SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, JJ.
M/s Haryana Mining Company – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3795 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.16549 of 2021)
Decided On : 09-05-2022
Mines and Minerals – Termination of Mining Lease – [Constitution of India – Article 226] – Alleged illegal mining being carried out by Appellant on a hillock next to mining area leased to Appellant – In demarcation report there was nothing mentioned about illegal mining carried out by Appellant – Surveyor, with help of Differential Global Positioning System machine, verified marking stones and flags at each corner and side and found them to be correct – Enquiry conducted by Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Nodal Officer, District Illegal Mining Observation Team, did not conclusively prove illegal mining by appellant-Termination Order and Appellate Order are arbitrary and suffer from vice of unreasonableness – High Court committee error in dismissing writ petition without examining as to whether there was an iota of evidence to justify Termination Order – Constitutional courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, would not examine sufficiency of evidence – At the same time, it is well-settled that interference is warranted if it is found that weight of evidence was opposed to conclusion recorded or there was no evidence at all, rendering conclusion ex-facie erroneous or perverse – Impugned Orders and Judgment set aside. (Paras 9, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal has been filed against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 06.09.2021 dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellant, which sought to challenge the order dated 10.01.2020 whereby mining lease granted to it was terminated by Director General, Mines and Geology, Haryana and the order dated 11.08.2021 by which appeal filed against Termination Order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
Findings of Court:
Relevant material has not been taken into consideration before the Termination Order was passed. There is no mention of the DFO’s report dated 15.10.2019, which considered the reports relied on by the Director General, Mines and Geology and absolved the Appellant of indulging in any illegal mining activity on the ground that no evidence was found against the Appellant.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
L. Nageswara Rao, J.
Leave granted.
1. This Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 06.09.2021 dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellant, which sought to challenge the order dated 10.01.2020 whereby the mining lease granted to it was terminated by the Director General, Mines and Geology, Haryana (hereinafter, the “Termination Order”) and the order dated 11.08.2021 by which the appeal filed against the Termination Order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (hereinafter, the “Appellate Order”).
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this Appeal are detailed hereinafter. The Appellant participated in an e-auction conducted by the State Government for grant of mining lease of “stone along with associated minor minerals” in an area of 6.70 hectares, falling in Khasra No. 7, Village Garhi, District Mahendargarh. The bid of the Appellant was accepted and a Letter of Intent dated 24.07.2015 was issued to the Appellant. Pursuant to this, a lease deed was executed between the Appellant and the State Government on 11.04.2016. The Appellant commenced mining operations on 15.06.2016, after the mining area was demarcated on 11.05.2016. Demarcation of the mining area was further conducted on 23.02.2017 and 21.08.2018. On 17.12.2018, another demarcation of the mining area was done in view of certain complaints against the Appellant of illegal mining conducted by exceeding the permitted area of mining.
3. Thereafter, a complaint was preferred by the Sarpanch of Village Khudana, adjoining Village Garhi, by way of resolution dated 08.01.2019, alleging illegal mining being carried out by the Appellant on a hillock next to the mining area leased to the Appellant. On 04.02.2019, the District Mining Officer submitted a letter to the Director, Mines and Geology, bringing to his notice the earlier complaint filed against the Appellant in October, 2018 and the subsequent complaints preferred by the Sarpanch of Village Khudana on 08.01.2019 and 25.01.2019, alleging illegal mining by the Appellant beyond the leased area. An enquiry was conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Nodal Officer, District Illegal Mining Observation Team, Narnaul. A report was submitted by the said team on 25.02.2019 (hereinafter, the “ADC Report”), in which it was observed that illegal mining was found to have taken place in Khasra Nos. 366-367 in the Aravali Forest area. However, it could not be proved as to who committed the said excavation.
4. On 13.03.2019, the Director, Mines and Geology issued a notice directing the Appellant to show cause as to why the mining lease not be terminated prematurely for having breached the terms and conditions of the lease. On 27.03.2019, a reply was submitted by the Appellant to the said show-cause notice denying the allegations. The mining operations of the Appellant were suspended by the Assistant Mining Engineer on 13.12.2019, even before a decision was taken pursuant to the said show-cause notice, on account of non-payment of dead rent and other sums. A fresh demarcation was conducted by a team led by the Mining Officer, Narnaul on 15.11.2019, who observed in his report that there was some mining outside the leased area. He also recorded the statements of the villagers and representatives of the Appellant present during the demarcation, who stated that this mining had been done by earlier contractors.
5. By an order dated 10.01.2020, the Director General, Mines and Geology, terminated the mining lease of the Appellant, aggrieved by which an appeal was filed. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 07.05.2021. Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, the Appellant filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which was disposed of on 03.08.2021 setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 07.05.2021 and directing the Appellate Authority to decide the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Appell
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759 – Relied [Para 12]
High Court of A.P. v. Nirmala K.R. Dayavathi (2015) 15 SCC 681 – Relied [Para 12]
Termination of Mining Lease – Constitutional courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, would not examine sufficiency of evidence – However, interference is warranted if it is found that ....
The court emphasized the limited scope of its jurisdiction in re-appraising factual findings and the need for evidence of legal inadmissibility or lack of support to challenge findings of fact.
The court ruled that findings of illegal mining were perverse and unsupported by evidence, allowing the writ petition and quashing the penalties imposed.
The cancellation of the mining lease was found to be in accordance with the statutory provision of Rule 25(5) of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to lease conditions and highlighted that sympathy or mercy cannot override the terms and conditions of a lease agreement.
The judgment establishes that mining authorities have the right to impose penalties for illegal mining activities based on evidence collected during inspections, and that due process must be followed....
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.