Karnataka High Court
The Sandur Manganese And Iron Ores ... vs Union Of India on 29 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB
WP No. 10766 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10766 OF 2024 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:
1. THE SANDUR MANGANESE AND IRON ORES LIMITED
REG OFFICE AT: SATYALAYA, DOOR NO.266
WARD NO.1, BEHIND TALUKA OFFICE
SANDUR - 583 119, DISTRICT BALLARI
CORPROATE OFFICE AT: 'SANDUR HOUSE' NO.9
BELLARY ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 080
REPRESENTED BY ITS WHOLE-TIME DIRECTOR
AND COMPANY SECRETARY
MOHAMMED ABDUL SALEEM.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed (BY SRI MUKUL ROHATGI. SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
by PRABHAKAR SRI AJIT WARRIER, ADVOCATE,
SWETHA
KRISHNAN SRI ANGAD KOCHHAR, ADVOCATE,
Location: High SRI ADIYA SARIN, ADVOCATE,
Court of SRI RISHIKESH MADHAV, ADVOCATE AND
Karnataka
SRI D.L.N. RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE,
INDIRA PRAYAVARAN BHAWAN,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB
WP No. 10766 of 2024
JORBAGH ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110 003.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS,
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
4. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
OFFICE OF DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
NEAR ZOO COMPOUND
RADIO PARK
BALLARI - 583 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. ARVIND KAMATH, ASGI A/W
SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, CGC FOR R-1 &
SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-2 TO R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29/01/2014,
BEARING F.NO.8-15/1994-FC ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1
(ANNEXURE-A) AS ILLEGAL, UNREASONABLE AND WITHOUT
JURISDICTION & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB
WP No. 10766 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the challenge in
this petition is addressed to the communication-cum-order dated
29th January 2014 issued by Government of India, Ministry of
Environment, Forests and Climate Change-respondent No.1 herein
and the decision reflected therein.
1.1 By the said communication, respondent No.1 required
respondent No.2-State Government to direct the
petitioner-Company to stop the mining operations and to obtain the
prior approval of the Central Government under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 for renewal of petitioner's two Mining
Leases.
2. The impugned order rests on the following grounds,
(a) The Forest Clearances which were granted to the
petitioner-Company on 12th March 2007 and 14th March 2007
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB
WP No. 10766 of 2024
respectively, which were for the period of 20 years, were
co-terminus with the mining leases given to the petitioner.
(b) Both the Mining Leases of the petitioner ended on 31st
December 2013, consequentially the Forest Clearances also
expired along with.
(c) The Forest Clearances therefore have to be got renewed
under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
2.1 The prayers made in this petition could be viewed in two
segments. The first prayer is to set aside the aforementioned
communication-cum-decision dated 29th January 2014. In second
part, a declaration is asked for that the petitioner is in possession of
the valid Forest Clearance till 31st December 2033 which is the
renewed period for Mining Leases. The other prayers advanced,
which are attendant and incidental to the second part prayer, is for
directing all the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue with
mining operations till 31st December 2033; the petitioner further
seeks direction against respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to execute
Supplementary Forest Lease Agreements in its favour in respect of
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB
WP No. 10766 of 2024
two mining leases for the extended period valid upto 31st December
2033.
3. The petitioner-the Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited,
a public limited company, operates in the Ballari District in the State
of Karnataka. The petitioner was granted mining lease in S.M. and
R.M. Block for excavation of Manganese Ore and Iron Ore from 1st
January 1954 for 20 years. In the lease area of the petitioner, the
mining operations had commenced much before coming into force
of the Indian (Forest) Act, 1927 when the erstwhile ruler of Sandur
State granted the mining lease to a Belgium Company over the area
of 29 square miles equivalent to 7511 Hectares. The said lease
came to be transferred to the petitioner from 1st January 1954.
