ~ D . & eo © 8 ¢ BS ww & g¢ & a i ba ye ro i) a = es Ak me xe +3 whee ey peo 4 2 oh : or we Yond Bat owes Ws o head os os és ge a thet . one Bead EDs . me ' : hee a Gm OB ~ 8 8 @ € G og £ Ch e ew 2 g & & ke 3 ba Ym, wa Se a fo Br et shah i Oo & 85 6 @ CG BG & re te e GCG 3B 8 £2 4 8 8 " ¢ @ 8 _ &® @ EE FC oo # ; Be pe Ee ey wy a ee 7 OG as y 2 a @ @ fe fee CO vet uy i i x < B < cet pom ee es) ) 0% Wh 3 oe BB ss Ieee $3 a . ed a x : ff ON? 2 x oe - Fie v pAegper ? ? & AMER Ack fQAa ~ 7 HES PIOVER SF x a) ce z ei oS OOS cat BEY, iy " Saoeae aset A Madras ano B# - Gut of a foto 375 fi Za .. ~ ae PESIcks prere not gk Sy Pet wy 7 soiree ei SA we ory a ~ dssaes LENG FN a wae on. << g Ages ora JF a. f 's oy ee os f& gr. ey 3 oat Cay é. CAA, ee a < n o fans sey hee ahead Me: Son os, %, 1 % ao" few a + et x £ Se & . - rc hk ~ thee Mey & 4 roe ; oe - wreet see " S88 E 5 5 8 2 fg 5 6 8 oO 88 4. ™ ', wit Sn, fs Si - * % oon a yy & Be ta fon & oS oS : ey eo © F&F = o & 2 & FS oe % ~*~ ee wo oy & NM MB 4 & ma Bo wR g eo as St oe ww GG & "eos bee 5 3 Fe Boe Ee de a ed & OO 0 @ cp © 3 Hed ey as OS MY ee, % es @ w a a $5 "e5 re feed A Ke " eS. & & & Rm . f 3 og se at a Gok 7 a a es & 3 a a G & Lak & ge i, QR. £3 a Hod hy gy o . 3 co oe 8 eg 2 § . 2 £ 8 3 ¢ 8 € 5 % § S &% ww OB gt " a ong sooo sm € By) Ee Gi Ee t OG <5 ee %%, 4 om ag o oy " we Ce * my - S23 3 sheet Boot oe ey fae Sy mm on ss L sf pe? JS ce a, 58 & x Coed ie ws 3 w LO Ice ate dob Aad x 7 gg at Psd tA 5 he Ch ps4 te C3 ; ed a S. 2 & tS 3 Og Go - & & « & Ho Be es m eo BR wm G "hes bd a Pre 'at "aed ae cn os, a 63 An ated AX ty MO Fist es "hee & books bow & Ee wg - oe ie 2 BO Sc Fw a gs $3 reve the 'a nee 'ee hed is} r% sae ves Ina? ts we Re oN i Aa '4 3% ee a4 Le 'dead he Si pe i eo . BB re Sn tt a O $s ie oO te we Ze Mm ne ye ES mee shed od ' hove fn a a, hy heed te ood it SS 2 « G & 5 ope ws s Fa ee ; Qi a gt a ot % 8B OS mS es te sy sy a "Sy 3 fn Lt es Sm 3 % m oe tpl a oo 2 sgt 4% or a. aS eae ey Xn z a Be HR OS OG g. on, a de a ars as = ed x, a. fet ee iat 2 s Yo op ME ry eG g¢ & Co Ff = GB eB ft OR as ms at er eo om 4 3 3 iooe. CS feos oF & we as wf ae co pas . "3 aml rr ™ a eo a ey " 2 hy Pod rH be i 4 aa ee sD w ef fe fee ey os hp Fe on it Ay be * pf [ei re "3 oo shes ee Ry, vad ap et he ey cok es aa a A c es et = B® & wg Fa ~ ws , B & 8 fF & # oO oe § B+ Sy a ge 5 S$ & & ER he 3 fe Ab A te ee = % & Fe a 8 * Ld 9 SR ge a OY be we 44 oe 4 oA @ ae ness " $2 £3 ne oe tke oe &% ~ Pa Sx os o an ae & 5 a "3 q ae gE megs OE ge RS me Vee se ee) Gee oreo thers Re ae] 4 a 'ye a2 we BB * we QO . is beet [o) ah 3 "3 i = Se ~ 3 oS ce # iy Ye ~~ ' x ° "eS "3 id ei oe id x beng Sy ne 2s a rs owe weere eis wo ee a Se ae Bs tun we tp ie 4 ee et 4 i aa) 3 63 oe « it a Ao oe ee 6 2 . 