Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Mr. S. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that a declaration be issued that a right has been accrued in favour of the petitioner-

company in view of statutory fiction/deeming provision and even otherwise in view of inaction/delay on the part of the State Government in disposing of its application for grant of prospecting license prior to the coming into effect of OMMC Rules, 2016 on 14.12.2016. As a consequence thereof, if a right has been accrued in favour of the petitioner-company, in view of provisions contained in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the prospecting license stands granted in favour of the petitioner-company considering the processing of the application and/or Sub-rule (12) of Rule-4 of OMMC Rules, 2016 introducing disqualification clause is in the // 7 // teeth of Article 13 of the Constitution of India, as the same is arbitrary and ultra vires to Articles-14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and repugnant to Clause (i) of Sub-section (2) of the Section 18 of the MMDR Act,1957 and inconsistent with GCD Rules, 1999. An alternative submission is also made that in view of ambiguity and vagueness in Sub-rule (12) of Rule-4 of OMMC Rules, 2016 regarding disqualification of prospecting license/ mining lease application, the same may be read down to exclude the prospecting license application of the petitioner from being declared "ineligible" as the prospecting license having been acted upon and, in the instant case, the prospecting license is deemed to have been granted in terms of 2nd proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule-10 of the OMMC Rules, 2004 and/or in view of the accrued right in terms of Section-6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 prior to the coming into force of OMMC Rules, 2016 on 14.12.2016.

5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for opposite party no.3 contended that there is no violation of any provisions, as alleged, and, as such, no vested right can be accrued in favour of the petitioner-company, when his application for prospecting license is pending for consideration. In the meantime, by operation of law if the application has been declared ineligible, in that case the application so submitted by the petitioner-company can also be declared as ineligible i.e. in consonance with the provisions of law and, as such, it cannot be construed that it is ultra vires of any provision, as alleged. 5.1 He further contended that the GCD Rules, 1999 have been framed by the Central Government under Section 18 of the MMDR Act, 1957, whereas OMMC Rules, 2016 have been framed by the State // 12 // Government under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and both are different. Meaning thereby, OMMC Rules, 2016 are framed for regulating grant of mineral concession in respect of minor minerals, whereas GCD Rules, 1999 are framed regarding conservation and systematic development of granite. Therefore, these two Rules have been framed under two separate provisions for two separate purposes, therefore, it cannot be said that Sub-rules (4) and (12) of Rule-4 of the OMMC Rules, 2016 are inconsistent to the GCD Rules, 1999. Thereby, it is contended that learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has misconstrued the provisions of law and, as such, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, that provisions contained in Sub-rules (4) and (12) of Rule-4 of the OMMC Rules, 2016 are ultra vires to GCD Rules, 1999 and also Articles-14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, is absolutely misconceived one. Therefore, the writ petition merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.

17. Rule-80 of the Rules, 2004 deals with repeal and savings. By commencement of OMMC Rules, 2004, the earlier Rules, i.e. OMMC Rules, 1990 were repealed. Sub-rule (2) of Rule-80 states that notwithstanding such repeal anything done, any action taken or order passed under the rules so repealed shall be deemed to have been done, taken or passed under the corresponding provisions of these rules, and shall be brought into conformity with the provisions of these rules within three // 24 // months from such commencement or such further time as the Government may specify in this behalf. Thereby, any order or any step taken under the OMMC Rules, 1990 has been protected under Sub-rule (2) of Rule-80 even after commencement of OMMC Rules, 2004.

26. Considering the same from another angle, it is made clear that the provisions contained in OMMC Rules, 2016 are the policy decision of the State Government, which, inter alia, seek to bring // 36 // transparency in the allocation of mineral concessions by providing that the mineral concessions for granite and all other minor minerals, shall be granted only through auction. Prior to this Policy decision, prospecting license and mining lease for granite were being granted under the provisions of the OMMC Rules, 2004 without competitive bidding through auction. In the OMMC Rules, 2016, it has been provided for auction of prospecting license-cum-mining lease and mining lease for granite and all other minor minerals which is in public interest as it seeks to bring transparency in the grant of minor mineral concessions. But, OMMC Rules, 2016 contain provisions for protecting of vested rights of the applicants who have been granted prospecting license and mining lease prior to commencement of these rules as provided under Rule 4(13). The exceptions provided in Rule 4(13) are similar to the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957 and all applications for major mineral concessions received prior to date of commencement of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 have been declared as having become ineligible // 37 // subject to the exceptions provided under Section 10A(2) thereof. Similarly, all applications received prior to commencement of OMMC Rules, 2016, i.e. 14.12.2016, have become ineligible subject to exception provided under Sub-rule (13) of Rule-4 OMMC Rules 2016 and the petitioner does not fall within the exception clause of Rule-4(13) so as to claim the benefit and, as such, the application submitted by the petitioner-company for grant of prospecting license, being pending, it comes under the fold of Rule-4(12). Thereby, it has become ineligible, reason being the OMMC Rules, 2016, providing among other things, auction as the only method of settlement/grant of prospecting license and mining lease of minor mineral is the outcome of judicial dictum and to achieve the above said objective.