3.1 While seeking to set aside the communication dated 29th
January 2014, and for pressing the other prayers in the petition, the
case of the petitioner is that the leases were granted initially for a
period of 20 years, which were renewed by the authorities from time
to time and that both the leases are presently made valid upto 31st
December 2033. Details of the leases as originally granted and the
renewal thereof from time to time by the Mining Department, as well
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB
WP No. 10766 of 2024
as the corresponding Forest Clearances given by the forest
authorities, are highlighted hereinafter.
3.2 It deserves to be mentioned that the petitioner had an
occasion to challenge the earlier order impugned in this petition
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Interim Application
No.208 of 2014 in the proceedings of Samaj Parivarthana
Samudaya and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, which
was Writ Petition (Civil) No.562 of 2009. On 10th February 2014,
the Apex Court passed interim stay order, "In the meanwhile, the
communication dated 29th January, 2014 of Ministry of Environment
and Forests to the effect that the applicant - the Sandur Manganese
and Iron Ores Limited shall stop all mining operations, shall remain
stayed,"
3.3 Subsequently, by the order dated 14th March 2024, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of said Interim Application,
permitting the petitioner to approach the High Court. The interim
order passed on 10th February 2014 was extended for further period
of two months. The present petition came to be filed in pursuance,
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB
WP No. 10766 of 2024
on 4th April 2024. This court by order dated 22nd April 2024, while
issuing notice, granted the interim protection for the petitioner.
3.4 In order to comprehend the controversy, the details of
extension of Mining Leases and the Forest Clearances in favour of
the petitioner, deserves to be noticed.
(i) On 1st January 1954, Mining Lease No.190 was granted for
20 years which expired on 31st December 1973.
(ii) The first renewal of the Lease occurred on 1st January 1974,
which was again for 20 years effective from the said date. The
leases were split into ML Nos.1179 and 1952 at that time.
(iii) The aforesaid Leases were again extended for 20 years from
1st January 1994. An application was made by the petitioner on 10th
December 2012 for extension, which was a second renewal. The
application was granted and the Leases were renewed as ML
No.2580 and 2581 upto 31st December 2013.
(iv) The third renewal was granted with effect from 1st January
2014 as Mining Leases Nos.2678 and 2679. The petitioner had
applied for renewal before the date of expiry as required in law.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB
WP No. 10766 of 2024
However, the same were extended subsequently by Notification
published on 23rd September 2014, with retrospective effect from 1st
January 2014.
(v) The extended period for Mining Leases is upto 31st December
2033. This is on account of operation of and application of Section
8A inserted in the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 by virtue of Amendment Ordinance of 2015
with effect from 12th January 2015, contends the petitioner.
3.4.1 As far as the Forest Clearances are concerned, the
requirement for the same became applicable when the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 came into force on 25th October, 1980.
For the extension granted to the Mining Leases on 1st January 1974,
the Forest Clearances were not applicable. The petitioner applied
for Forest Clearance on 29th December 1992 during the currency of
the Leases it held, which were to expire on 31st December 1993.
For the two Mining Leases, the petitioner was granted the Forest
Clearances on 6th December 1996 and 11th December 1996
respectively. These clearances were valid upto 5th December 2006
and 10th December 2006.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB
WP No. 10766 of 2024
3.4.2 The petitioner was granted temporary work permit on 14th
August 2002. The latest Forest Clearances granted to the petitioner
were on 12th March 2007 and 14th March 2007 respectively for two
Leases. They are made valid by the Central Forest Authorities upto
5th December 2026 and 10th December 2026 respectively.
3.5 At the stage when the third renewal was due for the Mining
Leases of the petitioner which were to expire on 31st December
2013, the applicability of Rule 24(A)(6) of the Mineral Concession
Rules, 1960 as then stood in the Rule book, was clarified by the
Forest, Ecology and Environment Department of the State
Government, by communication dated 10th January 2014, in relation
to the Forest Clearances of the Mining Leases of the petitioner.
3.5.1 The relevant extract of the said letter addressed to the
Principal Conservator of Forests, Bengaluru, is reproduced
hereunder,
"Sir,
SUB: Forest clearance approval for
mining leases in respect of ML
No.2580 and 2581 in favour of M/s.