4 BS. B G© 8 & B® & x BoB ow Te GB oe © Pe & © = wz te 13 Oo wo iN; sry on " as hes 19) shee! soon G ~ shesd ew ce m k , i ° "3 ay ne ' , ~ heat BB Boe Ye Gog = 2 & £ #8 BS » EF , G 8 & a ey A Wy ok x we vee ohn ro $75 0 ay Sy oa oe e i uj; & PR me ay ES vee 2 ee & c : ae 0g Pe SR, Os a © "26 " 2 ay A + S 6& £8 € % ™ 3 #8 o €¢ & & Q@ Mf ~ S & 6 Se "| EB @ we & 3 G @& Ss B @ » 8 BB 8 a gO Sy mad of re Fo PF a oe bs 33 e OO _ ce se gy OS i oo * bent 5 o et bon oa cm " - x ¥3 gy ia St dog gly w oe ie te . oa ' ae, OS £ z ts fo ek ms oe 35 Le Be » F 6 on 'en ° A 3 Soc pe om BO ge wp, a ; BF o bs o y % wn ? ow mM 3 Fa me ap a ™ & Be on w 4) + on een 63] a, ; ? ms fot ad an a a3 % 3 oa TS 5 io ifs v3 woe 3 Re eo be Aook ij we det ey 537 4 ey ~ ted bes GS Son Tt oe : E re ar "« Bn . ss & we mS GB io ae oe fw & 6 c i ee & " Go & 2 os "ee us ea -* sm Ss te ' & GC £& od eos Bead a oO it A ee we woe OS iP ¥ A ng Nl q s judgment M i xy xis vide 138 HOES SSR WOPLNG. S425 of SOR regarding the arbitrary and mava Aide exercise of the power by the officiais of the Department. For ready reference those findings have already been quoted in para 75 while dealing with Question Nowe, o7. On perusal of those paragraphs, it is clear that the Department, after the minutes af the meeting dated 14.07.2015, was predetermined to cancel and re-qrant the ficences, The issue of overlapping of same blocks as shawn was found false and based on afterthought and an attempt to mislead the Court. The rgasoning given in the impugned order was not permissible and sund erroneous, thus observed thet the said order was issued to 3 achieve their goal for re-allocating the blacks by manufacturing the reasons. If is not requi ired iO reiterate that the said findings remained untouched even by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the SLP, 28 It is also net out of context to observe that despite the selection process for grant of exploration Neence having attained judicial Analy, respondent No.l once again took the plea of Reg ~ procedural irregularity in the selection process before the learned 343 ingle Judge of the Deihi High Court, which was rejected. Relevant portions of paras 93 and 94 of the judarnent dated 06.02.2019 are reproduced as thus: ra ates ce s , Fe ty % "en $e 6 1 ge BA re ok fe vers ts a Oy ag 7 $03 oo ead "at 3 ey on tng & oO me ae m oon ee ge w a, "As aba, th 33) o we sod Pag ey re es es o re oe ~ et wh $5 aX tS e. sages Be, 5 AS, we 4O a a Esa oy od Fee yt ry whe ag ¥. KO mS > OES eto . ae a we oo peed "2S wy 4 = ; wae NE e de ~ by ed ge wx x ted wn a Ak iy "Se ae, amt By ot sa 3 fr », % et 5 ome Toe rags 5 as wT, s 4 Bs oe, oe uy . ny Ot, Ax food fees Soa ned re OSG mw gt bers we gk z lnc mR Ge Oe BG gf Re nied vt Pott, OY ws fe oo sy ay fe gn AE a as % ss 5 we a . wife ey tn oe LA wm ', t zZ we dC a tr a k Pod ee iol 2 ON me ee 3 a ae be O we Bt By UE, . Oh gs on OR Bog $a Rey Be MRS ® cs at fy ae f ? oy a & $f <3 wate Aon Fae q ba) © 4 re g o Sak AS : oy, Fe & ty SS Tt FE ts OF wa ts et x" © & e. ° & 3 & A eS j wR fe A ae seal on see, ; ad 4 5 Ge te ES von Be wR + Se tea 26, 3 ie. i "S$ One '2 Ea) P Pee & 3 5 aa ae "tes wm me OO as ee wt nme, Keon UR eS : gid a te, FB A 25 a ma he © @ B® ey ae " ae * to 4 Uy SA RB 7 & % © re fe on eo ne ~ a ' & tg o a o ss BG & BY mg S& 6, gs om | we #5 a oy Bom om = & & & we % 4 0 oe RB A " x 5 nn we Ne 5 RE MS in BED KE EG 0 bd ke Re wR oS 3 S Gg x? gp de aa ee a vad we PG ee ee RG z yh a3 eet j an, = o. 4 Hs ~ "%, we 2 t 47 * me % vor tos ny, 45 5 hee hf a gn ie is x fe, rr boos ee ee a "OMG SE be By eo OO es | Socks, tah a, toad ad 33 a Me fie " Yee $54 hn, te ch ood nT m, fe RO om eR me be, 5, por tn hte Eos male 1S Ps ee wen Mn an s od . oe ce iy Gh et wy aed By es s. "ky SEs Moy : wae OE aa eR ae . 