SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.K. MATHEW, P.N. BHAGWATI AND N.L. UNTWALIA, JJ.
Smt. Rukmani Bai Gupta, Appellant
Versus
The State Government of M.P., Bhopal and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 612 and 613 of 1974, D/- 20-12-1974.
Advocates appeared
Mr. T. S. Krishnamurthy, Senior Advocate, (M/s. P. V. Lele, S. S. Khanduja and Sushil Kumar, Advocates, with him, for Appellant; Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 1-3 (in C.A.No. 612/74) and Respondents No. 1-4 & 6 (in C A. No. 613/74); Mr. R. S. Dabir, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. V. S. Dabir, N. M. Ghatate and S. Balakrishnan, Advocates, with him, for Respondent No. 5, Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate for Respondent No. 4 (In C.A. No. 512/74).
Under section 3 (e) the Central Government declared 'limestone used for burning' as a minor mineral. The notification was amended and instead 'lime stone used in kilns for manufacture of lime used as building material' were substituted. The appellant was given a lease by the State Government for 'lime stone for burning' and lease-deed was executed in Form V appended to the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1961.
Held: The expression 'lime stone for burning' would equally cover limestone as a minor mineral and that is clearly borne out by the Third Schedule to the Rules which prescribes a minimum output of 200 tonnes per acre per annum for "lime-stone (for burning)". It cannot, therefore, be said that merely because the mineral for which the quarry lease was granted by the State Government to the appellant was described in the quarry lease as "limestone for burning", it was a quarry lease for a major mineral. Whether it was a quarry lease for a minor mineral or a major mineral would have to be gathered from the other provisions of the quarry lease and the circumstances surrounding its execution. [Para 8
It is therefore, clear that though the mineral for which the quarry lease was granted to the appellant was described as "limestone for burning", it was a quarry lease for "limestone for burning" as a minor mineral, that is, for limestone used in kilns for manufacture of lime used as building material" and it could not in the circumstances be condemned as null and void. [Para 9
(2) Minor Mineral Rules, 1961 (MP) - Rr. 29 & 22 - clause 15 in the lease deed relating to renewal deleted - no renewal can be claimed - only fresh lease can be claimed.
In the quarry lease in Form V executed by the State Government in favour of the appellant, clause 15' of that form was deleted. There was, therefore no opinion of renewal in the quarry lease and the appellant could not lay any claim to renewal on the basis of such option. It is apparent that an applicant can ask for renewal of the quarry lease only as if there is an option of renewal in his favour. Otherwise, all that he can apply for and obtain is a fresh lease. [Para 11
(3) Minor Mineral Rules, 1961 (MP) - R. 22, Proviso - period of three months - extension of - can be made by a Deputy Secretary under Rules of Business,
In extending the period of three months for execution of the lease, the Deputy Secretary does not act as delegate of the State Government. He acts in exercise of the power of the State Government under the Rules of Business. The order made by him extending the time for execution of the quarry lease is, therefore, an order of the State Government. [Para 13
Judgment
BHAGWATI, J.:- The Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) divides minerals into two classes, namely, minor minerals and minerals other than minor minerals, which may, for the sake of brevity, be referred to as major minerals. The Act itself makes provisions in Sections 4 to 13 for regulating the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in respect of major minerals but so far as minor minerals are concerned, grant of prospecting licenses and mining leases is left to be governed by rules to be made by the State Government under Section 15. The Madhya Pradesh Government, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 15, made the Madhya Pradesh Minor Minerals Rules, 1961 for regulating the grant of quarry lease in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. These rules are ex hypothesi applicable only in relation to grant of quarry lease in respect of minor minerals. "Minor minerals" are defined in Section 3 (e) to mean building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral. The Central Government, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 3 (e), issued a notification dated 1st June, 1958 declaring inter alia "limestones used for line burning" to be a minor mineral. This notification was subsequently amended by the Central Government by a further notification dated 20th September, l961 and the words "limestone used in kilns for manufacture of lime used as building material" were substituted for the words "limestone used for lime burning". The result was that with effect from 20th September, 1961 only limestone used in kilns for manufacture of lime used for building material remained a minor mineral while limestone used for burning for manufacture of lime for other purposes ceased to be a minor mineral and became a major mineral. The appellant was a lessee under a quarry lease of 25.32 acres of land situate in village Badari, Tehsil Kurwara, District Jabalpur granted to her by the State Government for quarrying "limestone for burning" for a period of five years from 21st June, 1961 to 20th June, 1966. This quarry lease was granted under the Madhya Pradesh Minor Minerals Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and it was in Form B annexed to the Rules and contained clause (15) giving an option of renewal to the appellant for a further term of five Years. Before the period of the quarry lease was due to expire, the appellant applied for renewal in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and in the application for renewal against column 6 of paragraph 3 the appellant described the mineral which she intended to mine as "limestone for burning". This application for renewal was not disposed of by the State Government before the expiry of the quarry lease and it was, therefore, deemed to have been refused under Rule 8 (3). The appellant thereupon made an application for review under Rule 28 and the State Government, by an order dated 24th December, 1966 made in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 29, sanctioned renewal of the quarry lease to the appellant. Pursuant to this order a quarry lease was granted by the State Government in favour of the appellant for quarrying "limestone for burning" for a period of five years from 21st June, 1966 to 20th June, 1971. This quarry lease was also in Form V annexed to the Rules but it did not contain clause (15) giving an option of renewal to the appellant.
2. Even though the last mentioned quarry lease granted to the appellant did not contain an option of renewal, the appellant made an application dated 19th June, 1970 to the State Government for renewal of the quarry lease which was due to expire on 20th June, 1971. This application was in Form I annexed to the Rules and against column 5 of paragraph 3, which requ
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.