Ranjan Sahai vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 May, 2024

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court

Ranjan Sahai vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 May, 2024

1. The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Branch in OA No.2198/2018, whereby his challenge to the Memorandum of W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 1 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 Charge dated 26.04.2018 issued by the respondent No.1- Ministry of Mines, was rejected.

2. The Memorandum of Charge dated 26.04.2018 issued by respondent No.1- Ministry of Mines reads as under:-

""STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SHRI RANJAN SAHAI, CONTROLLER GENERAL Article-I That Shri Ranjan Sahai, Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines while functioning as Administering Authority under OAMDR Act has executed licence deed with M/s U.A. Minerals Pvt. Ltd. for block No. 25, 26, 27, 35, 36 and 37 in Arabian sea without recourse to legal advice and further course of action consequent upon the High Court's judgment dated 09.11.201 7 in W.P. (C) 5734/2016 and thus not showing due diligence in the matter which has led to serious implications and multiple court cases against the interest of the Government.

Article-II That Shri Ranjan Sahai, Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines while functioning as Administering Authority under OAMDR Act was fully aware of the findings of the investigation carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation, pointing out procedural lapses in selection process for short listing of companies and mentioning by W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 2 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 the CBI that the Ministry of Mines has kept the entire process in abeyance and is considering the re-evaluation of the applications in accordance with the criteria to be fixed by a committee consisting of experts of various fields. Shri Ranjan Sahai has not taken into consideration the remarks of CBI and without taking into cognizance the procedural lapses in the selection process, has gone ahead for execution of the licence deed.

Article-III That Shri Ranjan Sahai, Controller General, India Bureau of Mines while functioning as Administering Authority under OA MDR Act and while taking decision for signing licence deed with M/s U.A. Minerals, has failed to interpret properly the decision given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Hon'ble Court has mentioned that the matter has not been decided on merit with direction to process the grant of exploration licence pursuant to the order dated 05.04.2011 in accordance with law. Shri Ranjan Sahai has acted in contravention of procedure and law by executing licence deed without re- validation of lapsed financial resources and technical capability submitted by M/s U.A. Minerals Pvt. Limited at the time of submitting the application in the year 2011. Thought the decision of High Court was against the stand of Ministry of Mines as well as IBM and pleading in the Court, before execution of licence deed. Neither it has been ascertained by Shri Ranjan Sahai as to whether execution of deed is in contradiction with any rules/guidelines/ notification nor the W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 3 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 scope of filing review petition has been examined.

Article-IV That Shri Ranjan Sahai, Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines while functioning as Administering Authority under OAMDR Act was aware that the annulment order 30.06.2016 of IBM was on the basis of overlapping areas other than offshore area to which the OAMDR Act was aware that the annulment order 30.06.2016 of IBM was on the basis of overlapping areas other than offshore area to which the OAMDR Act does not apply, prohibition of mining imposed by CRZ notification dated 06.01.2011, thereby defeating purpose of executing offshore exploration licences as the applicants cannot undertake operations for winning of minerals subsequent to the grant of production lease after the successful completion of exploration operations. Though, the restrictions imposed by CRZ notification was valid even after amendment in CRZ notification, 2017, inter- alia, prohibiting mining in CRZ area except mining of Atomic minerals under Part B of the First Schedule of MMDR Act, 1957 occurring as such or in association with one or other mineral, Shri Ranjan Sahai, while execution of licence deed has not shown due diligence in examination of effect of CRZ notification dated 06.01.2011, amended vide notification dated 06.10.2017.

Article-V Shri Ranjan Sahai, Controiler General, Indian Bureau of Mines while functioning as Administering Authority under OAMDR Act W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 4 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 has signed licence deed with M/s U.A. Mineral facilitating the exclusive right for production lease in the area which include inter tidal zone where manual mining can be done by such agencies as authorised by Department of Atomic Energy, as per mining plan approved by the Department of Atomic Energy in contravention with the provision of amended CRZ notification.

Article-VI Shri Ranjan Sahai, Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines while functioning as Administering Authority under OAMDR Act has not re-checked the validation of documents submitted by M/s U.A. Mineral at the time of submitting its application in response of IBM Notification dated 07.06.2010 before executing licence deed with would have elaborated that M/s U.A. Minerals had applied in the name of five companies after enclosing documents including financial resources of a single company.

Article-VII Shri Ranjan Sahai, Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines while functioning as Administering Authority under OAMDR Act has executed licence deed without approval of Central Government in contradiction with the provision mentioned in form K which inter alia, states that there is no objection to the grant of such licence and whereas the Central Government has approved the grant of licence.

Thus Shri Ranjan Sahai, Controller W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 5 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 General, Indian Bureau of Mines while functioning as Administering Authority under OAMDR Act has shown gross and willful negligence, recklessness in decision making, blatant violations of systems and procedures, failure to keep controlling authority/superiors inform in time and failed to maintain devotion to his duties and behaved in manner unbecoming of govt servant in contravention to Rule 3(l)(i)(ii)(iii) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.‖

3. The learned Tribunal, while passing the order dated 05.11.2019 observed and held as under:-

"It is fairly well settled that the Tribunal cannot deal with the truth or otherwise of the charges in an O.A. filed before it. That has to be left to the Inquiry Officer, appointed by the Disciplinary Authority. The basic principle is that if a charge memo is issued to an employee, the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained therein, is to be tested in the departmental inquiry and it is only when an order, adverse to the interest of the employee is passed by the disciplinary authority, that he can institute proceedings before the Tribunal or court by raising all the pleas touching on the validity of the inquiry or the defects in the entire process.

The only exception is where;

(a) the disciplinary proceedings are initiated by an authority not vested with the power under the relevant rules and;

(b) even if the contents of the charge memo and the statement of imputation are taken as true,no act of misconduct can be perceived.

XXXXXX W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 6 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 XXXXXX

16. It is stated that the applicant submitted a detailed complaint against some of the officers in the Department of CVC. He alleged that it is the endeavour of those officers that resulted in the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against him. It is also stated that the CVC directed the conducting of an inquiry into the allegations made in the representation dated 11.02.2019.

17. We are of the view that the CVC has hardly any role to play in ascertaining whether the allegations made against the applicant are biased. The order said to have been passed by the CVC, has no impact or bearing on the Charge Memo issued to the applicant.

18. We do not find any merit in the O.A. and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Since it is stated that the applicant has retired from service and that the retirement benefits are not granted to him, the respondents shall examine and extend the benefits, which are otherwise permissible in law, such as leave encashment etc., within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.‖

4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid findings returned by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking setting aside thereof, and has thereby, sought quashing of impugned Memorandum of Charge dated 26.04.2018.

5. According to petitioner, the allegations against him are of execution of License Deeds in favour of various agencies, which were in fact executed in sequel of orders passed by this Court and thus, he had only complied with W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 7 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 the orders of the Court. The respondents, on the other hand, have asserted that seeking quashing of Memorandum of Charge prior to conclusion of inquiry and amidst pendency of investigation by CBI, is per se bad in law.