8 6) oy 33 a ? : . gr F oy Re z Ore C % & %, me 7 'ee . he a", aoe : ae wn Pe a 8% oes Si ae a : ee ' 3 low x 0 ae C --% % Cy, " N, . see . & wom 2B 4 a nr nn So eR RB By o 4 RE vee od % NS Hoan coe oe es fe "43 ae a oe ahs, Me ti 4 % gl oes is a TF 44 4s is as Bg i 3 hy Bg Ree SM = my S2 if ce ee ¢ a yo my Et, mm fF Bo OG tf pe <3 og az i ~ Sm oo & se © # S ££ 4 os ~ Ry x on mn 33 aN "aad soe, z ab " the a mF ae 2B ¢ G 4 Y 2 @ & tie 6 me Be 2 ot » A fe oe # Gm £ 3 wong Po id & oa Poa ify a en A es é wed oS $2 at Pa 4 oF & eB ae POSS "oe SB on my = - 2 et 1 4 bey OB ORO tel oy ee & 8 > & s we RR sy x % Se ek Fe G ¢ er Re & & & fe oe a a oe Bo BG dt sae eg Bo ys ke ra: a) fe A ES iting 3 3 tas & es bone a <a at at ms. . ©. y % fo Rm RS o mom 8 oa a mf & oe oo OE ves & mT Oe iby me NO "x » -e 3 TOA 3 townh § again ISSION g 4 com x an Sahai, gt S ¥ 3 a , ir, Rag e x [On st x authority, pe o the Central Vi Q ery ourt on 06.02.2018, administ 715) was made | Food foe! F the deed for aning af POY 04.2018, * He o e x i nm, be. 1H * N : g Wa SUDEYA fh oH i by the H f 1.204 greg 7 I a7 5 Q "A iats o rer y 2 se io CGMS DL SUSY * oration | y £ 3 EXP g M ff the prayers in the 'nat z "act e 2 z mt ext 3 Releva < r * as thus: : au duce re repr Rey mt xu ated 11.02.2018 said letter dl we Sve x 9 iS ag "Sey as Ga 'ou Os Gag * Q sf eae eo. Ney ry : eee es ek ass aa Fhe BE = SUS, ea? LTNSS & ay, wo 3 : f HS) ? if i oF A RRS £ a a Se yar % and th % icial be o Y bt Bp ee $5 % ' ' £3 3 wy C3 63) ww & ee Ss SPER SE ® 2 6 © 2 55 a gE: 3 a wat gy RS iy * pe Oe 5 8 2 go> EE » 5 = my st c vy oS, 4 ob oe 3 ms 60 wD j we eb EG GS & o BE en a @ aS. ae, / SK a se Pan independent e mie as fhe very d earier on 28.03.2013, Yistry of Mines, the CYC ba 2 ner han: " ot eee, Ln sy Bs aA . ae I Pas A ye 8peh ELGES SE EG - nS is > re & gy san os Ke "Ch a, 2 at Tn ee wed a a a Sa 4 wm Oy, 4b 4 ~ of te. iB howe oe Save wt ey a Ee ee C3 7 i 6 os aS Yea COR ie &S fy ee us ' as = EG : Ss ~8 Sg Sees B Bo E a oe is "i af 4b aS y 1 oe oo wines rae me + we Hi fee ORD OTR '5 te 2 oa, B is w Zon foe oa " es 5 7 eon 6B & RD ot o oom 8 ey fe ty Ey 2 2 Hof om BG, me oe % oes ww SRG, ms "Oa po OS nad ; as a % , & & pa Ro Ee a Be at of tk ay gs oe £3 i ae Me 2 EY -- bay, BE e oe yo oe a = oh "S ie i ge he eh thy Ee ep me. vse en aay A Ba "get, ee $y a Ot 2 Et eS GM =< ££ 2 FG ££ = FF & 2B 6 4 > fh LR ORE Sry LE on 'clon Kitoe rsd my ayer en ad B % r Ron ge "0% Soon, adh we, meee Prong " wnt £ Ca bon & BS AE a ® oy 3 ik. i aoe ee o fe 3 chess SB €@8ee:c @S8"Eu £ £2 GE "8 8 e y & ADR ee 2. BS. ER SB £ @ & «. Y ££ @ 2 8 a ne mete wid war M3 ey Soba <S oS "ae , £3 fone es % Gg he Gan BO E 3 'es se ua yy oe ee ad 4 oa Ban hs IF Re the fe Pe ie) 3 moe s a en 2 on, fb me ES te gO . " be LY ™ "Ry co Sf = EE