SMIORE Ltd. in SM & RM Block,
Sandur Taluk, Bellary District -
clarification - reg.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB
WP No. 10766 of 2024
REF: 1. Your letter No.A5(1).MNG.CR.
245/92-93 (1179), dated 6.1.2024.
2. Letter of M/s. SMIORE dated
8.1.2024 addressed to Shri G.V.
Sugur, IFS, PCCF (HoFF).
---
The clarification as requested in your letter cited under reference is furnished as under:
2. The right of the Company to enter the forest lands covered by the mining leases in question is governed by the Lease Deed executed with the approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. These leases are valid until 14th November 2026 and 13th November 2026 in respect of ML No 2580 and 2581 respectively.
3. The right to carry on the mining activity in the forest lands covered by the aforesaid mining leases is governed by the MMRDA Act, 1957 and rules made thereunder i.e., MCR, 1960.
4. It is not disputed that the mining leases formally expired on 31.12.2013 and under the MMRD Act, 1957 read with MCR, 1960, the competent Authority in the State Government has extended the mining lease under the "deemed extension" provision in Rule 24A(6) of the MCR, 1960 made under the MMRDA Act as stated in the reference.
5. Therefore, the lessees are lawfully in the lands covered by the leases and the right to continue the mining activity beyond 31.12.2013 has also been duly extended by the competent Authority under law, as stated in the reference.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024
6. In the circumstances, the lessee shall be allowed to carry on mining activity in the leased lands covered by the Mining leases, based on the approvals given by the competent Authority for conducting mining operations, considering that the lease of the land for mining operations with the approval of the competent Authority for conduct of mining operations can be done until 14th November 2026 in case of mining lease in case of ML No.2581."
3.6 Respondent No.1 reasoned in the impugned order inter alia that the Forest Clearances given to the petitioner for two Mining Leases were co-terminus with the period of lease, and since the lease expired on 31st December 2013, the Forest Clearances could not be continued any further, obliging to petitioner to seek fresh clearance and approval for the mining operations. Firstly, the guidelines issued under the Act of 1980 in particular in para 4.16 was relied on. Secondly, it was stated that the renewal of Lease was liable to be treated as a grant of fresh lease and that prior approval of the Central Government in terms of Section 2 of the 1980 Act was required. According to respondent No.1-Authority, Rule 24(A)(6) of the Rules of 1960 was wrongly interpreted. 3.7 Noticing the statutory provisions applicable in the facts of the case, the Forest Clearance is required to be obtained under Section
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The provision deals with the restriction and the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.
3.7.1 The Section provides as under, "2. Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing.-
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;
(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government;
(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for re- afforestation.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section "non-forest purpose" means he breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for,-
(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants;
(b) any purpose other than re-
afforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild life, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, water holes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes." 3.7.2 Section 8 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 deals with the period for which Mining Leases may be granted or renewed. As it stood on the relevant date, that is on 31st December 2013, provided thus, extracting the relevant part,
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 "8. Periods for which mining leases may be granted or renewed.― (1) The provisions of this section shall apply to minerals specified in Part A of the First Schedule.
(2) The maximum period for which a mining lease may be granted shall not exceed thirty years:
Provided that the minimum period for which any such mining lease may be granted shall not be less than twenty years.
(3) A mining lease may be renewed for a period not exceeding twenty years with the previous approval of the Central Government.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, in case of Government companies or corporations, the period of mining leases including the existing mining leases, shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government:
PROVIDED that ...
PROVIDED FURTHER that ..."