6. The back-forth of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner in this petition, is that petitioner had joined Indian Bureau of Mines (in short 'IBM') as Assistant Controller on 02.03.1981 and was promoted to the post of Controller General, on 08.02.2017. He was the Administrative authority under the Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to 'OAMDR Act') by notification dated 10.02.2010 of Ministry of Mines.

7. According to petitioner, seven years prior to his appointment to the post of Controller General in IBM, the then Controller General, IBM being the Administering Authority in terms of Section 10 of the OAMDR Act, 2002, notified 62 offshore blocks for grant of exploration licenses vide S.O. 1341(E) dated 07.06.2010.

8. Accordingly, 377 applications from 53 applicants were received and the Screening Committee, after being satisfied with the credentials of the applicants and their eligibility, recommended to the Administering Authority, who vide order dated 05.04.2011 granted exploration licences over 62 blocks to 16 successful applicants. However, before the Deed of Exploration licences could be executed, its allotment was challenged before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and High Court of Chennai. An order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Nagpur in W.P. (Civil) No. 1502 of 2011 keeping all subsequent actions in abeyance, though the said stay order was later confirmed by the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur to only 17 blocks out of W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 8 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 62 blocks vide order dated 28.11.2011, owing to pendency of writ petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and High Court of Madras.

9. A preliminary enquiry was also registered by the CBI to ascertain any misconduct on the part of officers of the IBM, however, the case was closed in early 2013, as no misconduct was found on the part of Officers of the IBM.

10. The challenge to process of selection and action taken for grant of exploration was challenged before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur in W.P.(Civil) 1502/2011, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.09.2013. The challenge to the said decision by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2014 in S.L.P. (C) 5530/2014.

11. Subsequent upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 31.03.2014 [in S.L.P.(C) 5530/2014] upheld the selection process adopted by the IBM, the successful applicants made representations to the Controller General, IBM and Administering Authority, for execution of the respective Deeds for exploration licences. The IBM, vide letter dated 23.06.2014 written to the Ministry of Mines, sought directions for executing the Deeds for exploration licences.

12. According to appellant, the then Secretary (Mines) Shri Balwinder Kumar, vide communication dated 14.07.2015, directed the IBM to look for ways to cancel the blocks so that the blocks are free for re-allotment through auction route.

13. The Controller General, IBM sought permission of Ministry of Mines to cancel the exploration licenses. The Ministry of Mines, with the approval W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 9 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 of Hon'ble Minister of Mines took a decision in May, 2016 that the Administering Authority is a Statutory Authority under the OAMDR Act and as such, the Ministry of Mines had no role to play in it and the Administering Authority is free to take decision as it deems fit.

14. The petitioner has alleged that the direction given by Shri Balwinder Kumar, the then Secretary (Mines) was without any authority of law despite the process of selection was already upheld by the High Court mentioned above and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, under immense pressure, the Controller General, IBM and Administering Authority issued an Annulment Order dated 30.06.2016 seeking to annul the notification dated 07.06.2010.

15. According to petitioner, prior to issuance of the Annulment Order dated 30.06.2016, one of the applicants M/s UA Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Delhi, who had been granted the exploration license by order dated 05.04.2011, preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) 5734/2016 in this Court seeking execution of Deeds for Exploration of licences. Two more similar petitions, being W.P.(C) 3282/2016 and W.P.(C) 3625/2016, were also preferred by M/s Via Earth Resources (P) Ltd. and M/s PM Geo Exploration (P) Ltd., respectively in High Court of Bombay at Nagpur for execution of Deeds for exploration licences. In said writ petitions, Annulment Order dated 30.06.2016 was challenged on the ground that they had not even been granted an opportunity of hearing. Being faced with legal action, the Ministry of Mines and IBM, at the behest of Ministry of Mines, filed false affidavits in Courts to try and cover up their infirmities and misled the Court in the said writ petitions.

W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 10 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27

16. The Ministry of Mines vide letter/e-mail dated 20.07.2017 asked the IBM to submit a status note on issues relating to offshore exploration licences which was submitted with the approval of the petitioner vide status note dated 28.07.2017.

17. On the other hand, the learned Additional Solicitor General, during the proceedings in W.P.(C) 5734/2016 stated before this Court on 20.07.2017 that the Annulment Order dated 30.06.2016 was passed preliminary on the ground of prohibition contained in CRZ Notification dated 06.01.2011 and that the said blocks would not be auctioned. Thereafter, the Ministry of Mines uploaded an amendment to the OAMDR Act, 2002 on its website on 01.09.2017 for public discussion.

18. In the aforementioned petition [W.P.(C) 5734/2016], this Court vide order dated 20.09.2017 directed the respondent No.1 to file an affidavit with regard to the statement made on 20.07.2017. However, since the Amendment Bill had already been proposed in public domain, therefore, in the affidavit filed on 26.09.2017, the Ministry of Mines admitted that mining within the CRZ of rare minerals was permissible and that they were looking to auction the said blocks.

19. In the light of contradiction of statement made before this Court on 20.07.2017 and affidavit dated 26.09.2017, the petitioner in W.P.(C) 5734/2016 sought initiation of contempt proceedings against Controller General, IBM and the then Under Secretary, Ministry of Mines and the Secretary (Mines) for making false and misleading statements before the Court.

20. In the meantime, vide Notification dated 06.10.2017, the permission of mining of rare minerals in CRZ areas was replaced by new clause which W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 11 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 left no ambiguity on the subject of mining being permitted in the CRZ areas. Thereafter, the learned Additional Solicitor General on 09.11.2017, made a statement before the Court that mining was in fact permissible within CRZ but of specified minerals but in the light of new CRZ Notification dated 06.10.2017, there was a material change and that there was no longer any impediment in executing the orders of grant dated 05.04.2011.

21. In the light of aforesaid statement, this Court passed the order dated 09.11.2017, pursuant to which the petitioners in W.P.(C) 5734/2016 withdrew the contempt petition.

22. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) 5734/2016 approached the IBM seeking execution of the exploration licences and the Controller General, IBM and Administering Authority under OAMDR Act complied with the judicial order and started the process for execution of Deeds for exploration licences.

23. The petitioner herein, being the Administering Authority, conferred with the power under the OAMDR Act, 2002 invited M/s UA Mineral Pvt. Ltd. to execute the License Deed vide letter dated 23.11.2017 by depositing the requisite fees as per the provisions of the Act and Rules. According to petitioner, a copy of the said communication dated 23.11.2017 was also sent to the Ministry of Mines and after fulfillment of requisite conditions by M/s UA Mineral Pvt. Ltd., two Licence Deeds were executed on 30.11.2017.

24. According to petitioner, the Officials of Ministry of Mines i.e. the then Under Secretary, Mr. Vinay Kumar, Director, Smt. Veena Kumari Dermal and Joint Secretary, Mr. Bipul Pathak had unanimously taken a view on 04.12.2017, which is recorded in concerned file that in the light of the amendment in the CRZ Notification permitting mining in offshore areas and W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 12 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 the steps taken by the Administering Authority; there was no valid ground to challenge the order dated 09.11.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5734/2016.

