Back
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN & TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.
DOIWALA SEHKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.- PETITIONER:
Vs
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS -RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 800 of 2005
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.678 & 679 OF 2005
Decided On: 12/12/2006
Mining Lease - Policy Decision - U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 - The court discussed the policy decision of the State of Uttaranchal creating monopoly in mining of minor minerals and its conformity with the statutory rules and the Act. The court held that the policy decision did not create a monopoly in favor of government companies or corporations and did not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The court also emphasized that the rights of the parties get crystallized on the date of commencement of litigation and the appellant was entitled to continue the lease till the expiry of the period of ten years from the date of the grant of lease.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, engaged in mining business, applied for grant of lease for mining of minor mineral under Rule 9-A of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The District Magistrate rejected the application in view of the policy dated 17.10.2002 creating monopoly in mining of minor minerals by private persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the policy decision did not create a monopoly in favor of government companies or corporations and did not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The court also held that the appellant was entitled to continue the lease till the expiry of the period of ten years from the date of the grant of lease.
Issues: The issues involved the conformity of the policy decision with the statutory rules and the Act, the rights of the parties, and the validity of the rejection of the appellant's application for mining lease.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the policy decision did not create a monopoly in favor of government companies or corporations and did not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The court also highlighted that the rights of the parties get crystallized on the date of commencement of litigation and the appellant was entitled to continue the lease till the expiry of the period of ten years from the date of the grant of lease.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and held that the appellant was entitled to continue the lease till the expiry of the period of ten years from the date of the grant of lease. The court dismissed the other appeals.
JUDGMENT:
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.
Civil Appeal No. 800 of 2005 was filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of the District Magistrate refusing to grant lease to the appellant as well the Policy dated 17.10.2002 of the State of Uttaranchal whereby the State created monopoly in respect of mining of minor minerals.
Civil Appeal No. 678 of 2005 was filed by Maya Ram against the final judgment and order dated 3.12.2003 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal in W.P. No. 258(M/B) of 2003 vide which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 679 of 2005 was filed by one Yograj Singh against the judgment and order dated 3.12.2003 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal in Writ Petition No. 70(M/B) of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
The respondents in all the appeals are one and the same. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 800 of 2005 is Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. which is engaged in mining business and has vast experience of minor minerals with expertise, applied for grant of lease for mining of minor mineral under Rule 9-A of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 for a period of ten years in respect of 25 acres in Lot No. 2 on Tons River in Kalsi Block and 28.42 acres in Lot No.3 Block No.1 village Rampur Mandi, District Dehradun. According to the appellant, the Samiti is the discoverer of the aforesaid two areas and entitled for preferential treatment under the Rules. The District Magistrate after finding the application of the appellant complete in all respect vide order dated 3.8.1998 directed the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Division Forest Officer and Deputy Director, Geology and Mining to submit their report on the application. The Divisional Forest Officer, sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Deputy Director, Mining and Geology submitted their report dated 22.8.1998, 9.9.1998 and 11.9.1998 respectively recommending the grant of lease in favour of the appellant for ten years. The Divisional Forest Officer, in pursuance of Notification No. 2380 dated 5.6.1997 which requires the decision on the application to be taken by a Committee headed by District Magistrate and consisting of Divisional Forest Officer and Deputy Director, Mining and Geology, wrote a letter dated 4.12.1998 to constitute the committee to take a decision on the application as delay was causing monetary loss to the Forest Department. Despite these recommendations, no Committee was constituted by the District Magistrate as required for decision on the application of the appellant. The appellant preferred an appeal under Rule 77 of the Rules before the Court of Commissioner, Garhwal for constitution of the Committee. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 9.8.2001 by reviving the applications of the appellant and directed the District Magistrate to decide the application of the appellant for grant of lease. While the appeals of the appellant were pending, the State of U.P. passed order dated 4.9.1999 granting lease to the U.P. Forest Corporation for ten years. The appellant challenged the order for grant of lease before the High Court of Allahabad by filing a writ petition. The High Court vide order dated 25.9.2002 directed the District Magistrate to consider the application of the appellant. On 30.4.2001, the erstwhile State of U.P. was bifurcated and the area under question fell under the newly formed State of Uttaranchal which exercising power under Section 87 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 extended the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963 with certain modification/amendment to the newly formed State of Uttaranchal. On 17.10.2002, a new policy creating complete and general ban of mining of minor mineral by private persons was introduced by the State executive. The salient features of the policy decision are as under:
"In the State of Uttaranchal, the Mineral Poli
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