3.7.3 Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, as it stood on the relevant date when third renewal as sought for, for the Leases, with effect from 1st January 2014, would operate. The Rule deals with renewal of mining lease, to provide in its sub-Rule (1) that an application for renewal of the mining lease shall have to be made in prescribed form to the State Government, at
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 least 12 months before the date when the lease is due to expire, and in that case the Lease would stand extended deemingly. 3.7.4 Rule 24A is reproduced herein in so far as it is relevant, more particularly sub-Rule (6) which has bearing on the controversy. This sub-Rule was operative when the petitioner had applied for renewal of Leases at the third stage from 1st January 1994, "24A. Renewal of mining lease.-(1) An application for the renewal of a mining lease shall be made to the State Government in Form J, at least twelve months before the date on which the lease is due to expire, through such officer or authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf.
(2) to (5) ........
(6) If an application for renewal of a mining lease made within the time referred to in sub-rule (1) is not disposed of by the State Government before the date of expiry of the lease, the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Government passess order thereon.
(8) to (10) ....." (highlighted here)
3.7.5 On 12th January 2015, in view of promulgation of the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB
WP No. 10766 of 2024
Ordinance, 2015, Section 8A was inserted in the Act. Section 8A(5) and Section 8A(6), as inserted are relevant, 3.7.6 Sub-Rule 8A(5) is as under, "8A(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2), (3) and sub-section (4), the period of lease granted before the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, where mineral is used for captive purpose, shall be extended and be deemed to have been extended upto a period ending on 31st March, 2030 with effect from the date of expiry of the period of renewal last made or till the completion of renewal period, if any, or a period of fifty years from the date of grant of such lease, whichever is later, subject to the condition that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with.
3.7.7 Sub-Rule 8A(6) is extracted below, 8A(6). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2), (3) and sub-section (4), the period of lease granted before the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, where mineral is used for other than captive purpose, shall be extended and be deemed to have been extended up to a period ending on the 31st Mach, 2020 with effect from the date of expiry of the period of renewal last made or till the completion of renewal period, if any,
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 or a period of fifty years from the date of grant of such lease, whichever is later, subject to the condition that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with."
3.8 The petitioner relies on the aforesaid amended provision to contend that its Leases which were by Notification dated 23rd September 2014 with effect from 1st January 2014 would stand renewed upto 31st December 2033, and in that context, the prayers for declaration that the leases are valid till 31st December 2033 and the prayers incidental to this are made.
3.9 The guidelines issued by Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest for the diversion of forest lands for non- forest purpose under Act of 1980, in particular, paragraph 4.16 in Chapter-4-Lease Period for Mining Lease, referred to and relied on for the purpose of passing the impugned order, is extracted hereunder, "4.16 The approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of forest land for grant/renewal of mining leases shall normally be granted for a period co-terminus with the period of mining lease proposed to be granted/renewed under MMRD Act, 1957 or Rules framed thereunder, but not exceeding
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 30 years. While recommending cases for approval under the FC Act, the user Agency/State Government shall indicate the period for which the mining lease is proposed to be granted/renewed under non compliance of stipulations to the satisfaction of MOEF, the clearance accorded may be summarily withdrawn."
4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate Mr. D.L.N. Rao assisted by learned Advocates Mr. Ajit Warrier, Mr. Angad Kochchar, Mr. Aditya Sarin, Mr. Rishikesh Madhav and Mr. Anirudh Anand for the petitioner, learned Additional Solicitor General of India Mr. K. Arvind Kamath with learned Central Government Council Mr. S. Rajashekar for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.2 to 4, at length. 4.1 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the impugned communication-cum-order submitted,
(i) Though the communication is based on the ground that the Forest Clearances ought to have been co-terminus with the mining lease period, in actuality, the Forest Clearances were never co- terminus, and that no law prescribed such a condition.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024
(ii) The very foundation and premise of the impugned order that Forests Clearances granted to the petitioner was co-terminus with its Mining Leases is patently erroneous.
(iii) Paragraph 4.16 of the guidelines issued under the Act of 1980, which are in the nature of departmental instructions, have no application to the facts of the case.
