SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 7

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
RAMAKANT DWIVEDI – APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAFIQ AHMAD & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.28249 OF 2015)
Decided on : 04-01-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Mining lease cannot be renewed in violation of order passed by High Court.

Headnote:Mining Law – Mining lease – Renewal of – Challenge as to – Lease was granted in violation of judgment of High Court, subsequent withdrawal of Government order dated 31st May, 2012 could not benefit appellant as on date of grant of lease in favour of appellant said Government order was operative – Renewal was in pursuance of Government Order dated 26th February, 2013 which itself was in conflict with order of High Court – Impugned interim order affirmed – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 4 to 7)

       2013(2) ADJ 166; 2014(11) ADJ 89 – Referred.

       Facts of case:

       Instant appeal has been preferred against order dated 18th June, 2015 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in PIL No.35233 of 2015 granting interim order against excavation of minor minerals by appellant in respect of lease executed in his favour on 17th October, 2013. In impugned order, High Court observed that lease granted to appellant was in violation of its judgments dated 29th January, 2013 in Nar Narain Mishra versus The State of U.P., 2013(2) ADJ 166 and dated 12th September, 2014 Sukhan Singh versus State of U.P., 2014(11) ADJ 89.

       Findings of Court:

       In present case, lease was granted in violation of judgment of High Court. Subsequent withdrawal of the Government order dated 31st May, 2012 could not benefit appellant as on date of grant of lease in favour of appellant, said Government order was operative. In these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with impugned interim order and leave the issue on merits to be finally decided by High Court.

       Result – Appeal dismissed.

       

Judgment :

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred against order dated 18th June, 2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in PIL No.35233 of 2015 granting an interim order against excavation of minor minerals by the appellant in respect of lease executed in his favour on 17th October, 2013.

2. In the impugned order, the High Court observed that lease granted to the appellant was in violation of its judgments dated 29th January, 2013 in Nar Narain Mishra versus The State of U.P., 2013(2) ADJ 166 and dated 12th September, 2014 Sukhan Singh versus State of U.P., 2014(11) ADJ 89. In Nar Narain Mishra, the operative part of the High Court order is as follows :-

“In the result, all the writ petitions are disposed with the following directions :-

1) The prayers made by the petitioners/applicants for considering their applications for renewal of their mining leases which were pending on 31/5/2012, and the applications for grant of fresh leases which were pending on 31/5/2012 are refused.

2) The Government Order dated 26/7/2012 and all consequent steps taken thereunder are quashed.

3) Notices issued by the District Magistrate inviting applications by E-tendering consequent to the Government Order dated 31/5/2012, cannot be allowed to be finalized and are quashed with liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notice in accordance with law.

4) Parties shall bear their own costs.”

3. According to the appellant, on 27th April, 2013, the preexisting lease in his favour which expired on 18th November, 2010, was renewed for further period of three years upto 26th April, 2016. Approval was granted on 14th March, 2011 and environmental clearance was granted on 21st September, 2012. It is submitted that order of the Government dated 31st May, 2012 was not applicable and was later withdrawn on 22nd October, 2014 and thus, the lease was valid.

4. This submission though also supported by the State, cannot be accepted. The High Court has rightly held that the renewal was in pursuance of the Government Order dated 26th February, 2013 which itself was in conflict with the order of the High Court in Nar Narain Mishra (supra) as reiterated in Sukhan Singh (supra). In view of order of the High Court dated 29th January, 2013 in Nar Narain Mishra (supra) all pending applications as on 31st May, 2012 stood rejected. In the case of the appellant, environmental clearance was granted on 21st September, 2012 and renewal was granted on 27th April, 2013. Orders of the High Court in Nar Narain Mishra and Sukhan Singh (supra) which are not under challenge clearly debarred the grant of lease under Chapter II after 31st May, 2012. This aspect has been dealt with in greater detail in Civil Appeal Nos.4845-4846 of 2015 titled Sulekhan Singh & Co. versus State of U.P. with which the present appeal was tagged, which is being separately decided today. Stand of the State, to the contrary, can also not be appreciated. Reference may be made to the finding recorded by the High Court in the impugned order:-

“A Division Bench in the case of Nar Narain Mishra v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2013 (2) ADJ 166, after interpreting the Government Order dated 31.5.2012 recorded as principle of law, that once notification has been published by the State Government in exercise of powers under Rule 23 of the Rules 1963, for vacant areas being available for grant of leases under Chapter IV of Rules, 1963, no grant/renewal on the pending applications can be made, after 31.5.2012. The State was not satisfied with the legal position so explained. It came out with a Government Order dated 26.2.2013, which provided that pending applications, for renewal/grant in respect of which orders of approval have already been made by the State Government or by the competent authority shall not be controlled by the judgment in the case of Nar Narain Mishra (Supra) such cases may be processed further.

This Government Order dated 26.2.2013 came up for consideratio







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top