ze Gh ha he 8 a qi Je ee u ee ws 2 3 x ee te a i a3 ek yi ss tT £3 +3 zt & ford "ts on an eo, ae. Fe AS ates Tee EE %, come gn pes f % o4, % oS ee = Eo BAO a eS 2 6 & - 2 & © 6 G@ wy et Pe Bg eg HG an iy, ry, 5 eG "f sant oF ae Ld ko ~ i vm 9 oR EOS gs iD Re net ed Fy wd ie 3 we * cheng ms gr RL MR Sh Be, ey et gn "ae fond tm hy oo het Pd fey oS Fa "eee ; srt a 33 & oh Ct "es on as Bon ae bow oo ey "~~ Aine, Pd sam 6 wie ge « %, a ees had Sone: e ox epee ft at Sen = wane feed? es we "as 4 van %, a & fe kl Ea, woe 2 Pp Re 1 oy BS oo ve od TE te Soe ad Bee moh, bee, Ld Monae 3 Ge theed wa ae * ke Se fo BS BS 2G me € 2 & a 3 "Com % Th te og, eR Og of ee -~ poet io 'ae ae ~ Son Cy, . ee a mm om a 4 ed oe ig & as wa we wes e 'ty FB dy % $y SE te ye z ded ce) os 3 aked "C mS ae x a" 2 Roe, B Oo. 5 SED gy eo 5S aa "wes kee awe " an rn, oS 2 ly By eo OO ae eo uy a t ue pe > oS © Yeo ee pe RX Bo we Fe fy og So 6 8 S & x be wie Ee et Be ed ge Ss ta 60 : : ° * a Si Se fi Oh a Ms @ we EE mH BW ES a es <i toa hee a3 fo BO BEB = Boe 2 ie & -- me % ~ 8 Ee eee eS @ "ge Go el EOC ri thd whe ke ES OR me SAE he wae 2% eee . . ms A RG Oe eo 8 £45 4 <5 S ea 8 oe 6 6 ae BA ven fe we) "AA oy a ef % , " go % " ae ; on Rowe an om. M3 a =H & Bf . & § 6 Hw ° Lo ee haat fen . wens. ~ uy Sen Ss aa ee jo fee . ~~ 4 re pees y «4 ie S 3 & 2 § Pe sp £ Ss Sy aD 2 sp oe fs m0 OR aon when " Ne uy foes ee we i. 3 th Wi ¥ ned by the i ' oe 8 3 o st NS feria d * " e S - Ose wh - | oF th Ay bss * iE s eopeniny und x i Is Hey & SSR. 7 WLENG.GAdD of SOR mention t aad at the Delhi Nigh Court, vide order dated 06.02.2019 gassed in W.PAE CV.NO.P537 * of £018, Ras also observed that the deed was signed by Mr. Ranjan Sahal in furtherance to the order cated 09.11.2017 in W.P.No.S734 of 20176 and found no irregularity therein. Relevant oortian of para iO? of the judgment is reproduced as thus: oy Mwy TP Ge soem ote renestins Ae Sas $55.5 iO, £ gs DESTRESS DO SRS ere f9aF Loe a iyi ety my whey ¢ zy Me whe f Rey ee a wy gay Pa otis Adminaiedig Authority fe. Cormtrover General indian Re ety . fs Re a fre Bureau of Mines Rad alread ps ae at oO ist woy eed Sd erlang fo gmorcaion of CRE souscetion dated & 10.4201. overiaoging of certain Siocks seh onshore ances ano' arent OIG ae e weniger. by ue Sap ky : bryos eng ee GY aera' concessians §9 oY Wate Bares for afore miners set dd Sores soketies . ie Lae testes + Rr 8ag Me same iS avian? frum As reoort deted PF 72202" how cae te e " wy ene, sas co SoBe wes an CoN pe ow eS, : > ew So & OMe offer comsigersg of Se aforesaid issues. the uy np a ney a "x doops d. é Py gy ge respondent oe fereiy Ass executed wn et, gray ie " ~, - Se fos eon fh i. f doy se expioraten ficences with ane Mis. LUA Minerals Put Laigk on LOL. 2 ES also not out of context that the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court, in the judgment dated 06.05.2019, had directed the authorities to execute the deed for exploration licence within a period of four weeks and similarly, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had directed the authorities for executing the same witht) @ period of hve weeks. Therefore, the issue of undue haste in signing the dead en 30,11.201% Le., within 21 days of the order of the High Court dated G9.11. 