IMPORTANT POINTS
Such a leaseholder, whose period of lease is in currency on 12.1.2015, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act.
A leaseholder who has not moved a valid renewal application or whose application has been rejected will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period.
A leaseholder who has moved a valid application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016.
A leaseholder who had moved a valid second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, and whose application had not been considered and rejected up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act.
Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder.

Headnote:(a) Mining operations – Absence of a subsisting mining lease precludes a leaseholder to carry out mining operations under provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – In addition, various environmental clearances are also required. (Para 4)
       (2014) 14 SCC 155 – Referred
       (b) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 8 – Original lease period would not exceed 30 years, S. 8(1) – First renewal u/s 8(2) for period not exceeding 20 years requires clearance from State Government and approval from Central Government – Second or subsequent renewals u/s 8(3) individually limited to period not exceeding 20 years requires satisfaction of State Government and approval of Central Government. (Para 7)
       (c) Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Rule 24A – Filing of application for renewal of mining lease 12 months before expiry of lease period – Mandatory – In absence of such application, mining lease would come to end on expiry of period – Non disposal of renewal application within six months would be deemed refusal under Rule 24A(5) – However rule 24A(6) mandates non-disposal of renewal application would be deemed to extend period of lease till such disposal – Instantly, non-disposal of renewal applications would mean that right to continue mining operations would seemingly continue ad infinitum – However, in the absence of an express order of second or subsequent renewals, a mining lease would expire after completion of the period of first renewal. (Para 8, 9, 11)
       (2014) 6 SCC 590 – Relied upon
       (d) Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Rule 24A(6) – Before and after amendment on 18.7.2014 – Applicants seeking “First renewal” within permissible time – Their right to continue mining operations – Deemed to have been extended up to 18.7.2016. (Para 13)
       (e) Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Rule 24A(6), amended – Automatic extension postulated with reference to the first renewal – Would not apply to the second or subsequent renewals. (Para 14)
       (f) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (As amended in 2015) – Section 8A(2) and (3) – All future mining grants, including those made prior to amendment, to be of fifty years. (Para 17)
       (g) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 8A(5) – Mining leases for captive purposes – Firstly, period of all mining leases granted before 12.1.2015 “…shall be extended and be deemed to have been extended…” up to 31.3.2030 – Use of words “expiry of the renewal last made” – Effect – Section 8A(5) attracted even after the expiry of a renewal – Applies to renewed mining leases, expiring before 31.3.2030 – Secondly, phrase “renewal last made” – Presupposing an existing (first, second or subsequent) renewal – Applies to renewed mining leases expiring after 31.3.2030 – Period contemplated by the renewal itself preserved – Thirdly, the leaseholder allowed the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years – For leases governed by Section 8A(5) – The contingency extending the lease period farthest would be applicable. (Para 18)
       (h) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 8A(6) – Non-captive mining leases – Same as S. 8A(5) – Only difference that 31.3.2030 in S. 8A(5) replaced by 31.3.2020. (Para 19)
       (i) Words and Phrases – Terms “renewal has been rejected”, “determination” and “lapse” – Terms used for different contingencies/situations/exigencies under the MMDR Act, and the Mineral Concession Rules – Not with reference to expiry of original grant period, or renewal period – Applicability of Section 8A to claims of leaseholders, where the period of lease or renewal expired prior to 12.1.2015 cannot be excluded on basis of S. 8A(9) – No renewal application can now be filed (after 12.1.2015) (Para 24, 25)
       (j) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 8A – Section 8A applicable not only to leaseholders whose original lease/renewal lease period had not expired – It also extends to leaseholders whose lease/renewal expired prior to 12.1.2015 leaseholders moved valid application for renewal which has not been considered and rejected. (Para 26)
       (k) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 8A – Benefit of extension of lease period available only if all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with. (Para 27)
       (l) Section 4A(4) and Rules 28, and 28A, Mineral Concession Rules – Lapsing of mining for non-operation for a continuous period for two years – Not automatic – Lease not to be deemed to have lapsed, till the State Government passes an affirmative order, and further communicates the same to the leaseholder. (Para 30, 31)
       Facts of the case:
       Interpretation of sections 4 and 8A of the MMDR Act and Rule 28A of the Mining Concession Rules has come up for consideration in these appeals.
       Finding of the Court:
       Reference answered.

JUDGMENT :

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. This Court by its order dated 16.5.2014, in Common Cause v. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 155, restrained 102 mining leaseholders from carrying on any mining operations. The above order was passed on account of the fact, that none of these leaseholders were in possession of clearances/approvals/consent, required for carrying on the mining operations. The above order dated 16.5.2014, granted liberty to the leaseholders whose operations were suspended, to move this Court after obtaining the requisite clearances/approvals/consent, whereupon this Court would, on being satisfied, revoke the suspension order.

2. A number of applications came to be filed before this Court seeking revocation of the above order of suspension, wherein the concerned applicants asserted, that they had obtained all clearances/approvals/consent, and further that, they were now legally eligible to recommence mining operations. During the course of such consideration at our hands, Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned amicus curiae pointed out, that the question of granting permission to the leaseholders to recommence mining operations would arise, only if the leaseholders have a subsisting mining lease. It was therefore submitted, that before determining the legitimacy of the claim raised by the applicants, this Court should first examine, whether the applicants have a subsisting right to carry on mining operation, under a valid lease.

3. This submission advanced at the hands of the learned amicus curiae, was strongly contested by learned counsel representing the applicants. They invited our attention to paragraph 4 of the order dated 16.5.2014, passed in the Common Cause case, so as to contend, that this Court had not postulated such a precondition, and therefore, the submission advanced at the hands of the learned amicus curiae, should be rejected. Paragraph 4 aforementioned, is extracted hereunder:

“4. We have considered the report dated 25.4.2014 of the CEC, and the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for different parties, and we find that 102 mining leases do not have requisite environmental clearances, approvals under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, approved Mining Plan and/or Consent to Operate. A list of these 102 mining leases is annexed to the report of the CEC as Annexure R-2. The CEC has, however, stated in the report that mining operations in these 102 mining leases have been suspended and these 102 mining leases have been classified as non-working leases. We direct that mining operations in these 102 mining leases listed in Annexure R-2 of the report of the CEC shall remain suspended, but it will be open to such lessees to move the concerned authorities for environmental clearances, approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, approval of Mining Plan or Consent to Operate and as and when the mining lessees are able to obtain all the clearances/approval/consent, they may move this Court for modification of this interim order in relation to their cases.” (highlighting – as per emphasis of learned counsel)

4. Having perused the position expressed by this Court, while suspending mining operations with reference to 102 mining leases, it is apparent, that the said direction was issued for the sole consideration, that the concerned leaseholders were not in possession of all clearances/approvals/consent. And as such, they were permitted to move applications before this Court, for modification of the order of suspension, as and when all clearances/approvals/consent were obtained. It is however relevant to notice, that such clearances, approvals and consent can be meaningful to the applicants, only if they are with reference to subsisting mining leases. In case a leaseholder does not have a subsisting mining lease, he is precluded under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as, the MMDR Act), from carrying on any mining operations. It is therefore

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 269

Cases Referred (2)