IMPORTANT POINT
Mining lease – whether vested right.
Doctrine of promissory Estoppel, Legitimate Expectation and Doctrine of desuetude.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Entry 54, List I and Entry 23, List II – Section 2 of the 1957 Act is a declaration required by Entry 23, List II. (Para 101)
        (1969) 3 SCC 838 – Relied upon
        (b) Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Section 4 r/w Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 – All lands situated in the territorial limits of Bihar vested in state of Bihar/Jharkhand – Nobody has any fundamental right in mining. (Paras 104 and 105)
        1985 (Supp) SCC 476 – Relied upon
        (c) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Sections 2 and 4 r/w Rule 59, Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Section 2 leaving State’s ownership of mines and minerals untouched – Section 4 only giving control of regulation of mines and development of minerals to Central Government – Section 4(1) not attracted if State decides to undertake mining itself – Centre may acquire mines and minerals but section 2 does not do that – Declaration in section 2 is not all comprehensive – State Government had the inherent right to reserve any particular area for exploitation in the public sector. (Paras 108 and 111)
        1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 430; (1976) 4 SCC 108; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 91; AIR 1964 SC 1284; AIR 1961 SC 459; (1969) 3 SCC 838 – Relied upon
        (1990) 4 SCC 557; (1977) 1 SCC 340; (1980) 4 SCC 136; (1982) 1 SCC 125 – Distinguished
        (d) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 4 r/w rule 59 – State being owner of the miners and minerals in its territory, has authority to reserve any area for exploitation by it. (Para 114)
        AIR 1961 SC 459; AIR 1964 SC 1284, (1969) 3 SCC 838; (1976) 4 SCC 108 – Relied upon
        (19890 4 SCC 121 – Distinguished
        (2010) 4 SCC 498; 2008 (56) 1 BLJR 660; (1973) 1 SCC 584; (2004) 10 SCC 201; (2010) 13 SCC 1; 1986 (Suppl.) SCC 20; (1981) 2 SCC 205; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 91; (1972) 2 SCC 601; 1952 SCR 889; (2001) 10 SCC 476; AIR 1961 SC 860; (1986) 1 SCC 264; (1995) 3 SCC 434; (2003) 4 SCC 239; AIR 1965 SC 177; (1979) 3 SCC 431; (1996) 6 SCC 702; (2007) 9 SCC 78 – Referred
        (e) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Sections 17 and 18 – Not concerned with public or private sector – Not dealing with State’s right of reservation of its own mines – Section 18 confers additional rule making power of Central Government – State’s power to make reservation of mines areas not contrary to sections 17 and 18. (Para 116)
        (1976) 4 SCC 108 – Relied upon
        (f) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 17A, Rules 58 and 59 – Reservations made before omission of Rule 58, amendment of Rule 59 and insertion of section 17A remained unaffected by these legislative actions. (Para 122)
        1992 Supp (1) SCC 91 – Relied upon
        (g) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 17A – The provision is prospective. (Para 123)
        AIR 1951 SC 128; (1905) AC 369; (1894) 1 QB 725 – Relied upon
        (h) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 17A(2) r/w Rule 59(1)(e) of 1960 Rules – Does not require ‘prior’ approval of Central Govt. – Such approval may be express or implied – Central Govt. rejecting mining lease on basis of 2006 notification – Implied approval of reservation exists – Moreover State reserving mines areas in public interest – Notifications, 1962, 1969 and 2006 not bad in law. (Para 128)
        1992 Supp (1) SCC 91 – Relied upon
        (i) Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 – Section 85 r/w sections 84 and 86 – Notifications 1962 and 1969 not altered/repealed and/or amended – Notifications not lapsed – Continues to operate. (Para 131)
        (j) Promissory Estoppel – Applicability – Principles to guide determination culled. (Para 146)
        (1979) 2 SCC 409; (1956) 1 All ER 256; (1854) 5 HLC 185; (1877) 2 AC 439; (1889) 40 Ch D 268; (1968) 2 All ER 987; (1975) 3 All ER 269; (1975) 3 All ER 865; 57 ALR 980; (1958) 31 Cal 2d 409; (1968) 2 SCR 366; (1952) SCR 43; (1970) 1 SCC 582; (1974) 1 SCR 515; (1975) 1 SCC 21; (1973) 2 SCC 713; (1976) 3 SCC 540; (1977) 4 SCC 145; (1977) 3 SCC 457; (1985) 4 SCC 369; (1988) 1 SCC 86; (1995) 1 SCC 274; (2004) 1 SCC 139; (2004) 6 SCC 465; (1992) 2 SCC 411; (2006) 13 SCC 706 – Relied upon
        (k) Legitimate expectation – Different from anticipation – Principles culled out. (Para 152 and 153)
        (1993) 3 SCC 499; (1996) 5 SCC 268; (1997) 7 SCC 592; (2003) 5 SCC 134 – Relied upon
        (l) Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation – MOU – State expressing willingness to extend all possible help and cooperation in setting up the manufacturing/generating facilities – Also promised assistance in selecting area for iron ore and other minerals as per requirement of the company – Assured grant of mineral concession as per existing Act and Rules – MOU in ignorance of reservation of the area – Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation not attracted – Withdrawal not bad in law. (Para 161)
        (m) Doctrine of desuetude – Essentials of the Doctrine summarized – Doctrine not attracted in present cases. (Paras 167 and 168)
        Bharat Forge Co. Ltd.; (1982) 3 SCC 519; LR (1931) 2 KB 215 (CA); 1931 SLT (Scots Law Times Reports) 456; (1970) 2 All ER 193; (1997) 9 SCC 450 – Relied upon
        (n) Administration of Justice – Judicial Review – Issues not raised before High Court – Cannot be raised before Supreme Court for the first time – Criticism of High Court judgment for non-consideration of such issues not justified. (Para 177)
        AIR 1936 PC 253; (2008) 16 SCC 276; (2001) 4 SCC 181; (1978) 1 SCC 405 – Referred
        (o) Mining Lease – No vested right to grant or renewal of mining lease – MOU not being a contract in terms of Article 299(1) of the Constitution, State having discretion – Exercise of discretion not bad in law. (Para 180)
       Facts of the case:
        These appeals relate to grant of mining lease and reservation of mines area by State Government.
       Finding of the Court:
        1. Mere reference to 1962 and 1969 Notifications in 2006 Notification does not make 2006 Notification retrospective.
        2. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.- Introduction. This group of six appeals occupied considerable judicial time. These matters were heard on ten days between November 2, 2011 and November 29, 2011. Although the facts differ from one another in some respects but since fundamental issues appeared to be common and all these matters arise from a common judgment dated April 4, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, we have heard all these matters together which are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Prayers