25. However, the then Secretary of Mines, Mr. Arun Kumar, in his notes dated 05.12.2017 observed that IBM should have taken prior approval of the Ministry of Mines before taking decision to execute the exploration licenses in compliance of High Court orders and also that the letter dated 23.11.2017 issued to M/s UA Minerals Pvt. Ltd. inviting them to execute the license deeds, should be kept in abeyance. Mr. Arun Kumar further directed the petitioner to find out possibility of cancellation of two Deeds already executed in favour of M/s UA Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Once he was informed that under Offshore Area Minerals Development & Regulation Act, the powers to cancel the Deed for an exploration license solely lies with the Central Government, he insisted upon to get it legally examined to cancel the said Deeds.

26. Even though the officials of Ministry of Mines had put up a comprehensive note on the issue of grant of the exploration licenses and powers of the Central Government on this aspect, especially mentioning that under the OAMDR Act, 2002, the power to grant an operating right solely vests with the Administrative Authority, which does not require any prior approval from the Central Government; and also Comptroller General had approached the Ministry for approval on 20.06.2016 and it was decided that the Administering Authority is the Statutory Authority and the Ministry of Mines had no role to play in the decisions with regard to issuance of license pursuant to High Court order dated 09.11.2017; Mr. Arun Kumar, Secretary, W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 13 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 Ministry of Mines insisted on the filing of an appeal before a larger Bench on account of prohibition of mining in CRZ areas even though he had not found any infirmity with regard to statement of learned ASG made before this Court on 09.11.2017.

27. On 08.12.2017, the petitioner claims to have received a call from Ms. Veena Kumari, Director, Ministry of Mines, to stop the process of execution of Deeds for exploration licenses and to submit a comprehensive report on the issue of grant of licenses, to the Ministry forthwith. On telephonic direction as well as e-mail dated 08.12.2017, by Ms. Veena Kumari, Director, Ministry of Mines, petitioner claims to have sent a comprehensive report dated 11.12.2017 explaining as to why order dated 09.11.2017 passed by this Court should not be challenged before the larger Bench.

28. The petitioner is aggrieved that at no point of time, the statement made by the learned ASG before this Court was under scrutiny and no discussion was ever held by the Ministry of Mines on the correctness of such statement. The petitioner further claims that he did not receive any communication from the Ministry of Mines with regard to the submission of his Report dated 11.12.2017, wherein he had mentioned that the order dated 30.06.2016 was erroneous in law and there was no good ground available to file an appeal against the judgment of this Court. However, the then Director, Ministry of Mines namely, Ms. Veena Kumari Dermal proceeded to call/summon for all files of court cases pending before the Courts in respect of allocation process for grant of off-shore exploration licenses from last 8-9 years.

29. According to petitioner, the Ministry of Mines had defended its case W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 14 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, which decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, however, by summoning the records of such cases, the Ministry of Mines tried to sit in appeal with mala fide intention to allege irregularities in the grant. The petitioner claims that he was not even the Controller General in IBM at the time of grants of Licenses as well as decisions rendered by the High Court of Bombay and the Supreme Court.

30. Further claimed by the petitioner that when Ministry of Mines showed its inability to produce all the records pertaining to the procedure of grant of license, Mr. Arun Kumar, the then Secretary and Ms. Veena Kumari, Director called only the records of grantees, who had approached Delhi High Court viz. M/s UA Minerals Pvt. Ltd in order to nullify the grants and pressurize the petitioner that the execution of deeds for exploration licenses should not be done.

31. The petitioner has also averred that while the records from IBM were awaited, the officials of Ministry of Mines looking after the off-shore area matters and who had put up notes on 04.12.2017 and 06.12.2017 were abruptly transferred to other locations, among few names were Mr. Vinay Kumar, Mr. Vipul Pathak and Mr. Niranjan Singh.

32. At the same time, two other companies, who had filed writ petitions before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur with whom execution of deeds were not carried out on the oral discussions of the officials of the Ministry, filed applications in their pending writ petitions seeking execution of deed as had been issued in favour of M/s UA Minerals Pvt. Ltd. In its reply to those applications, IBM in its affidavit dated 16.12.2017 averred that the process of execution of deed for exploration license was underway.

W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 15 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27

33. Ms. Veena Kumari, Director vide e-mail dated 09.11.2017 informed that the process for filing an appeal before the High Court of Delhi was being considered and she personally visited IBM office, Nagpur on 17.12.2017 and asked them to withdraw their affidavit filed on 16.12.2017 before the Court and filed a fresh affidavit on 18.12.2017.

34. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted before this Court that Secretary of Mines, Mr. Arun Kumar, in his notes dated 05.12.2017, did not consider the statement of learned ASG made before the Court on 09.11.2017 and in Review Petition filed in February, 2018, the plea taken was that the learned ASG without knowledge of Secretary of Mines, Mr. Arun Kumar, had made such statement and there is no explanation as to why he did not record any such reason in his notings when the file was first placed before him on 04.12.2017.

35. Also submitted that at the first hand, the then Secretary of Mines, Mr. Arun Kumar was interested in early disposal of contempt application filed by M/S UA Minerals and did not raise any objection when the same was disposed of, however, thereafter, during his visit to IBM office on 06.12.2017 he specifically enquired about status of the case and upon coming to know about execution of two Deeds in favour of M/S UA Minerals, he directed the petitioner to check out possibility to cancel the Deeds.

36. Learned counsel also submitted that after more than three months of passing of order dated 09.11.2017 by this Court, a Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2018 was issued to Mr.Vinay Kumar, the then Under Secretary to create a false ground in Review Petition No.103/2018 in W.P.(C) No. W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 16 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 5734/2016 filed on 23.02.2018, that he had acted without authority of law, even though Mr.Arun Kumar did not in his observations dated 05.12.2017 and 07.12.2017 mention any irregularity on the part of officials of the Ministry of Mines.

37. M/s. UA Minerals Pvt. Ltd. filed a Contempt Petition No. 165 of 2018 against Mr. Arun Kumar and Mr. A.K. Malik, Under Secretary, Ministry of Mines who had replaced Mr. P. Vinay Kumar, the earlier Under Secretary and had sworn the false affidavit in the Review Petition.

38. During pendency of Review Petition No.103/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 5734/2016 and Contempt Petition No. 165 of 2018, two other writ petitions came up for hearing before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court wherein the officials of Ministry of Mines were asked to file affidavit stating facts given in Review Petition. According to petitioner, the Ministry of Mines hid the fact that M/s UA Minerals Pvt. Ltd. had challenged the false averments made by it in the Review Petition by filing a contempt petition before Delhi High Court.

39. Vide order dated 26.03.2018, an enquiry was thus initiated by the Officers of Ministry of Mines through CVO, Hindustan Copper Limited to look into any act of omission and commission undertaken by the petitioner while following order dated 09.11.2017 by the petitioner; even though a CVO for IBM could have also conducted such an enquiry. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 04.04.2018 to CVO, HCL with all supporting documents.

40. The said CVO submitted its report to the Ministry of Mines holding that the entire exercise undertaken by the petitioner as Administering W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 17 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 Authority was in accordance with law and no infirmity or irregularity was found.

