Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shree Cement Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 September, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2414 / 2016
Shree Cement Limited, Regd. Office : Bangur Nagar, Post Box
No. 33, Beawar - 305 901, Dist. Ajmer (Rajasthan) through its
Joint Vice President (Legal) & Power of Attorney Holder - Shri S.L.
Bhansali S/o Late Shri Pukh Raj Bhansali, aged about 59 years,
Resident of A-8, Shree Vihar, Shree Cement Limited, Bangur
Nagar, Beawar - 305 901, Dist. Ajmer (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Mines,
Department of Mines, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad
Road, New Delhi - 110 001
2. The State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302 001
3. The Minister of Mines, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan) - 302 001
4. The Principal Secretary to Govt., Govt. of Rajasthan, Mines
(Group-2) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302
001
5. The Principal Secretary (Mines), Department of Mines, Govt.
of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302 001
6. The Joint Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Mines
(Group-2) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302
001
7. The Director, The Directorate of Mines & Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur - 313 001 (Rajasthan)
8. The Mining Engineer, Department of Mines & Geology,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. D.D. Thanvi, Mr. Ramit Mehta,
Mr. Saurabh Maheshwari & Mr. Tarun Dudia
For Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, A.A.G. assisted by Mr.
Sunil Joshi
_____________________________________________________
(2 of 8)
[CW-2414/2016]
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Order 18/09/2017 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the Letter dated 17.10.2015 along with Order dated 27.10.2015 (Annx.59) passed by the respondent No. 6 revoking Letter of Intent granted in favour of the petitioner on 31.12.2014 though the same was granted at the State Government level after deciding priority in terms of Section 11(4) read with Section 11(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 on 17.12.2014 amongst 54 applicants, based on merits of the petitioner - company in respect of Mining Lease Application No. 23/2011 applied on 10.01.2011 over an area of 9.12 square kms. for Cement Grade Limestone of Block Parewar SN-V in Tehsil & District Jaisalmer.
While praying for the relief, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the Letter of Intent sanctioning in principle the mining lease in favour of the petitioner-company after according priority inter-se in terms of the provisions of Section 11(4) read with Section 11(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act of 1957' hereinafter) is done as had been done by according priority on 17.12.2014, it cannot be revoked on whims and fancy of the respondents in violation of the principle of natural justice as well as provisions of the Act and Rules. The same was passed without issuance of any show cause notice to the petitioner prior to such revocation. It is also contended that neither the review committee (3 of 8) [CW-2414/2016] had provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in its meeting held on 16.10.2015 and nor the respondent No. 4 prior to his letter of 17.10.2015 or the respondent No. 6 prior to issuing the revocation Order dated 27.10.2015 had provided the same. The Rule 26(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 clearly provides that even for refusal of application for grant and renewal of mining lease, the opportunity of being heard is to be given by the State Government to the applicant and in order to refuse to grant or renew a mining lease, it is necessary for the State Government to record the reasons in writing and communicate it to the applicant. It is also contended that the Review Committee in its' single day meeting held on 16.10.2015 decided to revoke all Letter of Intents and other grants totaling 601 in number and then, issued the Letter dated 17.10.2015 directing to the respondents to revoke all of them.
Subsequent to the LOI, an Ordinance was brought by the Central Government to amend the Act of 1957 called as Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015. As per the amended provision, LoI holders were protected with a mandate of mining lease on fulfillment of conditions of LoI within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the Ordinance i.e. 12.1.2015.
After issuance of the LoI, a Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L) was filed by one Ram Singh Kaswan bearing D.B. Civil Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 5940/2015 for seeking a direction not to grant mining lease to the petitioner company as per the recommendation of the State Government and instead, should be put to auction. Many (4 of 8) [CW-2414/2016] allegations were made therein with a prayer to refer the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The State Government filed reply justifying their action in all respects. The Division Bench considered all the issues raised therein and dismissed the petition vide Order dated 12.05.2015. The petitioner herein as well as M/s Wonder Cement Ltd. was one of the respondents in the Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 5940/2015. While dismissing the said P.I.L., it was specifically held as under :-
"The record reveals that process for allotment of Cement Graded Limestone Blocks started on14th October, 2010 i.e. almost three years before the date when respondent No.6 assumed the office of Chief Minister. Not only this the Law Department of Government of Rajasthan also opined almost a year before respondent No.6 assumed office that there was no provision for auction under Section 11 of the Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short `MMDR Act,1957'). Even the then Advocate General, in his opinion dated 18th December, 2012, stated that the prescribed procedure for grant of mining lease is through competitive process by inviting applications and that there was no provision to allot Cement Graded Limestone Blocks by auction within the ambit of Section 11 of the MMDR Act, 1957. There is also a communication dated 17th September, 2014 (Annexure-R3/2) of the Central Government addressed to respondent No.3 wherein it is stated that till appropriate amendments are made in the MMDR Act,1957 or that Act is replaced by a new Act, government must function within the ambit of existing provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is this background, respondent Nos. 11 to 14 were allotted Cement Graded Limestone Blocks on 31st December, 2014 in accordance with the provisions of the then MMDR Act, 1957. The petitioner could not produce any letter dated 16th September, 2014 of the Central Government directing the State Government to allot Cement Graded Limestone Blocks only by auction. Also, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate by showing any material as to how with the allotment of Cement Graded Limestone Blocks to respondent (5 of 8) [CW-2414/2016] Nos. 11 to 14, the State Government and Central Government have suffered loss of Rs.2,000/- crore. We, therefore, in the absence of any material against respondent Nos.6 to 14 regarding their involvement in the commission of any offence, find no justification to direct respondent No.2, Central Bureau of Investigation to register petitioner's complaint as First Information Report and to investigate the same.