2017, has no merit, ¢ ay Iw in par 4 : "Ss re : - to we . ub & Ye OF - & $e a a <4 Os Cy 2 & 7 4h 8 G BS : Me , . £ me on og Se, . on a bans My, re Ee er nd oy SS AS Soy t on ed ~ m SS a SS ¥ Ae 3 eS he © bee qe a Bed on sen wy wy ee fo "n FA as By, at yO, 2 se 2 & ri a A te ta on 4, a See t fe as en, a $53. weed AAS vein ase hae, 7% sep % j QD eft . ee irs ™% ad 5 Pe Ss bs es ee me SR ws % ae ge An , + % 7 ee sew * '. 4 bf. ¥ 4 fm ona . oe Bagh i ee OAS on Bu & a oF tr wy ge hs ia RA % ye me e 2 - @ NR Su & Bf > & B® SoM ag Ss ' 3 , hoe ey a By ES foot A fob oe Qe on "ey 3 ns EG ite an mS & om, QO ot be, BL oo 4 Se wk, ES , 3 a ca i SS us 5 "od te Be TS ot ae: te me ae 6 ta ee i mm & & ge St RE 3 ot ta re a ee es fg As a ie BB a ms SB os 6 sY ok ey, 93 aio c eB we ab ty % ont ge » Oe eg Se Se ye foe BS" G8 eG = » & BR i ae oe ty KE me Fy Bh te =e % Be ms oo ae mows = tee g fab cia] mS 4 re ite ' ee ge he Ey BS me ce shen, 5 'ot Ry he adh 54 hs > " Be x GB fe . 3 oO . & an are gy SS we ae wee oR? ae SS ey a Si ee Ds a kOe "ge % & », © ed ° & % Bp ts , weet ro' LA Se 3 gs i " om: bo ue dove ree) oe rd Peg BR aot ai Seek 4 te Sg & tee > a he ES Sb . oo $5 peg , a 45 : ee 4 si tr a ~ ; os we, y bs we 2 em 8 Ow ee BE f 'ee » wg B® @ eo ie Soe ee £3, ° ge zs a Mops So NG os 45 "Ag. Ge" te $: oe ee c '. io 4 Maga n . So % & He, este eT fe % "ees ~ mi ea 4 & my oe fg Sg, 2 Be ey oO fe ES a ae Gog %% on mS & & Eo eg os Bt we : ey OM Bo FS "ye, EO m & om fy HB , tw & * 4 i fo 6S 8b SS & B® BS g & 4 ie wee EB & & © 5 ie -- , 7 Ge sy Ns "7 5 £ vie gS ge us 67 oe cs oy ge wg et . AE pe ed 2 & & ' pm | OB em 7 CF Kt ty, ak 7 '4 t ms 2 OTS os Seg wn tS Ee ot a ww x wit By he n ty Bb. Ss er com ng oy mS oS 5 3 ay any 'ok' ay 4 own hove Le os o, Oe '5 fo 8 © ene ox y an a me OS Be ke ket @ an mn % cw ty Eg gh a me a PS eS TE pe RS a OS ee BO " a eo & 6 ES ® ara we 2 € Se eB , 2 B ee G fry &, a = B ~ m Phy Ee fe BS ~ G ty @ oone es he ge os "py! hes an 4 wy ae we Read $5 e& 42> top e oe © we eR fr pe RE a B35 a" ey be 2m G # és, ; ' ; woe "ye SS SF 7 BOB ge te > fe OB on ret Gs oe % en = & hy my Rs ts Yon, & fy 4, 1 iM oS ces ey, ye Bk be fork Re ee 3 B ay id BE OB a oe AB yon ,3 hes ay Le WBA a 30 ~ wet vd neces + a $2 $e. Be Pot ' Fie eg oe . ve 'ae ' OF a oS & BOR Boe >» 3 & oO OR 2 ES 2 Oe i we @ #8 FS me Re OR BY & & 3 Re mS Sb 2 yy, 8 OF ; iD i "4 OIA Rm of a wm & eG 5, ty % Se & te oy E Ma 2 eo) co we ROG g tS aS Cn tS go OM he MM a omy FS . poy & a, % 4 AY te i of Cong Ep m es co " na 'ok & 4 a od ~ 3 os ey a a z ee a3 og % eet ~ r2%7 core . Yorn ea ot we a ow. a 2 ec ae inh, i Sy ca wee aS Send? he $ ch & RS & DP i B S tf: B y Bw Be os eR e& t & os ws go = ge &® € Bom RS mE eee, OG CS 9) gay Sr. re a, on oh. ae = rd a a ees g of. 1% & 25 £3 \ BS Hh oat nee * My At £ RAS ns oe £5 i & we %s th £ we ee " Le "oz wh Sis Me wg inn Ag se Ee % wie he BB kG EE "aed a c ee wy oS. mee 6 mS OMB Te ay wot wae Thy "hes Bo AG ty m3 ft % 2D & % teh Po SB i, ey & ™ a gy Boe ce we Ss es my OR Ce Ban 8 Be oe oe Foe om OO om Ge or A eB te ™ Se ep ry gt ne , GO & 2 & & & 8 £ Doge OR gy a i 2 4 & Nn * oy a t, @ & Abs a ad hr by hes, a re iy (RS x x Sy van oa ma Bs oe OS fi R&B PP hs mt od s & Se SF SE 3 OS "EES a ory 5 eed, a aa a cas 2 A OR g g g as f 102. 