41. The petitioner claims that vide e-mail dated 10.04.2018 to the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, requested for appointment of independent Officer to examine the report of CVO, HCL doubting the actions of Mr. Niranjan Kumar Singh, Joint Secretary cum CBO (since Mr. Arun Kumar had superannuated on 31.03.2018) and Ms. Veena Kumari Dermal, Director, being mala fide, but to no avail.

42. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in order to protect contempt action as well as to protect learned ASG, the report of CVO, HCL was rejected by Mr. Niranjan Kumar Singh, Joint Secretary, who was Incharge of affairs of IBM and in the capacity of CVO, IBM, as it could have proved the false and incorrect stand taken by the Officials of Ministry of Mines before the Court.

43. Being aggrieved petitioner preferred a representation before the Central Vigilance Commissioner, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) with copy to Vigilance Commissioner on 24.04.2018 but no action was taken by the CVC.

44. Further submitted that petitioner was superannuating on 30.04.2018 and since from 29.04.2018 till 30.04.2018 were official holidays, being Saturday, Sunday and a Gazetted holiday; he was served with Memorandum of Charge dated 26.04.2018. Also, in the charge sheet there is no mention of report of CVO, HCL. Even petitioner's request for supply of copies of charge sheet and other documents in reference thereto, were not furnished to him and his request was turned down vide letter dated 07.05.2018 and the enquiry proceeded further.

W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 18 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27

45. The petitioner preferred OA No. 2198/2018 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, wherein pleadings were completed and he also filed an application MA No. 174/2019 for stay of disciplinary proceedings, however, the orders in said OA and application were deferred awaiting for outcome of judgment in W.P.(C) 7537/2018 and connected petitions, whereby the Annulment Order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the then Controller General annulling the notification dated 07.06.2010 inviting applications for allotment of exploration license and subsequent annulment order dated 05.04.2011, was challenged.

46. Subsequent upon judgment dated 06.02.2019 in in W.P.(C) 7537/2018 and connected petitions, whereby this Court directed the Administering Authority to execute the exploration License Deeds within 04 weeks and passed serious strictures against the conduct of officials of the Ministry of Mines The petitioner made a representation to CVC on 11.02.2019 to bring on record the mala fides committed by the Officers of the Ministry of Mines namely, Arun Kumar, former Secretary (Mines), Mr. Niranjan Kumar Singh, Joint Secretary cum CVO and Ms. Veena Kumari Dermal, Director, who in order to illegally benefit a private company namely, Trimex Group of Companies of Andhra Pradesh engaged in illegal mining of beach sand minerals, initiated departmental inquiry against him out of personal vendetta.

47. The CVC by O.M. dated 15.03.2019 directed an independent investigation under Section 8(1) (d) of CVC Act against the aforesaid Officers to be conducted by Mr. R.S. Bhatti, CVO, Airports Authority of India Ltd. In the meanwhile, Officials of Ministry of Mines sent a proposal to CBI on 01.04.2019 to reopen the petitioner's inquiry which was earlier W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 19 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 closed in the year 2013.

48. Ministry of Mines had also preferred appeals [LPA No. 183/2019 and connected appeals] against the judgment dated 06.02.2019, which were dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.04.2019 holding that the action of the petitioner executing the exploration licenses being correct and directed the administering authority to execute the exploration licence within two weeks.

49. Even the Special Leave Petitions being Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11759/2019 preferred by the Ministry of Mines against the judgment dated 25.04.2019, were dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that no interference was required in the judgment passed by the High Court and policy decisions would be prospective in nature and the CBI enquiry has to be in accordance with law and shall be subject to decision of the High Court.

50. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the actions of the petitioner, as the Administering Authority, were held to be correct by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court and the action of the Officials of the Ministry of Mines were proved to be malicious and mala fide, the enquiry initiated by the Officials of the Ministry of Mines against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. Despite placing on record copy of the judgments, the learned Tribunal did not take the same into consideration and dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner vide order dated 05.11.2019, which is assailed in the present petition. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal has ignored the judgments by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court and has thereby committed a grave error by ignoring the fact that no ill motive was attributed to the petitioner and so, charge-sheets W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 20 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 served upon the petitioner deserved to be set aside.

51. On the other hand, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that the order for grant of exploration license was conditional subject to the terms and conditions, however, large scale irregularities were committed which came to be noticed in public domain. The Report of CVO dated 19.07.2011 highlighted that due diligence was not made while scrutinizing the applications apart from other various flaws in procedure adopted. Moreover, the CBI enquiry Report dated 28.03.2013 also highlighted serious procedural irregularities. Therefore, the Administering Authority vide order dated 30.06.2016 annulled/ cancelled the Notification dated 07.06.2010 with effect that all the subsequent actions undertaken for grant of 62 exploration licenses vide order dated 05.04.2011 stood rescinded.

52. Learned counsel further submitted that since many successful applicants had challenged the process of allocation before various courts, the Ministry of Mines had kept the process in abeyance as the matter was subjudice before different courts and subsequent upon issuance of Annulment Order dated 30.06.2016 by the Administering Authority, the issue was set to rest.

53. Further stand of respondent is that respondent No.1- Ministry of Mines preferred a Review Petition against the order dated 09.11.2017 in W.P.(C) 5734/2016 which was disposed of on the basis of statement of learned ASG, on the ground that the said statement was made by learned ASG under the instruction of the then Under Secretary, without approval from the competent authority.

W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 21 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27

54. Attention of this Court was drawn to Para-9 of judgment dated 09.11.2017 to submit that the Administering Authority was directed to issue exploration license in pursuance of order dated 05.04.2011 ‗in accordance with law', despite which petitioner executed and signed two Exploration License Deeds in haste, without following due process of law and without checking the validity of documents submitted by M/s UA Minerals which were submitted about seven years ago at the time of applying for grant of exploration license, without concurrence of Ministry of Mines.

55. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner vide letter dated 23.11.2017 advised M/s UA Minerals Pvt Ltd. to execute the License Deed for exploration license granted on 05.04.2011, without seeking approval from the Ministry of Mines and copy of which was received by the Ministry on 28.11.2017.

56. It is pointed out that vide order dated 09.11.2017 this Court had set aside the Annulment Order and thereby the Notification dated 07.06.2010 remained in existence and the grants of license for the same need to be issued as per procedure; whereas the petitioner despite being aware that the evaluation of the applications was not fair, signed the Lease Deed.

57. Also averred on behalf of respondents that the petitioner was charge- sheeted on 26.04.2018 and his appeal (OA No. 2198/2018) was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 05.11.2019. From the publication of Notification dated 07.06.2010 till the order for grant of exploration license and even subsequent conduct during the pendency of the W.P.(C) No. 5734/ 2016, manifested a compromised mechanism warranting a full-fledged criminal investigation and, therefore, the Ministry of Mines, vide communication dated 01.04.2019 intimated the CBI to take necessary W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 22 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 action, in response whereof CBI vide letter dated 08.04.2019 informed that the enquiry was reopened.

58. Attention of this Court was also drawn to petitioner's petition [W.P.(C) No. 1404/2019] against reopening of investigation by the CBI, wherein this Court did not grant any stay of proceedings. However, petitioner in order to stall CBI investigation, preferred a separate petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and fraudulently, obtained stay order, however, operation of which was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 31.05.2019 [in SLP (criminal) 20131/2019] with permission to CBI to proceed with the enquiry, but subject to further orders.

