Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Jay Pee Rewa Cement vs Government Of India on 6 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1375
1 WP-6709-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 6 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6709 of 2011
M/S JAY PEE REWA CEMENT
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.S. Jaiswal - Senior Advocate with Shri Krishana Kumar
Gautam - Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Dy. Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
Shri Abhinav Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 10657 of 2016
M/S ANAMIKA MINERALS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhinav Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Dy. Advocate General for the respondents/State.
Shri R.S. Jaiswal - Senior Advocate with Shri Krishana Kumar Gautam - Advocate
for the respondent No.4.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 12-01- 2026 13:12:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1375 2 WP-6709-2011 The issues involved in these writ petitions are interlinked and common; thus, they are being heard and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of W.P. No.6709/2011 are being taken to decide the controversy involved therein.
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by respondent No.1/The Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, New Delhi, whereby the Revision No.16(28)/2005-RC-II filed by the respondent No.3 has been allowed.
Facts of the case, in short, are as under:-
3. The petitioner is a company that was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 ( Now 2013), engaged in the manufacturing of cement and mining business for the last several years. The petitioner had established 3 cement plants in District Rewa in the years 1986, 1991 and 1996 with a total capacity of 4.2 MT per annum. Now, the petitioner's company has been taken over with all three plants by M/s Jai Prakash Associates.
4. The petitioner applied for a grant of mining lease on 07.02.2003 for the extraction of limestone and laterite, which is a major raw material for the manufacturing of cement. The State Government Mining Department, after due verification of the need and the documents, granted an area of 212.451 hectares. vide order dated 03.05.2003 for mining purpose and also forwarded the recommendation for approval to the respondent No.1/Central Government. The aforesaid order was passed under Rule 22(4) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, with an instruction to the petitioner to prepare a mining plan.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 12-01- 2026 13:12:12NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1375 3 WP-6709-2011
5. At the same time, the respondent No.3 also applied for a grant of mining lease on 11.12.1999 for an area of 17.269 hectares. situated in Village Dangarhat, District Satna, over Kh. No.125/1K, 125/929/1, 125/929/2, 125/929/3, 125/929/4, 125/930 and 20. During the pendency of the approval of the petitioner before the respondent No.1/Central Government for an area of 212.451 hectares, the State Government granted an area of 17.269 hectares to the respondent No.3 for mining purposes. Therefore, there is an overlap of a major part of the mining area between the lease granted to the petitioner and respondent No.3.
6. According to the petitioner, the application submitted by the respondent No.3 was premature as the land was not available for mining after the lease was granted to the petitioner on 03.05.2003, and such order dated 16.09.2003 is void under Section 19 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The petitioner submitted an objection before the Collector, Satna, on 12.11.2004. The Collector vide letter dated 18.11.2004 proposed the cancellation of the mining lease granted to the respondent No.3.
7. The State Government issued a notice dated 22.01.2005 to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3 for a hearing before the Minister (Mineral Resources Department). The State Government, after hearing both parties, passed an order dated 20.04.2005 cancelling the grant of lease of area 17.269 hects. in favour of respondent No.3.
8. The respondent No.3 challenged the aforesaid order dated 20.04.2005 by filing Revision No.16(28)/2005-RC-II before the respondent Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 12-01- 2026 13:12:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1375 4 WP-6709-2011 No.1 (Central Government Mining Tribunal). The State Government filed a reply in favour of the petitioner before the respondent No.1/Central Government. Meanwhile, the petitioner has been granted the lease vide order dated 13.12.2005 after seeking relaxation from the respondent No.1/Central Government under Section 6(1)(b) of MMRD Act, 1957, r/w Rule 59(1) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
9. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.1/Central Government did not issue a notice to the petitioner for a hearing on 18.05.2010. The hearing was postponed to 29.06.2010 and then to 13.07.2010, but no notices were issued to the petitioner. On the date of the hearing, neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.3 was present. The Central Government/respondent No.1 proceeded with the matter and vide order dated 19.10.2010 allowed the revision of respondent No.3 and set aside the well-reasoned order dated 20.04.2005. Hence, these petitions are before this Court.
10. Vide order dated 25.04.2011, while issuing notice to the respondents, this Court restrained the respondent No.1/Central Government from executing the mining lease in favour of respondent No.3 in respect of the area in dispute, if already not executed. The respondent No.3 filed an application for vacating the stay, which came up for consideration on 12.08.2016. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Division Bench of this Court refused to vacate the stay, and the said stay order is continuing till date, i.e., last 13 years. Shri R.S. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel, submits that during the pendency of these petitions, the period of 20 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 12-01- 2026 13:12:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1375 5 WP-6709-2011 20-year lease granted to respondent No.3 has expired.