(iv) Respondent No.1-authority in the impugned order that the Mining Leases granted to the petitioner expired on 31.12.2013 was erroneous inasmuch as the petitioner had already filed renewal application on 10.12.2012, which was more than twelve months before the date of which the Mining Leases were to expire, as per the requirement under the provisions of law.
(v) On the date of passing of the impugned order, the renewal applications were pending. Not only that, by the notification dated 23.09.2014, the extension was given retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2014.
(vi) Even otherwise by virtue of Rule 24A(6) of the Rules, 1960 as it stood on the expiry or even on date of passing of the order, the period of lease stood deemingly extended.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024
(vii) Now that the Lease period stands extended till 31st December 2033, the Forest Clearances would remain valid till such renewed period.
4.1.1 Learned Senior Advocate proceeded to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause vs. Union of India [(2016) 11 SCC 455], to submit that all second and subsequent renewals which were assumed to be subsisting by the State Governments would expire with effect from 21st April 2014, which was the date when the Apex Court delivered judgment in Goa Foundation vs. Union of India [(2014) 6 SCC 590], and expressly, with effect from 18th July 2014 when the second proviso to Rule 24A(6) provided accordingly.
4.1.2 In the above regard, the following observations from the decision in Common Cause (supra) was pressed into service, "The amendment to Rule 24A made on 18.7.2014, more particularly, the second proviso to sub-rule (6), leaves no room for any doubt, that the automatic extension postulated with reference to the first renewal, would not apply to the second or subsequent renewals. It is therefore necessary to further conclude, that in cases of second and subsequent renewals, the amended Rule 24A(6) would
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 not extend the lease period for a further period of two years, from the date of amendment. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, in relation to renewal sought under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act (read with Rule 24A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules - amended on 18.7.2014), all second renewals which were assumed to be subsisting by State Governments, would expire with effect from the date of the judgment in the Goa Foundation case, i.e., 21.4.2014, and expressly, with effect from 18.7.2014, when the second proviso to Rule 24A(6) provided accordingly. Unless of course, the Government had passed an express order in writing, as mandated under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act, extending the subsisting mining lease by a second or subsequent renewal." (Para 16) 4.2 Learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Karnataka, on behalf of respondent No.1-Union of India made the following submissions,
(i) In order to carry out mining activities in a forest area, the petitioner is required to obtain the Mining Lease as well as approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and thus, the permission granted under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is always co- terminus with that of the Mining Lease.
(ii) The guidelines are issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests regarding diversion of forest
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 land for non-forest purposes under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
- Guidelines IV 4.16 was heavily relied on.
(iii) In the instant case, the Mining Lease of the petitioner admittedly expired on 31st December 2013 and according to the Rules referred to above, though Forest Clearance was valid till 5th December 2026 and 10th December 2026, they stood expired on 31st December 2013.
(iv) The petitioner having obtained renewal of Mining Leases afresh is at liberty to apply for fresh permission for obtaining the necessary 'No Objection Certificate' under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. But, the petitioner cannot contend that the Forest Clearance granted earlier is valid.
(v) Impugned communication dated 29th January 2014 issued by the respondent No.1 is thus justified.
4.3 On behalf of respondent No.2-State, by filing affidavit-in- reply, following stand was taken,
(a) In impugned communication, the respondent No.1-Union of India requested the state authorities to require the petitioner to stop
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 the mining operations since the Lease had expired on 31st December 2013.
(b) Mining Leases was not renewed on 1st January 2014, but it was renewed from 1st January 2014 on 20th March 2025, retrospectively from 1st January 2014.
(c) In I.A. No.208 of 2014, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.562 of 2009, the Apex Court passed order on 10th February 2014 staying the order impugned now before this Court, for which liberty was granted by the Apex Court while disposing of the writ petition before it on 14th March 2024 by extending stay for two months.
(d) Thereupon, the petitioner requested respondent No.4-Deputy Conservator of Forest, Ballari by making a representation dated 21st March 2024 for extension of validity of Forest Clearances granted for Mining Lease No.2678 and 2679 till 31st December 2033. Respondent No.4 directed the petitioner to pay the balance of compensatory aforementioned amount.