59. According to respondent No.1, the petitioner has misinterpreted the order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) 11759/2019 [against judgment in LPA 202/2019] by stating that the Supreme Court has upheld the judgment dated 06.02.2019 and 25.04.2019, whereas the Supreme Court has held that the CBI inquiry has to be in accordance with law and would be subject to decision of the High Court and cannot be confined against individual company. By holding so, the Supreme Court has permitted the CBI to proceed further with the enquiry, as prayed by respondent No.1- Ministry of Mines vide its letter dated 01.04.2019.

60. Lastly, it was submitted that the order dated 05.11.2019 has been passed by the learned Tribunal on the well settled principles of law that if the charge sheet is issued to an employee, the truth of the allegations has to be tested in departmental inquiry and only if the delinquent official is aggrieved of the outcome thereof or any procedural lapse in inquiry, the same can be challenged before the appropriate Forum. The present petition is thus premature and since the disciplinary proceedings and enquiry have W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 23 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 not attained finality, wherein the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet shall be decided; the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Reliance was placed upon decisions in Union of India Vs. Upender Singh 1994 (3) SCC 357 and Ministry of Defence Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha 2012 (11) SCC 565.

61. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 27.04.2018 at about 3:30 PM on the day of his retirement and by then he had already seized from his service and assumed status of a pensioner and thus, an inquiry could not have been initiated under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in view of decision of this Court in Sanjay Tiwari Vs. State of UP, SS No. 28414/2019.

62. Further submitted that the petitioner herein in executing the License Deed in favour of M/s UA Minerals Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of Offshore Areas Minerals Development and Regulation Act was in accordance with law pursuant to directions of this Court vide order dated 09.11.2017 in WP (C) No. 5734/2016 whereby it was directed that exploration licenses be granted in pursuance of order dated 05.04.2011 and in accordance with law. Also submitted that the order dated 05.11.2019 in OA No. 2198/2018 was passed by the learned Tribunal by brushing aside the judgment dated 06.02.2019 in WP (C) No. 7537/2018 and judgment dated 25.04.2019 in LPA No. 183/2019 [against judgment dated 09.11.2017].

63. It was averred on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Single Judge in Paras 73, 76, 78 and 100 of the judgment dated 06.02.2019 has severely deprecated the actions of the officials of Ministry of Mines and observed W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 24 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 that the actions amount to colourable exercise of power and legal malice and said finding has been upheld by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 25.04.2019 while holding that the judicial scrutiny and CBI enquiry is nothing but a mala fide attempt to deny the benefit of the court's orders to the licensees for extraneous reasons. Reliance was placed upon decision of this Court in Than Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2003(3) SLJ 440 (Del) and State of Punjab Vs. V.K. Khanna and Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 330 to submit that a charge-sheet can be challenged to avoid harassment and public humiliation of a public official.

64. Reliance placed by respondent upon decisions in Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (Supra) and Upendra Singh (Supra), was opposed by the petitionersubmitting that these decisions do not deviate from the settled principle of law stating that there is absolutely no bar challenging the charge sheet. Reliance was also placed upon decision of this Court in Than Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2003(3) SLJ 440 (Del) to submit that the Court can interfere even at the stage of charge sheet if the grounds permit so.

65. The submissions advanced by learned Counsel representing both the sides were heard at length and the impugned order, material placed on record and decisions cited, have been gone through by this Court.

66. The challenge to the impugned order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal essentially pertains to the Memorandum of Charge dated 26.04.2018 issued against the petitioner by respondent No.1-Ministry of Mines.

W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 25 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27

67. The foremost question for consideration by this Court is as to whether the Memorandum of Charge dated 26.04.2018 can be quashed at the stage of inquiry?

68. Respondent has placed reliance upon decision in Upendra Singh (Supra) and Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (Supra).

69. In Upendra Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court in an appeal preferred by the Union of India against quashing of charges by the learned Tribunal, held that the Tribunal cannot take over the functions of the Disciplinary Authority and even if the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is challenged before the Tribunal, it has no jurisdiction to look into the truth of charges. However, also observed that in the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law.

70. In Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (Supra), the issue for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether the authority, lower or higher than the appointing authority, can initiate the proceedings against a delinquent on grounds of alleged misconduct. The Supreme Court observed as under:-

―8. The law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground of delay in W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 26 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent employee and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstance.‖

71. In Than Singh (Supra) the petitioner had challenged denial of his promotion before the learned Tribunal in the year 1997 even though charge sheet was served upon him in the year 1993. During pendency of his review petition, the disciplinary proceedings were in progress and after conclusion of inquiry, he was found guilty and penalty was imposed upon him. The petitioner herein has approached this Court pleading that the Tribunal had not taken into consideration the grounds taken by him. This Court in the facts of the said case observed that when a person is promoted without any demur whatsoever, unless it is shown that his promotion was subject to the order of disciplinary proceedings either contemplated or pending, it would be presumed that the same has been condoned and the decision of the Tribunal was set aside.

72. In State of Punjab Vs. V.K. Khanna and Ors. (Supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of biased action of the authorities, observed as under:-

"34. The High Court while delving into the issue went into the factum of announcement of the Chief Minister in regard to appointment of an enquiry officer to substantiate the frame of mind of the authorities and thus depicting bias

-- what bias means has already been dealt with W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 27 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 by us earlier in this judgment, as such it does not require any further dilation but the factum of announcement has been taken note of as an illustration to a mindset viz.: the inquiry shall proceed irrespective of the reply -- is it an indication of a free and fair attitude towards the officer concerned? The answer cannot possibly be in the affirmative. It is well settled in service jurisprudence that the authority concerned has to apply its mind upon receipt of reply to the charge-sheet or show-cause as the case may be, as to whether a further inquiry is called for. In the event upon deliberations and due considerations it is in the affirmative -- the inquiry follows but not otherwise and it is this part of service jurisprudence on which reliance was placed by Mr Subramanium and on that score, strongly criticised the conduct of the respondents (sic appellants) herein and accused them of being biased. We do find some justification in such a criticism upon consideration of the materials on record.‖

73. While observing above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. V.K. Khanna and Ors. (Supra) held that mala fide intent or biased attitude cannot be put on a strait-jacket formula but depends upon facts and circumstances of each case and in that perspective judicial precedents would not be of any assistance and as such we refrain from further dealing with various decisions cited from the Bar since facts are otherwise different in each of the decisions.

74. The settled position of law is that before a charge sheet is quashed in writ proceedings, the severity of the allegations leveled are required to be adjudged either by the Tribunal or the Court. However, since the learned W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 28 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 Tribunal refused to consider the pleas urged by the petitioner in his appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court against thereof.

75. In the present case, the undisputed facts are that Vide S.O.1341(E) dated 07.06.2010 private companies were invited to apply for exploration licences and the Administering Authority vide order dated 05.04.2011 granted exploration licences over 62 blocks to 16 successful applicants, however, since allotment was challenged before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and High Court of Madras, the Deed of Exploration Licences, could not be executed.

