SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjiv Khanna, Aravind Kumar, JJ.
State of West Bengal and Another - Appellants
Versus
M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8238 of 2022
Decided On : 12-09-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of mining lease applications and history. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of legal arguments presented by parties. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. analysis on statutory provisions affecting mining lease. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. final ruling on execution of mining lease. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
This appeal, by way of special leave, takes exception to the judgment of the division bench of the High Court of Calcutta, whereby the intra-court appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal and Others in F.M.A. No. 1458 of 2017 with CAN No. 6596 of 2017 has been dismissed with the direction to the Appellant No. 2 – Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, Commerce and Enterprises, West Bengal or any authorised officer to execute a mining lease in favour of the Respondent No. 2 – Dinesh Agarwal, sole proprietor of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih.
2. The facts are rather chequered, albeit are required to be noticed in detail. On 07.08.1985, West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Limited1[For Short,’ WBMDTCL’] had filed an application for grant of long term mining lease for Dolomite, Limestone and Quartzite at the plots in Mouza - Khariduara, Kumari and Boch. An application was also filed by WBMDTCL for grant of long term mining lease for Iron Ore, Manganese and Fireclay at the plots in Mouza - Khariduara, Kumari, Boch and Kangametya. Grant Order dated 07.04.1986 was issued in favour of WBMDTCL by the Assistant Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, Mines Branch, West Bengal.
2.1. On 06.03.1998, Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih. had filed an application before the Mining Officer-in-charge, Purulia Zone, Directorate of Mines and Minerals, West Bengal, for the grant of a mining lease for the purpose of extracting Dolomite at Mouza - Khariduara, Kumari and Boch, in 76 acres of land.
2.2. The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih filed Writ Petition No. 7808 (W) of 2001 before the High Court of Calcutta, seeking disposal of their application for grant of mining lease. The High Court vide order dated 13.06.2001, directed the State authorities to dispose of the application of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih at an early date and in accordance with law.
2.3. The Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal, vide order dated 13.03.2003, rejected the application of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, on the ground of non-availability of land in view of the previous application of WBMDTCL. By another order dated 26.03.2003, the Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal reiterated that the mining application of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih overlaps with the area applied for in the previous application by WBMDTCL. The application of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih was accordingly rejected.
2.4. Aggrieved, the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih had filed Writ Petition No. 7505 (W) of 2003 in the High Court of Calcutta challenging the orders passed by the Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal, dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal, reviewed the aforesaid orders and passed a fresh order dated 13.10.2006 for apportionment of land between WBMDTCL and the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih. This order states that two hearings were held on 24.05.2006 and 19.06.2006 to review the matter, and thereupon at the hearing dated 19.06.2006, in the presence of the representatives of WBMDTCL and the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, it was agreed that Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
Court affirmed that governmental compliance with judicial orders is mandatory, but eligibility for mining leases can be affected by subsequent legislative amendments.
The court ruled that a recommendation by the State does not constitute a vested right or letter of intent under the MMDR Act, and the amended provisions apply prospectively.
The court affirmed that a petitioner has a vested right to a mining lease under Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, provided all conditions of prior approval are met.
Mining Lease approvals were revoked due to the petitioners' failure to comply with statutory requirements, rendering prior approvals void.
There cannot be a collateral challenge to an order by a respondent in a writ proceeding instituted by a petitioner for implementation of such order.
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.