(e) As per the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, though the petitioner was granted lease over different blocks in Swamymalai Forest Block and Ramanamalai Forest Block, petitioner had to
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 provide compensatory aforestation for 1615.64 acres in respect of Mining Lease No.2678 (old No.2580) and 142.58 hectares in respect of M.L. No.2679 (old M.L. No.2581).
(f) The petitioner has provided compensatory aforestation for 985.74 hectares and for 57.58 hectares for the two Leases respectively. The petitioner has to provide balance compensatory aforestation for 629.90 hectares and 85 hectares respectively for M.L. No.2678 and 2679.
(g) Although Mining Leases under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is in force till 31st December 2033, unless the petitioner provides 629.90 hectares and 85 hectares of compensatory aforestation together with compensation aforestation charge for the two Mining Leases, the further possession of application for extension of Forest Clearance is not possible as per the provisions of Van (Samrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 (the 'Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980', as renamed).
5. Having noticed the facts, seen the provisions of law applicable and having considered the rival contentions, before adverting to the
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 merits of the controversy, even at the cost of repetition, the basic facts and events may be usefully recapitulated,
(i) The petitioner has got two valid licences for two Mining Lease Nos.2678 and 2679. They are since 1st January 1954, continued upto 31st December 2033 as per the last Mining Lease Deeds executed on 01.01.2014.
(ii) Upon coming into force of the Act of 1980, the petitioner obtained the Forest Clearances as required under the Act. The latest Forest Clearances are dated 14th March 2007 and 12th March 2007, granted to be valid till December 2026 by respondent No.1- competent forest authority.
(iii) During the subsistence of Mining Leases, at particular juncture, as the leases were to be expired on 31st December 2033, the petitioner applied for renewal on 10th December 2012 with effect from 1st January 2014.
(iv) By the communication dated 10.01.2014, respondent No.2- State Government clarified that period of mining leases of the petitioner shall have the deeming extension under Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024
(v) The impugned order dated 29.01.2014 came to be passed when the renewal applications are pending before the State Government.
(vi) As stated above, the impugned order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 31.01.2014 by filing interim application in pending Writ Petition (Civil) No.562 of 2009. The Hon'ble Supreme Court granted stay of the order dated 29.01.2014.
(vii) On 23.09.2014, the State Government issued notification for renewal of the Lease of the petitioner, with effect from 01.01.2014 retrospectively.
(viii) Section 8A was inserted in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, by the Mines and Minerals (Development) Amendment Ordinance with effect from 12th January 2015.
(ix) On 20.03.2015, the Lease Deeds in favour of the petitioner were executed. The Lease was executed to extend until 31.12.2033.
(x) On 01.05.2015 issued Central Government directives for deemed extension of validity of approvals under Section 2 of the
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 upto the period of co-terminus with the period of mining lease.
(xi) The Apex Court disposed of the interim application granting liberty it to approach the High Court, extending the stay for two months.
