Karnataka High Court
M/S Aane Mines And Minerals vs State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.15824 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
M/S AANE MINES AND MINERALS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR.P.MAHESHKUMAR
S/O P. SUDHAKAR
PLOT NO.51, NAGARJUNA HILLS
PANJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD-500 034.
... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL
A/W SHRI. ANIRUDH ANAND, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
(MSME, MINES AND TEXTILE)
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
-2-
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.BHANU PRAKASH V.G., AGA.)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED: 06.01.2017 VIDE
ANNEXURE-J AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
EFFECT EXECUTION OF THE LEASE DEED AS PER THE
GRANT ORDER DATED: 09.06.2010, VIDE AT ANNEXURE-E
AND FURTHER TO CAUSE STATUTORY EXTENSION OF
THE LEASE PERIOD OF THE PETITIONER IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.8A(3) OF
THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AN
REGULATION) ACT, 1957 ALONG WITH STATUTORY
AMENDMENTS AND EXECUTE THE LEASE IN FAVOUR OF
THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. By consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. An application was made by the petitioner on 1st August 2006 for grant of mining lease of iron ore and -3- manganese. The application was made under Rule 22(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short "the said Rules of 1960"). The petitioner after submitting the mining plan, obtained clearance from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. By the order dated 19th June 2010, the State of Karnataka sanctioned mining lease over an area of 10.24 acres in Sy.No.12/P2, 19/15, 14/1B1 of Dindadahalli Village. The Act No.10 of 2015 was made by the Central Government for amending the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short "the said Act of 1957"). The amendments effected by the Act No.10 of 2015 came into force on 12th January 2015. On 6th January 2017, an order was made by the State Government once again granting mining lease to the petitioner over an area of 2.47 hectares (approximately 6.2 acres). This order was passed after considering the application as per the amended provisions of the said Act of 1957 by applying the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) -4- Concession Rules, 2016 (for short "the said Rules of 2016").
3. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the said order dated 6th January 2017 passed by the State Government. There is a prayer made for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to execute the lease in favour of the petitioner in terms of the earlier order.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment and order dated 31st May 2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of MEENA LAKHOTIA -V- STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1. His submission is that the present case is squarely governed by the said decision.
5. The submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate is that in this case, Sub-Section (1) 1 In W.P.No.30202 OF 2017 -5- of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 as amended by the Act No.10 of 2015 will apply and therefore, the mining lease can be executed only in accordance with Clause (c) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957. He invited our attention to the provisions of the said Rules of 2016 which came into force with effect from 4th March 2016. He relied upon Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 8 of the said Rules of 2016 contending that as the lease has not been executed on the basis of the order dated 19th June 2010 on or before 11th January 2017, the petitioner has forfeited his right under clause (c) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 10- A of the said Act of 1957 and therefore, it was not mandatory to the State Government to issue an order under Clause (c) Sub-Section (1) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957. He also invited our attention to the order of the Apex Court in the case of T.N.GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD -V- UNION OF INDIA dated 3rd February 2017 and urged that as per the directions issued by the -6- Apex Court, the mining lease cannot be executed as sought by the petitioner.
6. We have considered the submissions.
7. The entire controversy revolves around the applicability of Sub-Section (1) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 to the application made by the petitioners. Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 was incorporated by Act No.10 of 2015 with effect from 12th January 2015. In the said Act of 1957, the title of Section 10-A is the 'rights of existing concession holders and applicants'. Sub- Section (1) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 provides that all applications received prior to the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 2015 shall become ineligible. Sub-Section (2) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 is an exception to carved out Section 10-A by providing that the applications governed by clauses (a) to
(c) of sub-section (2) shall remain eligible even after -7- commencement of the amendment carried out pursuant to the said Act No.10 of 2015 notwithstanding Sub-Section (1) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957.
8. Perusal of Sub-Section (1) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 shows that obviously it deals with those applications for grant of lease, which are not disposed of as on 12th January 2015. This fact is clear as Sub-Section (1) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 provides that all applications received prior to 12th January 2015 shall become ineligible. Wherever, the applications are already decided and the State Government has taken a decision to grant mining leases prior to 12th January 2015, obviously Sub-Section (1) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 will have no application. Sub-Section (1) of Section 10-A does not make any application ineligible which is already decided. Where the application is already decided prior to 12th January 2015, there will not be any occasion for invoking the provisions in Sub-Section (2) of -8- Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957. In the present case, the application made under Rule 22(1) of the said Rules of 1960 was already disposed of by the order dated 19th June 2010 by the State Government by passing an order of the grant of the mining lease.
9. The reliance placed by the learned Additional Government Advocate on Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 8 of the said Rules of 2016 will not help him. The reason is that Rule 8 deals with the rights under the provision of Clause
(c) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957. If Sub-Section (1) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 has no application, obviously clause (c) Sub-Section (2) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 will have no application as sub-Section (2) is an exception to sub- Section (1). As sub-section (1) of Section 10-A will not apply for the aforesaid reasons, clause (c) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 10-A will have no application and therefore, the consequences provided in Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 8 of -9- the said Rules of 2016 will not operate in the facts of the case.
10. Now, coming to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meena Lakhotia (supra), in a similar case, the Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that Clause (c) Sub-Section (2) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 will apply in a case where on application made for grant of mining lease, the Central Government has communicated previous approvals as required by Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act of 1957 and it will not apply to the case where mining lease has been granted in pursuance of Sections 5 and 8 of the said Act of 1957.
11. We have carefully perused the order dated 19th June 2010 passed by the State Government. It clearly provides that the State Government has accorded sanction for grant of mining lease for a period of 20 years in
- 10 -
exercise of powers under Section 5 read with Section 8 of the said Act of 1957.
12. In view of express language used in the said order, there is no question of the application made by the petitioner becoming ineligible by applying Sub-Section (1) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 as the same was already decided by passing an order of grant of mining lease prior to 12th January 2015. In the circumstances, Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 as amended with effect from 12th July 2015 will have to be kept out of consideration in the facts of the case.
13. There is no other embargo shown in this case which prevents the State Government from executing the lease in terms of the order dated 19th June 2010.
14. Now, coming to the order dated 3rd February 2017, the direction of the Apex Court is that the State of Karnataka will not grant any mining lease except in the
- 11 -
accordance with the said Act of 1957 and other statutory requirements.
15. What the petitioner is seeking is the execution of the lease, strictly, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1957 as per the order dated 19th June 2010. Therefore, we do no think that the order of the Apex Court comes in the way of the petitioner.
16. Perusal of the impugned order dated 6th January 2017 shows that it proceeds on the assumption that Clause (c) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957 is applicable to the facts of the case. The said assumption is completely erroneous.
17. Accordingly, the petition must succeed and hence, we pass the following order:
a) The impugned order dated 6th January 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside;
- 12 -
b) There will be a writ of mandamus in terms of the prayer clause (2) of the writ petition;
c) Necessary documents shall be executed by the State Government within a period of three months from today;
d) The petition is allowed in the above
terms.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM