Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Mr. Milan Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before expiry of the lease period of 10 years, which was granted pursuant to lease deed dated 16.08.2002, though the petitioner filed RML Application on 16.08.2011 along with all relevant documents including document with regard to setting up industry, the same was not considered. It is contended that the RML Application of the petitioner should have been disposed of by the authority on the basis of the old Rules, i.e., OMMC Rules, 2004. But keeping the matter pending for years together, when the OMMC Rules, 2004 got superseded by the OMMC Rules, 2016, even though the petitioner is protected under the OMMC Rules, 2016, more particularly by introduction of Rule 8A by virtue of the OMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2018, having set up an industry on 19.08.2016 before Rule 8A came into force on 21.05.2018, the authority should have applied its mind in proper perspective and allowed the RML Application, instead of rejecting the same vide Order dated 10.11.2020 which got confirmed in Order dated 13.09.2021 passed in the review petition. It is further contended that had the RML Application been considered under the old OMMC Rules, 2004, where Rule 15 required that an application for a mining lease or its renewal shall be made to the State Government in Form-F in triplicate through Deputy Director/Mining Officer having jurisdiction and shall be accompanied by the documents mentioned in sub-clause

3.1. It is further contended that even if amended OMMC Rules, 2016 came into force during pendency of his renewal application, which does not restrict the authority to grant renewal, rather it supports the case of the petitioner for renewal of lease. As such, by the time the renewal application of the petitioner was considered, he had already set up the industry on 19.08.2016. More so, by the time of incorporation of Rule 8A, which has been inserted by way of notification dated 21.05.2018 (the OMMC Rules, 2018), the petitioner had already possessed an industry. Thereby, his RML Application should not have been rejected mechanically without any application of mind and the law applicable to the petitioner. It is further contended that the authority should have considered the provisions contained under the OMMC Rules, 2004 vis-à-vis the OMMC Rules, 2016 and given effect to the same. Thereby, the order rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 46(1) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same should be quashed. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in the cases of Jagdish Singh v. Governor of Delhi, (1997) 4 SCC 435 : AIR 1997 SC 2239 and Kalyan Dombivalli Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, AIR 2022 SC 1618.

7. It is admitted by both the parties that the Government of Odisha in the Department of Steel & Mines granted a quarry lease over an area of 8.575 ha. in favour of the petitioner for Decorative Stone, vide Government Proceeding No. 6613/SM, dated 11.07.2002, in village Nuapada of Kalahandi district for a period of ten years. Accordingly, the lease deed was executed on 16.08.2002 giving effect from 16.08.2002 which was due to expire on 15.08.2012. Before expiry of such 10 years period, on 16.08.2011, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of mining lease along with definite plan for setting up industry, as required to be provided under Rule 15(1)(ix) of the OMMC Rules, 2004, as is evident from the documents annexed to Annexure-1 to the writ petition. When such renewal application was pending for consideration, the lease period expired on 15.08.2012. Thereafter, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and in supersession of the provisions contained in the OMMC Rules, 2004, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the State Government made "The Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016". The same was published in the Official Gazette on 15.12.2016. Therefore, the pending RML Application, which had been filed under the old Rules, i.e., the OMMC Rules, 2004, was protected under the new Rules, i.e. OMMC Rules, 2016. Even though the application had been filed on 16.08.2011, i.e., before expiry of lease period, till the new Rules, i.e. OMMC Rules, 2016 came into force on 15.12.2016, no action was taken with regard to grant of renewal. Though the application was submitted along with the definite plan, as required under Rule 15(1)(ix) of the OMMC Rules, 2004, in the meantime, the petitioner had established its industry on 19.08.2016. Therefore, the renewal was to be granted under Rule 8(2) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 extending the lease period for 30 years, as the earlier OMMC Rules, 2004 had already been superseded by virtue of commencement of the OMMC Rules, 2016. In spite of the same, the RML Application of the petitioner was not considered. But, in the meantime, on 21.05.2018, Rule 8A was inserted to the OMMC Rules, 2016 by way of amendment, i.e., the OMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2018, providing special provisions for lessees of decorative stones, where a specific provision was incorporated that the lessee has to set up an industry in the State based on the decorative stone extracted from the said leasehold area. Thereby, there is no iota of doubt that by the time Rule 8A of the OMMC Rule, 2016 came into force, i.e., on 21.05.2018, the petitioner had already set up its industry on partnership basis on 19.08.2016. As such, there is no restriction imposed under the Rules, with regard to setting up of an industry on partnership basis. But a notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.09.2020 asking him to show cause as to why his application for renewal of mining lease shall not be rejected. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner stated on 08.10.2020 that he had taken over an industry on 19.08.2016 on partnership basis, which is after expiry of the lease period, i.e., on 15.08.2012, for which the provisions of Rule 8A of the OMMC Rules, 2016 would not be attracted. There is no dispute before this Court at this stage that when the petitioner filed its application on 16.08.2011, he had produced the documents with a definite plan for setting up of an industry, as provided under Rule 15(1)(ix) of the OMMC Rules, 2004. Had the authority taken the decision on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner well within the time specified, then the matter would have been decided then and there only. Moreover, when the renewal of mining lease application was filed under the old Rules, i.e., OMMC Rules, 2004, it should have been decided on the basis of the said old Rules applicable to the petitioner.