5.1 Two different law regimes operate parallely. One under the mining leases for grant of mining lease and the tenure thereof and the other for issuance of Forest Clearance. The Forest Clearance correspond to the entitlement for the lease operations. The Forest Clearance is issued in accordance with forest laws. While the grant of mining leases to the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the applicable Rules framed thereunder, the Forest Clearance is granted under Section 2 of the Act of 1980. It is done after consideration of the application or proposal by the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of the said Act. 5.2 The Mining Lease period and the validity period of the Forest Clearance may not and need not coincide to be co-terminus always and in all cases. The Act of 1980 in its provisions does not require
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 that the Forest Clearance to be given under Section 2 of the Act, should be necessarily coinciding in terms of the period or that the Forest Clearance would terminate with the expiry of lease period and vice-a-versa, unless specifically provided. In the present facts, the Mining Leases of the petitioner and the Forest Clearances are not granted co-terminus in terms of their period. The premise of the impugned order has no legal conceptualization. 5.3 The details of Mining Leases granted to the petitioner, their tenure as renewed and extended from time to time and the details of issuance of Forest Clearances are given in the preceding paragraph Nos.3.4, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. More particularly seen at the relevant juncture namely at the stage of third renewal of the Leases which expired on 31st December 2013, the Forest Clearances were already granted on 12th March 2007 and 14th March 2007 respectively, and they were made valid till December 2026. 5.4 It is a hollow contention on part of the respondent-Union of India that the Leases of the petitioner stood terminated on 31st December 2013. They were subjected to renewal pursuant to application dated 10th December 2012 filed by the petitioner which
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 was made in time. The renewal was delayed by the authorities which was made by Notification dated 23rd September 2014, as stated above, extending the validity of the leases retrospectively from 1st January 2014. There was no hiatus in the validity period. No gap existed. In other words, it was not right either in law or in fact, to suggest that the Leases lapsed on 31st December 2013. It is to be noted that the Forest Clearances were valid at the point of time, when the leases were renewed with effect from 1st January 2014 as above, to stand valid till the year 2026. 5.5 As the provisions of Section 8 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 24A(6) of the Rules as they existed on 31st December 2013 or even on the date of impugned order dated 1st January 2014, as quoted in paragraphs 3.7.1 to 3.7.4 hereinbefore, would apply, appreciating the facts in the context of the aforesaid provisions. Admittedly, the petitioner had applied for renewal within time in respect of the Leases which were to expire on 31st December 2013. 5.5.1 As per Rule 24A(6) above, the petitioner was entitled to seek renewal if the application was made within time, which was done by
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 the petitioner. The application was not disposed of by the State Government before the date expiry of the lease. In the circumstances, the Leases of the petitioner stood deemed to have been extended for a further period till the State Government passed the order. In the present case, it was Notification dated 23rd September 2014. The Mining Leases of the petitioner were retrospectively extended from 1st January 2014 and the deeds were executed accordingly on 20th March 2015. 5.6 The inescapable conclusion, therefore, by virtue of the operation of law as above, is that there was no termination of the Leases of the petitioner, much less existed any intermittent gap in between the expiry of the period and the renewal. The Lease period was extended retrospectively. The Leases continued to be valid and remained in subsistence. It is again to be recollected that at this stage, the Forest Clearances were available to the petitioner standing valid till 2026.
5.7 The Circular dated 25th November 1994-the guidelines pressed into service by the respondent to assert that the Forest Clearance has to be and was co-terminus with the lease period, is
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 not only a misplaced reliance, but the said guidelines do not apply to the facts of the petitioner. In addition to the aspect that paragraph 4.16 of the guidelines uses the phraseology 'grant/renewal of mining leases shall 'normally' be granted for a period co-terminus', the guidelines and its paragraph 4.16 are departmental instructions. They are of the nature of executive instructions only. 5.7.1 When Rule 24A(6) of the Rules aforementioned operated to extend the lease period of the petitioner by deeming fiction, and the leases of the petitioner which expired on 31st December 2013 were extended further as highlighted above, the guideline can neither have its effect or efficacy. It is well settled that the administrative instructions cannot override or supersede the provision of law. The contemplation in the guideline in paragraph 4.16 that the Forest Clearance shall be normally granted co-terminus with the period of lease, cannot nullify the legal position upon application of Section 8 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 24A(6) of the Rules, whereunder the period of lease of the petitioner stood extended deemingly for all logical purposes. When the position of law provides and operates otherwise, any position contrary thereto cannot be read or allowed to prevail on the
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 basis of the guidelines which are departmental or executive instructions having no statutory force. 5.8 The reasoning of the impugned order that the Forest Clearance to the petitioner was co-terminus with the lease period which expired on 31st December 2013, as per the stand of respondent No.1, to not hold good in law. The Mining Leases of the petitioner remained valid continuously having been renewed from time to time. The Forest Clearance for the leases is already granted by respondent No.1 till the year 2026, not to operate as co-terminus. The period of Mining Leases and the period of Forest Clearances were not treated by the competent authority to have a common point of terminus, nor such a situation is obtained or mandated in law. 5.9 From what is delineated and discussed as above, the stand on part of respondent No.1 that the two Mining Leases of the petitioner expired on 31st December 2013 does not hold good. The Leases were extended with effect from 1st January 2014 by virtue of Notification dated 23rd September 2014 retrospectively from 1st January 2014 and the Mining Leases were executed to that effect on 20th March 2015. At this stage of renewal, also operated to the
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 benefit of the petitioner Rule 24A(6) of 1960 Rules providing for deemed extension of the period of lease.