3 u "= f é ie ? Te Th Tats Lay hy nb ayy 3p Re ase Ba fgets pays ag Sy investigation fofo Se mater may Oe @ device fo somehow lucigay eroncuscements made Sy verfous 103. In wiew of the foregaing, & is clear that the Delhi High Court, referring the letter dated O1.08.2019, had observed that the raquast for re-inmvestiqation into the matter is a device to somehow get aver all judicial pronouncements made by various Courts. Such an act, orig Aace, seams to be an act mot at all bona fide but a device or methad ta samehow dery benefit of Court's order to the respondents therein. Thus, © is clear that the writing of letter by Mr. Niranian Kumar Singh, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Mines, fly on the face of the various orders, viz., the order dated 17.09.2013 of the Bornbay High Court, confirmed by Non'ble the Supreme Court on 31.03.2014, order dated 06.02.2019 of the learned single Jucge of the Delhi High Court, order dated 25.04.2019 of the Divisio Bench of the Delhi High Court and the order dated 29.07.2019 of Har'ble the Supreme Court, canfirming the findings of the Delhi High Court. The said acton is nathing but save fide and colourable exercise of peaver because the CVC had earlier directed investigation against Mr. Nivardan Kumar Singh and other officers orm 15.03.2019, Tf is to further observe that the CSI cannot take Gn ny action to derogate the findings made by the Division Bench of ios the Deathi High Court In reference to the same letter referred hereinabove, which stood confirmed by HNor'ble the Supreme Court. Simultaneously, there is no explanation why for a period of six years, the Ministry of Mines was not interested In reapening of the CBI enquiry if any irrequiarity was there and chose to wake up only after the arders of the Delhi High Court passing strictures against the officers of the Ministry of Mines and CVO directing ta hold an enquiry against them. This action taken by the officers of the Ministry of Mines after six years making a request to re-open the closed PE is not only aie fee but fo save themselves fram the cansequences of the investigation ordered into the illegal actions taken by them. 1o4, TE is i iso relevant ta note that Mr. Niraniean Kumar Singh intentionally in his letter dated 01.04.2019, concealed crucial material facts in order to ermure that the closed PE is reopened, Those are, the order dated 17.09.2015 of the Bombay High Court, o whereby no irrequiarity was found In the selection process, the " order dated 21.03.2014 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court confirming the sail order of the Bombay High Court as well as the crucial fact of CVC ordering an independent investigation on 15.03.2019 against the officers of the Ministry of Mines including Mr. Niranjan Kumar Singh, which