The petition has no merit and is, accordingly dismissed summarily."
The review petition was also dismissed followed by dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Apex Court.
In spite of the above, the State Government cancelled the LoI vide its Order dated 17.10.2015 in all those cases where letters of intent were issued between 1.11.2014 to 12.1.2015. It was mainly on the ground that LoIs were issued hurriedly without maintaining priority in order of date of application, thus, transparency was not maintained. M/s Wonder Cement Ltd. was one of the them whose LoI was also cancelled vide same Order dated 17.10.2015.
M/s Wonder Cement Ltd. challenged the order of cancellation of LoI by maintaining a revision petition before the Central Government. The revision was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2016 remanding the matter to the State Government to take a decision as per law. The State Government was expected to take a decision within the limited period as the lease was required to be granted on or before 11.1.2017 as per the Ordinance of 2015. Since the State Government did not take a decision despite the direction of the Central Government, M/s (6 of 8) [CW-2414/2016] Wonder Cement Ltd. preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 126/2017 before the Jaipur Bench of this Court seeking a direction for grant of mining lease. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the learned Single Bench vide its Order dated 23.08.2017 and a direction was accordingly issued to consider and grant mining lease in favour of M/s Wonder Cement Ltd. pursuant to the LoI as under :-
"In view of the above, I do not find justification in the action of the State Government in not granting mining lease to the petitioner company despite completion of all the required formalities in terms of LoI i.e. prior to 11.1.2017. This court otherwise offered investigation of the case from the CBI instead of Lokayukta if any procedural irregularity or illegality has been committed but the State Government failed to demonstrate any irregularity or illegality in issuance of LoI.
In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition is allowed. The State Government is directed to consider the case and grant mining lease in favour of the petitioner company pursuant to the LoI. The compliance of the order would be made within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
Therefore, this Court finds nothing to distinguish the case of the petitioner-company from that of M/s Wonder Cement Ltd. (supra). Identical impugned orders have been passed in the case of the petitioner-company in pursuance to the same letter of the State Government dated 17.10.2015 on the basis of same grounds except that in the case of the petitioner-company, it has filed the writ petition directly before this Court. While explaining the same, it was stated that the present writ petition was filed before this Court without availing the alternative remedy as it required directions for relaxation under Section 6(1)(b) of the Act (7 of 8) [CW-2414/2016] of 1957 for area exceeding 10 square kms. from Ministry of Mines, Government of India as well as interim protection. However, the said relaxation is no more required under Section 6(1)(b) of the Act of 1957 as the said order has since been enhanced for the State of Rajasthan vide Order No. 16/33/2016 - M. VI dated 12.05.2016 from 10 square kms. to 50 square kms. in respect of the mineral limestone. Hence, no useful purpose will be served in relegating the petitioner-company at this stage before the respondent - State being covered by the ratio of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of M/s Wonder Cement Ltd. (supra).
This Court too in the case of M/s Karni Mines & Minerals Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8179/2016) and other connected petitions wherein a prayer was made for quashing of the same Letter dated 17.10.2015 vide which the State Government directed the respondent No. 2 therein to cancel all the Letters of Intent (LoI) issued between 01.11.2014 to 12.01.2015 as well as consequential Order dated 20.10.2015 cancelling the LoI, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the Orders dated 17.10.2015 as well as dated 20.10.2015. However, in those cases, a liberty was granted to the State to pass a fresh order after examining each case separately by a duly constituted Committee. In the present case, the same is not necessary in view of the observations of the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the D.B. Civil Writ (P.I.L.) No. 5940/2015 qua the petitioner and as stated above, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment rendered in the case (8 of 8) [CW-2414/2016] of M/s Wonder Cement Ltd. (supra).
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The Orders dated 17.10.2015 as well as dated 27.10.2015 cancelling the LoI are quashed. The respondent - State shall not raise the objection with respect to the limitation in reference to Section 10A (2)(C) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 for the reason that the petition is preferred before 11.01.2017 and the State Government shall accordingly proceed to consider the case of the petitioner-company for grant of mining lease in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.
Inder/106