Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Petitioner/ firm applied for grant of mining lease for extraction of 'quartz' and 'silica sand' for area ten hectare but the Director Mining who was the competent authority to decide the application has passed an order dated 28/07/2022 (Annexure P/1) whereby provisionally lease was ordered to be granted for area 09.400 hectare for thirty years and petitioner/ firm was directed to complete all the formalities for further execution of the lease deed.

5. Petitioner proceeded for completion of all formalities as required for execution of the mining lease and thereafter lease deed under Form no.27 Rule 21(2)(a) was executed on 15/09/2022 in favour of petitioner/firm. Petitioner/ firm completed all the formalities and a certificate dated 21/12/2022 verifying the fact that there is no objection for grant of lease by the Forest Department and Revenue Department was issued. Although, said certificate was not filed. Not only this, petitioner/ firm also applied for grant of certificate by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority known as "SEIAA" and SEIAA granted its permission on 21/03/2023.

6. The Mining Plan was also approved by the competent authority vide approved mining plan dated 20/12/2022. After completion of all the formalities, demarcation of the area was conducted by the Revenue Authority and report was submitted to the Mining Division and thereafter, possession of the area was handed over to the petitioner/firm on 23/12/2022. Thereafter, vide order dated 24/01/2023, petitioner/ firm was granted permission to extract the quartz and silica sand up to ten cubic meter and for that purpose, royalties was also issued to the petitioner. When petitioner started operating the mining, Director Mining passed an order dated 07/03/2024 for execution of lease deed in favour of petitioner/firm for the period of thirty years and in the said order, it is mentioned that petitioner has to complete the formalities (though same has already been completed by the petitioner) within a period of three months, failing which, the order of grant was directed to be deemed to be revoked.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ State filed reply and opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. He submits that it is true that petitioner performed due diligence as contemplated under M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as "Rules, 1996") but during pendency of the appeal, the Government of India issued a notification dated 20th February, 2025 whereby the minor minerals 'quartz' and 'silica sand' were deleted from schedule V which has been framed under Rules, 1996. Meaning thereby, under grant of lease, power of Director Mining has been revoked and quartz and silica sand were included in Major Minerals and not remained Minor Minerals.

19. In the present case, it appears from the impugned order dated 28/07/2025 (Annexure P/1) that initially Incharge Mining Officer Mining Branch, District-Gwalior passed the impugned order dated 05/09/2024 (Annexure P/3) on the ground that petitioner has not completed due formalities regarding agreement, therefore, as per Rule 26 of the Rules, 1996, lease was revoked. However, Director Mining vide impugned order dated 03/03/2025 declined to extend the period for execution of lease deed. So far as State Government is concerned, this fact came to the knowledge vide impugned order that earlier as per notification dated 10/02/2015, 'Quartz' and 'Silica Sand' were declared as Minor Mineral. Central Government taking into consideration the provisions of Rules, 1996 held 'Quartz' as 'Minor Mineral' under entry 25 and 'Silica Sand' under entry 29 of Schedule V. However, vide Gazette Notification dated 20 th February, 2025, Central Government exercising power of Section 3 of the Act, 1957 amended the notification issued earlier on 10 th February, 2015 in which Quartz entry No.25 got deleted. However, fate of Silica Sand is not mentioned in the said Gazette Notification. In the said notification, 'Quartz' was included in the Major Mineral, but so far as 'Silica Sand' is concerned, picture is still hazy and not clear. Therefore, in the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, execution of lease deed so far as 'Quartz' is concerned is not tangible and therefore, plea of petitioner regarding Quartz is rejected.