76. The High Court of Bombay at Nagpur found no infirmity with the selection process and dismissed the petition [W.P.(Civil) 1502/2011] vide judgment dated 17.09.2013, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 31.03.2014 [in S.L.P. (C) 5530/2014].

77. Since judgment dated 17.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, attained finality, the IBM, vide letter dated 23.06.2014 to the Ministry of Mines, sought directions for executing the Deeds for exploration licences. The relevant paras thereof read as under:-

―Sub: Offshore exploration licenses- Request for directions on consequential actions to be taken subsequent to Writ Petition /Writ Appeal disposed of and pending -reg XXXXX However, as the exploration licenses have already been granted, conducting personal hearing for the applicants who have not been qualified for grant of any block, shall only be formality.

W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 29 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27

XXXXX IBM had issued the orders, as stated above, on 05.04.2011 as per the existing statutes. Except the Writ Petition No. 12835/2011 filed by M/s Trimex Sand Pvt. Ltd. in the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, all other writ petitions/ writ appeal have been disposed. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in its order dated 22.06.2011 had stated that ―meanwhile if any steps are taken for grant of exploration licenses, these shall be subject to further orders from the Court‖. The Hon'ble High Court in its subsequent order dated 11.07.2021 states that ―the interim order granted earlier shall continue unitl further orders‖. Further developments in the matter have not been informed by the Asst. Solicitor General of India, Hyderabad.

In the light of above, it may kindly be suggested whether the licences granted can be executed first, followed by providing opportunity to all unsuccessful applicants for personal hearing or vice-versa. As all the blocks have been granted, in either of the case there would not be any scope for grant of blocks to the unsuccessful applicants. It may also be suggested whether we would wait for the final outcome of the above referred Writ Petition No. 12835 of 2011.

The stand to be taken on the above issues is a policy matter and if necessary, opinion of Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi may W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 30 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 please be sought and intimated accordingly for further necessary action.

This has approval of the Controller-General In-

charge.‖

78. The above noted extract of letter dated 23.06.2014 written to the Ministry of Mines by IBM, clearly shows that it had sought opinion and approval in respect of executing the Deeds for Exploration Licences.

79. It is worthy to note here that by virtue of Gazette Notification dated 11.02.2010, the Controller General in the Indian Bureau of Mines is the Authorized Officer. The relevant is extracted as under:-

―The Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II - Section 3 - Subsection (ii) PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY No.290 NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2010/MAGHA 23, 1931 NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 11th February, 2010 S.O.340(E). - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (i) of Explanation to Section 22 of the Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002 (17 of 2003), the Central Government hereby notifies the Controller General in the Indian Bureau of Mines, to be the authorized officer.‖

80. However, the respondent- Ministry of Mines vide Gazette Notification dated 30.06.2016 annulled the Notification dated 07.06.2010.

W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 31 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27

The said cancellation order dated 30.06.2016 was challenged by one applicant, namely, M/s UA Minerals Pvt. Ltd. by filing W.P.(C) No. 5734/2016 before this Court and other two applicants before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur.

81. The learned ASG appearing on behalf of respondent in W.P.(C) No. 5734/2016 made a statement before this Court on 20.07.2017 that order cancelling grant of exploration licences had been passed primarily on the ground of prohibition on mining in offshore areas in terms of CRZ notification dated 06.01.2011. However, Ministry of Mines in its affidavit dated 26.09.2017 clarified that mining of minerals not found on onshore were permitted in offshore areas.

82. Pursuant to the above statement of learned ASG made before this Court on 20.07.2017, M/s UA Minerals Pvt. Ltd. filed a contempt petition against the officers of Ministry of Mines, including the petitioner herein.

83. Thereafter, learned ASG on 09.11.2017 [in W.P.(C) No. 5734/2017] again made a statement before this Court that there was no impediment in executing the exploration licenses and so, the order dated 30.06.2016 directing annulment of Notification dated 07.06.2010 was set aside, with direction to the Secretary Mines to process the grant orders dated 05.04.2011 in accordance with law. The order dated 09.11.2017 reads as under:-

―6. During the pendency of the present petition, the respondents issued an order dated 30.06.2016, which was notified on 06.07.2016, annulling the notification dated 07.06.2010 (by virtue of which applications were invited for exploration licences) and all subsequent W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 32 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 actions undertaken for grant of exploration licence in respect of the 62 blocks.

Consequently, the petitioner amended the present petition to impugn the said notification.

7. Mr Sanjay Jain, learned ASG appearing for the respondents states that order dated 30.06.2016 was passed principally for the reason that some of the blocks fall within the area declared under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and activities such as mining are prohibited in CRZ. The impugned order was premised on the basis that since no mining could be done within the CRZ, no purpose would be served by granting exploration licences which are to be followed by issuance of production licences.

8. Mr Jain states that, in view of the notification dated 06.10.2017, there has been material change in CRZ Regulations. He now states that ―now there is no impediment for the order dated 05.04.2011 for grant of exploration licence to be processed further in accordance with law‖.

9. In view of his aforesaid statement, the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 notified on 06.07.2016 is set aside. The respondents would take further steps to process the grant of Exploration License pursuant to the order dated 05.04.2011 in accordance with law.‖

84. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 09.11.2017, the petitioner issued letter dated 23.11.2017 to M/s UA Minerals Pvt. Ltd. inviting them to W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 33 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 execute the Deed for Exploration, which were executed on 30.11.2017. However, the Secretary of Mines vide his note dated 05.12.2017 directed that the officials in the Ministry shall instruct the petitioner to keep the letter dated 23.11.2017 inviting M/s UA Minerals Pvt. Ltd. to execute the Exploration Licenses, in abeyance. Whereas in other writ petitions before the High Court of Bombay, the IBM in its affidavit dated 16.12.2017 stated that the process of execution of exploration licenses was underway, however, the said affidavit was withdrawn on the next day.

85. Relevantly, against the order dated 09.11.2017, M/S Trimex Sands Pvt. Limited preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court [SLP(C) 2348/2019], who was not a party in W.P.(C) No. 5734/2016, challenging correctness of the said order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of the fact that the said petition was disposed of pursuant to statement made by learned ASG before the Delhi High Court and that Union of India had also preferred Review Petition 103/2018 before Delhi High Court as well as decision dated 06.02.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7537/2018; without commenting upon any other aspect of the matter only considered the aspect of statement made by learned ASG before the court on the basis of incorrect/wrong briefing made to him by the concerned official. Even though the original writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5734/2016 opposed the aforesaid application but the Supreme Court restored W.P.(C) No. 5734/2016 before this Court for fresh disposal on merits.

86. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid SLP(C) 2348/2019 was listed before the Supreme Court on 15.01.2018 and vide judgment dated 25.04.2019, direction was issued to restore W.P.(C) No. 5734/2016. When the petitioner issued letter dated 23.11.2017 to M/s UA Minerals Pvt.

W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 34 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27

Ltd. inviting to execute the Deed for Exploration, which were executed on 30.11.2017, on that date no appeal was pending against order dated 09.11.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5734/2017.

87. Also, petitioner was exonerated from any misconduct on 07.04.2018 by CVO, HCL, however, the said report was rejected by respondents No.3 & 4 i.e. Shri Arun Kumar, Secretary (Mines) and Shri Niranjan Singh, Joint Secretary-cum-CVO and on their recommendation Charge Memo dated 27.04.2018 was issued to the petitioner.