were conveniently concealed! and suppressed in the letter dated G1.0¢.2019. This is nothing oul abuse of power by Mr.Nirardan Kumar Singh apart fram being an act of mae foe. In view of the foregoing discussion, the fetter dated 01.04.2019 is yitated on account of save Se and cannot be permitted to stand and afl consequential actions taken on the basis of the said letter are also able to be quashed. Question Nod is answered accordingly. Re 105, Geanclusians:- 3 AS per the discussion made while answering Question No.1, Cis clear that the notification dated 27.07.2019 issued by the DAE in exercise af the power under Sections 3 and 14 af the AE Act is beyond campetenae, since Sectlons 3 are! 14 of the AE Act anply in connection with the production, development, use or disposal of & Btornic energy or to carry out the research into any matters connected! therewith. The saicl provisions do not confer power to the DAE to prohibit grant of exploration Ueence of the atomic i = re uneral to any private person permissible uncer the provisions of the OAMBR Act. As per the previsions of Section 6 af the CLAMDR Act, if is clear that the operating right can be granted to any person who is an Indian neticnal or 8 company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, regarding the atomic minerals specified in Part-B of the First Schedule to the MMDB Act. The OAMDR Act applies to all the minerals in the offshore areas, including any rrineral prescribed by notification In clause (q} 1 2. sub-section (1) af Saction (2) of the AE Act. For the purpose of Bal reconnaissance operation, exploration operation or production operation, grant may be mace to any person. It does not prohibit the grant to a private person. In the matter of grant of operating right, it may be given to any person or private company for the atomic minerals but at the stage of giving the production lease for atomic mineral or orescribedd substance, the consultation with the Department of the Government of India dealing with the Atomic Energy is required. The rales contemplated for DAE is under the eroviso to Rule 18(1hefb) of the GAMC Rules applied in the event of discovery of any atomic mineral during exploration which was sot specified in the exploration Heence, the approval of the DAE to be taken for its inclusion in the exploration licence. The notification dated 27.07.2019 is, therefore, beyond the power as ee specified in Sections 3 and i4 of the AE Act and uétra wres to the statutes and dehors the previsions of both the Acts, and issued arbitrarily with lack of bona fides. Accordingly, the notification dated 27.07 2019 is quashed. iD} The order dated G6.11.2019 issued for cancellation of exploration licence is without due application of mind, in wolation of principles of natural justice, and merely relying upon the notification dated 27,07 2019, which already stands quashed. The cancellation of exploration licence taking the plea of conservation of mineral resources is Rimsy and against the spirt of the definition S29 iz BEES NSE, | WLP Ne 882) of 2030 bor - of canservation of the mineral resources