Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babulal Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2025
..1..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:18583
W. P.No. 15149/2023 & others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 15149 of 2023
AJAY KUMAR PATHAK
Versus
STATE
TATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION No.10917 of 2020
BABULAL GUPTA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No.15143 of 2023
AJAY KUMAR PATHAK
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for petitioners in WP No.15149/2023 and
WP No.15143/2023.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHRISTOPHER
PHILIP
Signing time: 25-04-2025
10:27:55
..2..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
2025:MPHC-JBP:18583
W. P.No. 15149/2023 & others
Shri K.C.Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Ms. Warija Ghildiyal - Advocate
for the petitioner in WP No.10917/2020.
Dr.S.S.Chouhan - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
/State.
Reserved on - 03.04.2025
Pronounced on - 24.04.2025
ORDER
Per: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice
1. The petitioners by filing their respective petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought for the following reliefs:-
In W.P.No.15149/2023"(i) To issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 in F/3/1/2/0029/2023/12/1 vide Annexure Annexure-P/7.
(ii) To issue Writ of Mandamus and command the Respondent to permit the petitioner to operate mines situated at for additional period of 5 years.
(iii) Costs may be awarded."In W.P.No.10917/202
/2020 "(i) A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 17.07.2020 issued by respondent No.1 (Annexure P/24).
(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate the quarry for a full period of ten years subject to adjustment of the period for which the quarry was operated.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER PHILIP Signing time: 25-04-2025 10:27:55..3..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:18583 W. P.No. 15149/2023 & others
(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation."
In W.P.No.15143/2023/2023 "(i) To issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 in F/3/1/2/0029/2023/12/1 vide Annexure Annexure-P/7.
(ii) To issue Writ of Mandamus and command the Respondent to permit the petitioner to operate mines situated at for additional period of 5 year+.
year
(iii) Costs may be awarded."
2. In these petitions, the petitioners are seeking direction to the respondents to permit mit the petitioners to operate mines for additional period of 5 years. In the earlier round of litigation, the direction was issued by this Court to consider the representation of the petitioners for the same relief. However, the same were rejected by the respondent- authority. Being aggrieved, aggrieved the present petitions have been filed. Since the he facts and issues involved in the these petitions are same and similar, though the dates of events and number of annexures are different, the same are being disposed of by this this common order. The facts and annexures shall be discussed with reference to Writ Petition No. No.15149 of 2023,, however, facts of other petitions shall not be repeated for the sake of brevity being similar.
3. The case of the petitioner as narrated in the petition is that earlier vide order dated 04.04.1972, petitioner's father was granted mining lease for limestone over Khasra No.234, 235 and 237 admeasuring 16.264 hectare situated at village Hinota, District Satna for a period of 20 years Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER PHILIP Signing time: 25-04-2025 10:27:55 ..4..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:18583 W. P.No. 15149/2023 & others for which an agreement reement was executed on 29.05.1972. The said lease was got transferred in the name of the petitioner vide order dated 22.04.1991 22.04.1991.
Thereafter, the lease was renewed for first time for another span of 20 years i.e. from 05.05.1992 to 04.05.2012 04.05.2012. In terms of the provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the petitioner made an application for grant of second renewal on 26.04.2011 vide Annexure P/1. In the absence of any order on the said application, the petitioner had to stop the mining activities.
ivities. However, after delay of more than three years, the second renewal was granted by the respondents vide order dated 12.03.2015.
4. It is further submitted that the mining operation could not commence due to lack of prior environmental clearance as necessitated by the EIA Notification, 2006 2006.. Anyhow the petitioner could get environmental clearance on 19.07.2016 vide Annexure P/2. The grant of environmental clearance in favour of petitioner was followed by grant of consent orders by the M.P. Pollution Control Board vide grants of 'consent consent to establish establish' and 'consent to operate' dated 21.10.2016 and 13.02.2017. After fter compliance of all requirement requirements,, the agreement was executed on 11.09.2018 in respect of second renewal for the period from 05.05.2012 to 04.05.2022. However, the respondents did not consider the fact that a period of more than 5 years had already elapsed in the proceedings for obtaining second renewal. The same led to cessation of all the mining activities from the date of expiry of first renewal. It is submitted that a representation was filed seeking for extension of period of lease vide Annexure P/5. When the same was not decided, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition i.e. W.P.No.4945/2022 before this Court, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER PHILIP Signing time: 25-04-2025 10:27:55 ..5..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:18583 W. P.No. 15149/2023 & others 01.11.2022 with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, the respondent No.1 rejected the same vide order dated 10.05.