2. The prayers in the writ petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court also differ. However, principally the reliefs prayed for by the appellants in their writ petitions were for quashing (i) the decision of the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand contained in the letter dated September 13, 2005 whereby the State Government sought to withdraw the recommendation for grant of mining lease made in favour of the appellants in the subject iron ore bearing areas in Mauza Ghatkuri, West Singhbhum District, Jharkhand (ii) the order of the Ministry of Mines, Government of India whereunder the said Ministry returned the recommendation made by Government of Jharkhand in favour of each of the appellants (iii) for declaring the Notifications dated December 21, 1962 and February 28, 1969 issued by the Government of Bihar and the Notification dated October 27, 2006 issued by the Government of Jharkhand null and void and (iv) directing the respondents to proceed under Rule 59(2) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short, ‘1960 Rules’) for grant of mining lease to each of the appellants in the iron ore bearing areas in Ghatkuri as applied.

Bihar Land Reforms Act

3. Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, ‘1950 Bihar Act’) came to be enacted by the Bihar Legislature to provide for the transference to the State of the interest of proprietors and tenure holders in land of the mortgagees and lessees of such interest including interest in mines and minerals and other matters connected therewith. It came into force on September 25, 1950. Chapter II of the 1950 Bihar Act deals with vesting of an estate or tenure in the State and its consequences. The State Government has been empowered under Section 3 to declare that the estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure holder, as may be specified in the notification/s from time to time, to become vested in the State. Section 4 provides for consequences of vesting of an estate or tenure in the State. Section 4 has undergone amendments on few occasions. To the extent it is relevant, Section 4 of the 1950 Bihar Act reads as follows :

“4. Consequences of the vesting of an estate or tenure in the State.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any contract and notwithstanding any non-compliance or irregular compliance of the provisions…………..on the publication of the notification under sub-section (1), of section 3 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 3A, the following consequences shall ensue and shall be deemed always to have ensued, namely;

(a) Such estate or tenure including the interests of the proprietor or tenure-holder in any building or part of a building comprised in such estate or tenure ……… as also his interest in all sub soil including any rights in mines and minerals whether discovered or undiscovered or whether been worked or not, inclusive of such rights of a lessee of mines and minerals, comprised in such estate are tenure (other than the interests of raiyats or under - raiyats) shall, with effect from the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances and such proprietor or tenure-holder shall cease to have any interest in such estate or other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act”.

4. The brief facts relating to each of these appeals may be noticed now. Factual features Civil Appeal No. 3285 of 200

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 490

IMPORTANT POINT Mining lease – whether vested right. Doctrine of promissory Estoppel, Legitimate Expectation and Doctrine of desuetude.

Cases Referred (54)

IMPORTANT POINT
Mining lease – whether vested right.
Doctrine of promissory Estoppel, Legitimate Expectation and Doctrine of desuetude.