88. This Court, in four petitions preferred by M/S Standard Metalloys Pvt. Ltd., M/S RVG Minerals and Metala Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Apex Mettalloys Pvt. Ltd. against the Annulment Order dated 30.06.2016, vide judgment dated 06.02.2019, on several grounds, inter alia held that Annulment Order dated 30.06.2016 was pre-mediated, illegal and passed without authority.

89. Respondent's challenge to the order dated 06.02.2019 was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA 184/2019 vide Judgment dated 25.04.2019 holding as under:-

―31. We may take note of the fact that the CRZ notification dated 06.01.2011 specifically carves out an exception permitting mining of rare minerals not found elsewhere outside the CRZ areas. In fact, Clause 4(ii)(g) which provides for permissible activities within the CRZ reflects that mining of rare minerals is allowed. We may also take note of the fact that the applications for grant of exploration licence were made for seeking permission to explore the availability of, amongst others, of minerals as are mentioned in the First Schedule of OAMDR Act including atomic minerals. That being so, the entire basis of the impugned order W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 35 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 dated 30.06.2016, namely the alleged mining within CRZ area not being permissible is erroneous. In fact, the learned Single Judge in para 81 of the impugned order holds that the order dated 30.06.2016 amounts to putting the cart before the horse inasmuch as unless and until exploration is undertaken and the reports disclose that there were no rare minerals/atomic minerals within the blocks granted, the alleged reasoning pertaining to prohibition on mining could not have been arrived at. In fact in these appeals, there is no challenge to the finding of the learned Single Judge regarding the issue of complete prohibition of mining in CRZ areas under the notification dated 06.01.2011. As far as the subsequent notification dated 06.10.2017 is concerned, this amendment, in our considered view, brings out further clarity on the rare minerals which can be mined under the CRZ. The amendment provides that atomic mineral as notified under Part-B of the First Schedule of the MMDR Act are permitted to be mined within the CRZ, The minerals mentioned, namely, ilmenite, rutile, zircon, etc. are identified as atomic minerals in Part B of the First Schedule to the MMDR Act. That being so, if the aforesaid minerals are found during exploration, there will be no impediment in granting the production lease for the said minerals as mining of the said minerals is expressly provided now by the CRZ notification. These facts were communicated by the then Controller General, IBM and the Administering Authority in his report vide e- mail dated 24.01.2017 to the Ministry of Mines by contending that in light of the CRZ notification dated 06.10.2017 now exploration W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 36 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 license can be granted even for atomic minerals. That apart, the clarification available on record dated 09.02.2018 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change also clarifies that mining of rare minerals was a permitted activity under the C.RZ notification dated 06.01.2011 and specified in Part B of the First Schedule to MMDRAct.

XXXXXX

33. That being the factual position, as discussed by the learned Single Judge, with reference to the specific reasons mentioned in the impugned order and, in our considered view, the same being in accordance to the statutory requirement, we find no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

90. As observed above, while upholding the order dated 06.02.2019 the impugned Annulment Order dated 30.06.2016 was set aside with direction to the respondent to execute the Deed of Exploration License within two weeks.

91. The respondent's challenge to the Judgment dated 25.04.2019 passed in LPA 184/2019, was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 11759/2019 vide order dated 29.07.2019, holding as under:-

―We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the High Court. The policy decision would be prospective in nature and it would be open to the Government of India to take action in accordance with law as per the policy decision including the W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 37 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 respondent. However, we make it clear that similar action has to be taken against all the players in field, 16 in number, and not against one individual. The directions of the High Court shall not come in the way in implementing the policy decision/action. However, the action taken shall be open to judicial review on its own strength and merits that has to be tested on the anvil of the law and the provisions of the Act in appropriate proceedings, if it is questioned.

We also make it clear that CBI inquiry has to be in accordance with law and would be subject to decision of High Court and it cannot be confined against individual company.‖

92. There is no doubt to the position that the plea of respondents to justify passing of Annulment Order dated 30.06.2016 in the garb of fresh guidelines, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while making it clear that the policy decision would be prospective in nature and the order shall be applicable in case of all the 16 applicants and also that the CBI enquiry shall be subject to orders of this Court.

93. It is pertinent to take note of few relevant paragraphs of Judgment dated 06.02.2019 in W.P.(C) 7537/2018, wherein the arbitrary action of respondent in issuing the Annulment Order dated 30.06.2016 has been observed:-

"75. The issue of overlapping of some blocks is nothing but an afterthought and the reasons have been manufactured to somehow cancel the grants so that the same can be re-allocated/re-

granted. The same is evident from the following W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 38 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 facts:

i. The notification inviting applications was issued on 07.06.2010 with prior approval and consent of Controller General and various competent authorities and departments of Government of India. The issue of overlapping was never raised by any such authority.

ii. In fact, a committee of experts had been constituted for the purpose of selection of successful applicants and such committee had members from IBM, GSI and NIO who also recommended the granting of such blocks without finding any fault therein including of the alleged overlapping. iii. The order of grant was issued on 05.04.2011 and the said authorities defended the action of grant before various High Courts viz. Chennai, Andhra Pradesh (Counter of UOI and IBM page 285-293) and Bombay (Nagpur Bench) (counter of IBM page 435-452) and rather vehemently defended the issue of overlapping raised by the writ petitioners before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. They never found any such illegality for a period of over 5 years since the issue of notification dated 07.06.2010.

iv. The fact that the said reason is manufactured one is also evident from the minutes dated 14.07.2015 at pages 167-168 wherein though IBM itself was asking for proceeding with execution of the exploration licenses without finding any fault, however, the then Secretary, Ministry of Mines directed that IBM should consider some process by which the present grants could be W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 39 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 cancelled and the blocks put up for re-grant.

In pursuant to such directions, reasons were manufactured. In fact, writ petitions had been filed before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5734/2016 as well as before the High Court of Bombay in W.P.(C) No. 3282//2016 and W.P.(C) No. 3625/2016. Notice by this Court was issued in the month of June 2016 and the Bombay High Court issued notice on 15.06.2016 wherein petitioners were seeking a mandamus/direction to IBM to execute the exploration licenses pursuant to grant. After waiving notice by IBM and Union of India on 15.06.2016, the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 was issued in a hurried manner with a predetermined approach.

XXXXX

93. In their attempt to justify the cancellation, the respondents have also sought to allege that in preliminary enquiry conducted by CBI, had found serious irregularities with the process of grant of exploration licenses. The respondent no.1 has suppressed the crucial fact that the said Preliminary Enquiry had been closed by CBI in early 2013 wherein it was concluded that no misconduct was found on the part of any public servant of IBM in the case. The relevant extracts of the answers given by the then Minister of Mines, Sh. Dinsha Patel while answering to a unstarred question in the Parliament on 21.2.2014 (page 480) is reproduced herein below.