as prescribed in the National Mineral Policy, 2019. Thus, the order dated 06.11.2019, being Dlased and not in consonance with the provisions of Section ? of the OAMDR Act, is bad! In law and is accordingly, quashed, i} Rule BA of the QAMC Rules, as notified on 23.08.2014 9, is against the intent and object of the QAMDR Act and also beyorrl the power as specified In Sectian 35 of the GAMDR Act, There the Rule 2A of tive OAMC Rules, having no sanction of law, is z declared ivfra wires to the OAMDR Act. vy) The fetter dated 01.04.2019 issued by Mr. Niranian Kumar singh, Joint Secretary of the Ministry of the Mines, for re "opening the PE bearing No. PE ACL 2012 AQGOS a lreacky closed vide closure report dated 28.03.2013 is tainted with mave Ade and itis an actin retaliation to stall an enquiry by the CVC against him. More SO, in view of the discussion made in Question No.4 and the findings of the Bombay High Court and the Delhi Hish Court, duly upheicd by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, any action an the fetter dated O1.04.2019 Is conternstuous and vidiated which cannot be permitted to stand. Therefore, the fetter dated 61.04.2019 for reopening the said PE after six years of ifs closure by the CBI anc consequential actians taken on the basis of the said letter stand quashed. LAS NS KSA, D WANG. Seid 108. In terms of the canclusions drawn hereinabove and as 6 commequence of the quashment of the impugned notification dated 2¢.07 2019 and the order dated 06.11.2019 and declaring the Rule e A of the OAMC Rules as avis wees to the OAMOR Act and as the a letter dated 01.04.2019 addressed by Mr. Niranisn Kurnar Singh, cint Secretary of the Ministry of the Mines, far re-opening the PE bearing No.PE ACT 2012 AQQOS after six years of its closure by t CBI and consequential action on the basis af the said lether stand quashed, we direct that the deed for the exploration Heence dated O5.05.2011 be now executed by the respondents in favaur of the getiioner within a@ period of four weeks from the date of cammunication of this order, Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby allowed. In the facts ane circumstances of the case, oarties are directed to bear their SAY Costs. AS a sequel to the decision of the case finally, all pending miscellaneous applications > shall stand Closed. a moe cesses vo a ce gdh. KTATA RAO é ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ° PTRUS COPY = + SECTION OFFRAER a 8, Te Secretary. Unian of India, Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhawan, New Deihi- TIG007 s. The Additional Director Ganeral and Administering Authorfy, Geolagy Survey of ima ISS] Complex, Seminary Ni lig Ne agpur-4iGgos 3. The Secretary, Departrnent of Atornic Energy, Anughakti Bhawan, Mumbal- €8000) & One Cf fa Ri S.VIVESR CHANDRA SEKNAR, Advocate [OR UC} § One OC to SREN NARI INAT HH, Aget. Sot PGensrafOPUC) &. One OC 9 SRI MASALA PONNS RAO, OO far Central Govt HaPUC) a. Twe €.D. Copies. 3 Mi RC ¥ Be. ARTs gk Tae HIGH COURT - ® DATED: TBiGg2020 ORDER
WP No 84170 af 2020 4 ae rf are ye estoce neat ee ALLOWING THE WRIT FPETPPTON