11. Vide order dated 16.09.2003, the State Government accepted the application submitted by the respondent No.3 for allotment of 17.269 hectares. of the land for the period of 20 years. The direction was given to obtain the NOC from the Collector and Forest Department, and an agreement was to be executed within 6 months. The respondent No.3 was permitted to enter for mining activities only after completing the formalities as well as demarcation by the Revenue Authorities. Due to the interim order passed by this Court, no agreement could be executed between respondent No.3 and the State Government. Now, admittedly, a period of 20 years of the PL granted to the respondent no.3 has expired, whereas vide order dated 13.12.2005, the petitioner was granted the lease of 102.983 hectares, after seeking approval from the respondent No.1/Central Government for a period of 30 years, which is still valid.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that there is no question of expiring the lease period of 20 years because the same would begin only after execution of the agreement with the state government. Due to the interim order passed by this Court, no agreement was executed. Therefore, the petitioner still has the right to operate the mines.
13. On merit, it is further submitted by the ld. counsel that the respondent No.1/Central Government has rightly held that respondent No.3 was undoubtedly a prior applicant/respondent No.3 than the present petitioner, and it was not given any opportunity while deciding in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the Revision No.16(28)/2005/RC-II is liable to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 12-01- 2026 13:12:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1375 6 WP-6709-2011 dismissed.
14. Shri Awasthi, learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that vide Amendment Act, 2015, Sections 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6, 13, 15, 21 and First Schedule were amended and simultaneously the Sections 8, 11 and 13 were substituted by new Sections 8A, 9B, 9C, 10A, 10B, 10C, 11B, 11C, 12A, 15A, 17A, 20A, 30B, 30C and fourth schedule with the aims an object to eliminate discrimination, improve the transparency in allocation of mineral resources, simplify the procedure, eliminate of delays, attract private investment and latest technology. There has been introduction of the method of allocation of mineral resources through auctioning under the newly introduced Section 10A has been in operation since 12.01.2015.
15. The validity of the aforesaid provisions came to be challenged before this Court in W.P. No.4278/2001 (Savita Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others) with a bunch of writ petitions. Vide order dated 11.03.2016, the writ Court has upheld the validity of the aforesaid changes in the MMDR Act, 1957. The Division Bench of this Court has upheld the validity and dismissed all the writ petitions. In Para-48, the Division Bench of this Court has considered the preservation of rights of the petitioners, who are covered by the exception carved out under sub-Section (2) of Section 10A of the Amendment Act, 2015.
16. The Division Bench has negated the right for the grant of a prospecting license and mining lease having accrued under the unamended provision of the MMDR Act, 1957. Paras-52 and 53 are reproduced below:-
52. We, accordingly, hold that irrespective of the stage the application for reconnaissance permit/prospecting license/mining Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 12-01- 2026 13:12:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1375 7 WP-6709-2011 lease is, unless the instrument as contemplated under Rules 7A, 15 or 31 of 1960 Rules is executed i.e. unless Form F or Form F-2 or Form K of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, as the case may be, are executed and acted upon, these applicants are not covered by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10A of the Amendment Act, 2015. Further, the applicant must also fulfil the requirement of clause (c) to be treated as falling under the preserved category.
53. In respect of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section10A of Amendment Act, 2015, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that with the communication of previous approval as required under sub-section (1) of Section 5, there is an accrual of right in such applicants for grant of mining lease. It is further contended that the letter issued by the State Government of intimating about the in-principle approval by the State Government and the Central Government would tantamount to be a letter of intent and the same would create right in favour of such applicants for grant of lease.
17. Therefore, in view of the above and due to the drastic change in the field of allotment of mining lease, no rights survive in favour of the respondent No.3, even if the revision petition has been allowed by the respondent No.1/Central Government. Hence, the said impugned order needs to be set aside as it has lost its effect due to a change in the Act and Rules along with the period of lease.
18. The petitioner was apprehending such an eventuality likely to happen in his case, hence the filed W.P. No.10657/2016 directly challenging the order dated 03.05.2003 (Annexure P/1) as well as the final order of Mineral grant dated 13.12.2005 (Annexure P/2) in favour of the present petitioner. Vide order dated 12.08.2016, only notices were issued, but no Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 12-01- 2026 13:12:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1375 8 WP-6709-2011 interim relief was granted, and W.P. No.10657/2016 has been tagged with W.P. No.6709/2011. There is a delay of 11 years in challenging these two orders, that too by way of writ petitions. The respondent No.3 had a remedy under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. Therefore, W.P. No.10657/2016 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position, the writ petition being W.P. No.6709/2011 deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Consequently, the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by respondent No.1/Central Government in Revision No.16(28)/2005-RC-II (Order No.446/2010) is hereby quashed and set aside.
20. Further, W.P. No.10657/2016, whereby respondent No.3 has challenged the order dated 03.05.2003 passed by the State Government as well as the subsequent mining lease grant order dated 13.12.2005 in favour of the petitioner, suffers from gross delay and laches and is otherwise devoid of merit. Accordingly, W.P. No.10657/2016 is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shruti
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 12-01-
2026 13:12:12