―The Central Bureau of Investigation W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 40 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 has conducted a Preliminary Enquiry to investigate alleged irregularities in grant of Exploration Licenses in the offshore waters of Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea and concluded that no misconduct was found on the part of any public servant of IBM in the case.‖

94. In addition to above after the said Preliminary Enquiry, the Ministry of Mines and IBM both defended the selection process before Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay and vide its judgement dated 17.09.2013 in writ petition 1502 of 2011 upheld the process finding that the same was in accordance with law and that there was no infirmity with the allocation process.

XXXXX

100. In view of the above discussion and legal position, order dated 05.04.2011 created a vested right with the petitioner and the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 was passed without jurisdiction and was ultra vires the Act as there is no power of review with the Administering Authority. The respondents in order to the achieve their goal of reallocating the offshore blocks have manufactured the reasons cited in the impugned annulment order dated 30.06.2016 clearly suffers from colourable exercise of power and legal malice.

The purpose of exercise of power was to achieve an object, not provided under the OAMDR Act and more over without affording any opportunity to the allottees, the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 was only passed to W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 41 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 cancel the already granted exploration licences and re-allocate the same through auction.

Therefore, no public interest was involved.

Thus respondents have acted contrary to statutory provisions and now claim their action to be in public interest as an afterthought as is evident from the impugned order where there is no mention of any public interest. The main ground in the annulment order dated 30.06.2016 taken by the respondents herein that there was a blanket on mining under CRZ notification dated 6.1.2011 was absolutely incorrect and contrary to law as mining of rare minerals not found on onshore areas was always permitted within CRZ areas. This fact has been admitted by Controller General, IBM and Administering Authority in his report dated 11.12.2017 as well as Union of India, respondent herein in its affidavit dated 26.09.2017 filed before this Court as also by MoEFCC in its clarification dated 9.2.2018.

XXXXX

107. It is pertinent to mention here that the Administering Authority i.e. Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines had already considered the above issues pertaining to implication of CRZ notification dated 6.10.2017, overlapping of certain blocks with onshore areas and grant of mineral concessions to private parties for atomic minerals and the same is evident 2019:DHC:780 W.P.(C) 7537/2018 and batch matters Page 95 of 95 from its report dated 11.12.2017. It is only after considering of the aforesaid issues, the respondent no.2 herein has executed the deed for exploration licences W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 42 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 with one M/s. U.A. Minerals Pvt. Ltd. on 30.11.2017 and till date there is no stay on the said order.‖

94. It is worthy to note that petitioner was served with Memorandum of Charge on 26.04.2018 and the learned Tribunal dismissed his challenge against thereof, vide judgment dated 05.11.2019, by which time the order in W.P.(C) 7537/2018 and connected petitions, inter alia setting aside the Annulment Order dated 30.06.2016 was pronounced. The learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2019 did not consider the fact that Annulment Order dated 30.06.2016 was already set aside by this Court vide Judgment dated 06.02.2019 in W.P.(C) 7537/2018 and there was no occasion for the Disciplinary Authority to continue with the inquiry against the petitioner qua Memorandum of Charge dated 26.04.2018.

95. Even if it is presumed, though not correct, that the petitioner had with mala fide intention issued letter dated 23.11.2017 to M/s UA Minerals Pvt. Ltd. inviting them to execute the License Deeds, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that by virtue of judgment dated 09.11.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 5734/2016, the Annulment Order dated 30.06.2016 was set aside based upon the statement of learned ASG appearing on behalf of respondents, review whereof was sought by respondents pleading wrong instructions by officials. The said petition being W.P.(C) 5734/2016 was revived for consideration on merits pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court only on 29.07.2019 [in SLP ( C) 11759/2019] in an appeal filed by a third party. However, the petitioner in compliance of judgment dated 09.11.2017, being the Administering Authority, had called upon M/s UA W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 43 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 Minerals to complete the formalities and was certainly not in error at the relevant time. Moreover, vide letter dated 23.06.2014 written to the Ministry of Mines by IBM, the petitioner being the then Controller General had sought opinion and approval in respect of executing the Deeds for Exploration Licences. Also, by virtue of Gazetted Notification dated 11.02.2010, the Controller General in the Indian Bureau of Mines being the Administering Authority under OAMDR Act, did not require to seek sanction of the Central Government to comply with the judgment dated 09.11.2017 in W.P.(C) 5734/2016.

96. With regard to the plea of respondents that the petitioner proceeded to issue exploration license to M/s UA Minerals based upon the documents which were submitted about seven years ago at the time of applying for grant of exploration license, it cannot be denied that 377 applications from 53 applicants, were received and considered by the Screening Committee and M/s UA Minerals is one of the 16 selected applicants. However, the Administering Authority vide order dated 05.04.2011 had granted exploration licences over 62 blocks to 16 successful applicants, whereas the petitioner had joined to the post of Controller General only on 08.02.2017. Once 16 applicants were successfully selected by the then Administering Authority, the petitioner could not have and rightly not, re-indulged into the correctness of selection of the applicants. By virtue of Judgment dated 17.09.2013, High Court of Bombay at Nagpur had dismissed W.P. (Civil) No. 1502 of 2011 holding that there was no infirmity in the selection procedure. Moreover, the CBI inquiry which was conducted pursuant to a Newspaper Publication, was also closed in the year 2013, as is evident from W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 44 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 reply of question No. 4482 raised in Parliament and reply given thereto, which has been noted above in Para-90 (Para-93 of judgment dated 06.02.2019) above. During the course of hearing in the present petition, status of any other CBI inquiry, if pending, was not brought to the notice of this Court. Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.07.2019 in SLP (C) No. 11759/2019 has kept all the 16 successful applicants at par, thereby upholding the judgment dated 06.02.2019 passed by this Court, whereby direction was issued to issue Exploration Licenses in case of other applicants.

97. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner had any mala fide intention in issuing the letter dated 23.11.2017 inviting and executing License Deed in respect of M/s UA Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Instead, to our opinion, despite the fact that the selection of applicants pertained to year 2011 and petitioner had only complied the orders of this Court, that too with due information and opinion of higher authorities, issuance of Memorandum of Charge is nothing but an apparent attempt to harass the petitioner.

98. In the light of afore-noted observations, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 21908/2018 is hereby set aside. Consequentially, the Memorandum of Charge dated 26.04.2018 issued by the respondents against the petitioner, alleging misconduct on his part in not showing due diligence while executing License Deeds with M/s U.A. Minerals Pvt. Ltd.; acting against prescribed procedure and law and not adhering to the Notifications dated 06.01.2011 and 06.10.2017, is hereby quashed.

99. Accordingly, respondents are directed to release financial dues to W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 45 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27 petitioner within four weeks with simple interest @7 % from due date till payment, failing which the same shall incur interest @12% for the delayed period.

100. We also make it clear that in the present petition we have considered various orders passed by this Court as well as Supreme Court only for the limited purpose to ascertain whether in the facts of the present case, as existed in the year 2017, the petitioner's action to execute Deeds for Exploration of Licence on 30.11.2017 was bona fide and no opinion has been rendered on the merits on issues pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

101. With directions, as aforesaid, the present petition is allowed and accordingly disposed of. Pending applications are disposed of as infructuous.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE (SHALINDER KAUR) JUDGE MAY 28, 2024 r/rk/tb W.P.(C) 13494/2019 Page 46 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2024 15:27

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court