5.9.1 The second statement that the Forest Clearances granted to the petitioner were co-terminus, was also erroneous for the reason that the then Forest Clearances dated 12th March 2007 and 14th March 2007 were for a period of 20 years, valid upto 2026. The benefit thereof was available and extendable to the two Mining Leases which were extended for their tenure with effect from 1st January 2014 as above, without any gap.
5.9.2 The tenure extension for the Mining Lease and the period of validly of Forest Clearances stood and travelled parallel to go hand-in-hand. The petitioner would secure to its advantage the benefit of provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with the Rules framed thereunder, and on the other hand in respect of the validly stood Forest Clearances under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 5.9.3 The entire premise of the impugned order thus falls flat for its merit, not liable to be sustained in law.
6. This takes the Court to the second segment of prayers advanced in the petition, wherein the petitioner has prayed for declaration that the petitioner is in possession of valid Forest Clearance and that the same is valid till the renewed mining lease period, that is, upto 31st December 2033. The incidental prayers are made seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering with the mining operations at the lease sites by the petitioner till 31st December 2033 and further direct the respondents to execute the Supplementary Forest Lease Agreements for extended period upto 31st December 2033.
6.1 While there is no gainsaying that the Forest Clearances granted in respect of petitioner's leases on 12th March 2007 and 14th March 2007 are valid upto 5th December 2026 and 10th December 2026, the Court does not find it necessary to consider the aspect whether the Forest Clearance would stand as valid and accordingly extended upto 31st December 2033. At this stage, pronouncing on that score is premature.
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 6.2 It may be observed that a person intending to carry out mining activity in forest area, has to have the valid lease obtained for him under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as also the corresponding necessary permission under the Act of 1980 to run the Mining Lease. As stated above, the two grants are separate governed by different statutory provisions under two different enactments. In the present case, the Forest Clearances are granted to the petitioner upto 2026 and the petitioner's case is that because of extension of Mining Leases upto 31st December 2033, the Forest Clearances would automatically stand extended till the said period.
6.3 Admittedly, as the Forest Clearance granted in favour of the petitioner is valid till 05.12.2026 and 10.12.2026, under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief at the hands of this Court and to be considered for that prayer at this stage that the extension of Mining Leases till 31.12.2033, has the effect of extending his Forest Clearance till the said period. 6.4 It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the authorities to make necessary request if required at
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 any future point of time in accordance with law. The authorities concerned may take a decision in that regard as per law and on its own merits.
7. As a sequitur of the foregoing discussion, it is to be held and declared that the petitioner is entitled to continue mining operations in its Mining Leases Nos.2678 and 2679, for which the Forest Clearances as presently granted are valid upto 5th December 2026 and 10th December 2026 respectively, and further that in that view the petitioner is not required to obtain prior approval of the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for its Mining Leases.
8. Resultantly, the impugned communication-cum-order dated 29th January 2014 passed by respondent No.1 is not sustainable in law and becomes liable to be set aside. The same is hereby set aside.
9. The rest of the prayers made in the petition are not granted. They stand rejected.
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024
10. As observed, the liberty is reserved for the petitioner to agitate the same at the relevant future juncture, in required. No opinion on merits is expressed in that regard.
11. The petition is allowed accordingly to the above extent.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(M.I. ARUN) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1