8.1. A bare perusal of the opinion as extracted herein above would go to show that the Law Department proceeded with a wrong footing and consequentially the order, which has been passed on the basis of such opinion, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. More so, much reliance has been placed on the report of the Internal Verification Committee, which conducted a meeting on 02.03.2019 and found that the case of the petitioner for extension of lease period is not eligible for consideration, in view of Rule 8A of the OMMC Rules, 2016 due to non-compliance of the condition for setting up industry in the State during the lease period. The petitioner has not been given opportunity to place his fact before the said Committee, which has taken a view adverse to the petitioner. Even though, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he filed his reply, the same has not been considered in its proper perspective. Merely because the Law Department opined something, that cannot be utilized against the petitioner while considering the RML Application. This clearly speaks that the authority, who has passed the order, has not applied its mind, rather mechanically accepted the opinion given by the Law Department and passed the order impugned, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Both the OMMC Rules, 2004 and the OMMC Rules, 2016 have full application to the case of the petitioner for consideration of his application filed for renewal. If the petitioner had filed his application for renewal on 16.08.2011 under the OMMC Rules, 2004, whereunder Rule 15(1)(ix) requires that the petitioner has to produce the plan for setting up the industry and, in fact, the petitioner had submitted the same and on the basis of the required documents so furnished, the Mining Officer had made a positive recommendation for grant of renewal of mining lease. Keeping the matter pending for years together cannot disentitle the petitioner to get such renewal because of commencement of the OMMC Rules, 2016. On scrutiny of the said Rules, 2016 it is also made clear that the provisions contained under Rule 8 and Rule 8A, which has been inserted on 21.05.2018, cannot disentitle the petitioner to get renewal of his lease. Thereby, the provisions contained under the OMMC Rules, 2004 vis-à-vis the OMMC Rules, 2016 are to be harmoniously construed so as to reach a conclusion to consider the renewal application filed by the petitioner. 8.2. In Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation (supra), the respondent no.1 was initially appointed as an Assistant Municipal Commissioner of the appellant- Corporation and later also appointed as Assistant Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation. An FIR came to be registered against the respondent no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) along with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Commissioner of the appellant-Corporation passed an order suspending respondent no.1 from service. Subsequently, sanction was also accorded to hold departmental inquiry against respondent no.1, which was objected by the respondent no.1 for want of jurisdiction. Respondent no.1 did not join the inquiry and filed writ petition, which was allowed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Challenging the said order, the Municipal Corporation preferred appeal and the apex Court held that the legislature could not have intended a situation, wherein though the post of AMC is created by the State Government and a suitable person is appointed by it and though a person appointed on the said post becomes an employee of the Corporation, there would be no provision in the statute to initiate departmental proceedings against him. If such an interpretation is accepted, it would lead to absurdity and create a vacuum. In so far as the contention raised on behalf of respondent no.1, that the term "competent authority" as used in sub- section (1) of Section 56 of the MMC Act will have to be read as a "competent authority" in respect of appointments to be made for the posts in Chapter IV, is concerned, cannot be accepted. Such a restrictive meaning would render the legislation otiose. Thereby, the apex Court held that the High Court has totally erred in setting aside the suspension and the departmental proceedings initiated against respondent no.1. The effect of the impugned judgment is that the respondent no. 1, who has been, prima facie, found to be involved in a serious misconduct, has been left scot free without requiring to face any departmental proceedings and directed to be reinstated in services.