10.05.2023.
2023. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, the present petition has been filed.
5. The main grievance of the petitioner is only with respect to the non-exclusion exclusion of the period of delay tthat hat was caused in processing the renewal application of the petitioners from their original lease period. The stand of the petitioner is that due to above, the petitioner could only carry out the mining operation from the date date of execution of the agreement and not from the date of expiry of their previous lease.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while rejecting the representation of the petitioner by the impugned order,, the respondent authority did not consider the fact that the period of more than 5 years had elapsed in granting the second renewal. The delay caused in the proceeding of second renewal was only attributable to the respondent authority. Since the period of first renewal newal was to expire exp on 04.05.2012, the petitioner moved an application for grant of second renewal on 26.04.2011 26.04.2011.. The second renewal was granted to the petitioner for a period from 05.05.2012 to 04.05.2022 i.e. for a period of 10 years for which the agreement was executed on 12.07.2018, but due to delay in the proceedings, the petitioner could not operate mining actively from 2012 to 2018. Hence, he filed a representation before the authority requesting them to exclud exclude the period from 2012 to 2018, which was declined by thee impugned order.
7. Learned Government Advocate denied the averments of the petitioner. He submitted that there there is no illegality or infirmity in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER PHILIP Signing time: 25-04-2025 10:27:55 ..6..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:18583 W. P.No. 15149/2023 & others action of the respondents. The supplementary lease deed dated 04.10.2018 10.2018 itself would reveal that it is not a deed of renewal of mining lease but document of extension of existing mining lease of the petitioner for a period of 50 years with effect from 29.05.1972 by virtue of Section 8A(6) of the Mines ines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) egulation) Act, 1957 as amended in the year 2015 and the said period of 50 years expired on 04.05.2022. He further submitted that on insertion of Section 8A(4) of the Mines ines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) egulation) Act, 1957 and by enforcemen enforcementt of Rule 18 of the Mineral (Other Than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Mineral Minerals)) Concession Rules, 2016, after expiry of mining lease of the petitioner from May, 2022, mining lease for the same can only be granted through auction and there is absolute no provision rovision either under the MMDR Act, 1957 or Rules of 2016 to grant extension of mining lease as claimed by the petitioner. In absence of any enabling provision under the statutory enactment and rules, relief claimed by the petitioner for extension of mining lease cannot be granted.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record.
9. In the earlier round of litigation, petitioners filed w writ petitions which were disposed of with a direction to the State Government to consider and decide the petitioners' representation in accordance with law. In compliance of the said order, the respondents considered the representation and rejected the same by the impugned orders, order , which ha have been challenged by filing the present petition petitions.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER PHILIP Signing time: 25-04-2025 10:27:55..7..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:18583 W. P.No. 15149/2023 & others
10. As contended by the petitioners, petitioner the similar issue raised in the present petitions was considered by the Division Bench of thi this Court in Ravi Shankar Naik Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 2013 (1) MPLJ 298, wherein it was observed that the he sand quarry remained unoperated for the period for which the period of operation falls short of two years. The petitioner was deprived without his fault to operate the sand quarry for full period of the quarry lease granted to the petitioner for a period of two years years. It was held therein that the petitioner must be allowed to operate the mining for the full period of lease subject subjec to adjustment for the period for which he has already operated. The relevant para is reproduced, which is as follows:
follows:-
"3. Admittedly, there was no fault on the part of petitioner due to which he was stopped from operating the sand quarry. As already sta stated ted above, quarry lease granted to him was for a period of two years and he operated the same without any complaint till the passing of order dated 28-2- 2009 by the Collector. The Collector had passed the order stopping the petitioner to operate the sand quarry quarry in compliance of the interim order dated 19-2-2009 19 2009 of the High Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 1574/2008, which was finally dismissed on 29 29-9-2010.
2010. But, in the meantime, the remaining period of petitioner's quarry lease of two years expired. It is w well ell settled that "any procedure or course of action which does not ensure a reasonable quick adjudication has been termed to be unjust. Such a course is stated to be contrary to the maxim ''actus curiae neminem gravabit'', that an act of the Court shall prejudice prejudice none"
[See: Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, Bihar,(2001) (2001) 7 SCC 318, para 2.) 2 Admittedly, no third party interest has been created on the land of which quarry lease was granted to the petitioner. The sand quarry has remained unoperated for the period for whichh the period of operation falls short of two years. The petitioner was deprived without his fault to operate the sand quarry for full period of the quarry lease In Beg Raj Singh Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER PHILIP Signing time: 25-04-2025 10:27:55 ..8..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:18583 W. P.No. 15149/2023 & others Vs. State of U.P. and Others Others,(2003) 1SCC 726 the Supreme Court has held that where petitioner was wrongfully disallowed to operate the mining lease for the full lease period and the lease has remained unoperated and no third-
third party right is created, he must be allowed to operate the mining for the fu full ll period of lease subject to adjustment for the period for which he has already operated. The present case is identical to the case of Beg Raj Singh (supra).
4. For these reasons, we quash the order dated 12.12.2011 2011 passed by the Collector, Chhatarpur. We also direct that the petitioner shall be allowed to operate the sand quarry for a full period of two years subject to adjustment for the period for which he has already operated. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall remain liable to pay royalty aandnd make other payments to the State Government in accordance with the terms of the quarry lease."
11. The similar issue was also considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yogesh Khare Vs. State of M.P. and others in in Writ Petition No.7760/2012 decided on 13.10.2014 (reported in 2014 SCC OnLine MP 6082) wherein it was held as follows:-
"7. In the present case, the petitioner could not avail of the minimum lease period of 20 years between 2004 to 2011 because of the inaction of the Au Authorities thorities and the lapse, in no way, was attributable to the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner having pursued his remedy in accordance with law, was entitled for continuation of the mining lease for further seven years from 26th September, 2014, keeping keeping in mind that 20 years term of the original period prescribed under the lease deed vide order dated 27th September, 1994 would have ordinarily expired on 26th September, 2014. For, the petitioner was unable to avail of the mining lease between 2004 ttoo 2011 until the order was passed by the State Government on 10th May, 2011. The order passed by the State Government, therefore, could not have limited the mining lease period till 26th September, 2014 but also added the period spent by the petitioner before before the Court of Law between 26th September, 2004 till 10th May, 2011. That period will have to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER PHILIP Signing time: 25-04-2025 10:27:55 ..9..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:18583 W. P.No. 15149/2023 & others added from 26th September, 2014 and the petitioner would be thus entitled to commensurate extended mining lease period on that basis.
8. The petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ravi Shankar Naik vs. State of M.P. and another another,, I.L.R. (2013) M.P. 111. For the reasons already mentioned hitherto and the directions given to the Authority, it is not necessary to dilate further on this decision. The principle expounded in this decision also applies to the fact situation of the present case."
12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the respondent authority granted second renewal of mining lease to the petitioners for the period of 10 years. Before expiry of first renewal, the petitioners moved an application for grant of second renewal. The second renewal was as granted to the petitioner petitioners for a period of 10 years for which the agreement was executed later on but the petitioners could not operate mining activities for a complete period of 10 years in the absence of any order on the second renewal application before ore the expiry of first renewal for which the petitioners petitioner were not at their fault. They had to stop the mining activities and could not commence mining operation due to lack of prior environment environmental clearance which is an essential pre-requisite requisite for conducting mining operation. The issue in question has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Yogesh Khare and Ravi Shankar Naik (supra).
13. Since the issue is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Yogesh Khare and Ravi Shankar Naik (supra), we hereby quash the impugned orders rejecting the representations of the petitioners. Consequently, tthe petitioners shall hall be allowed to operate the mining for a full period of 10 years subject to adjustment for the period Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER PHILIP Signing time: 25-04-2025 10:27:55 ..10..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:18583 W. P.No. 15149/2023 & others for which they have already operated. It is needless eedless to mention that the petitioners shall remain liable to make necessary payments to the respondents in accordance with the terms of the mining lease.
14. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
C.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHRISTOPHER
PHILIP
Signing time: 25-04-2025
10:27:55