Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Chief Secretary Government of Odisha – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Limited (In Liquidation) and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos 6529 of 2024 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 7315-7316 of 2021) With Civil Appeal Nos. 6530 of 2024 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. of 2024, Arising Out of Diary No. 1109 of 2024)
Decided On : 17-05-2024
Mining Leases - Renewal - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (IO of 2015), Companies Act, 1956 - 3, 4A(4), 23, 446(2)(d), 457(1)(b), 457(2)(5)(2) - The court discussed the renewal of mining leases and the legal provisions under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, and the Companies Act, 1956. The court found that the renewal of the leases would be futile due to the defunct status of the company and the impracticality of the renewal, and therefore set aside the judgment and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appeal against the judgment upholding the directions for the formation of a High Powered Committee to decide on the renewal of mining leases and the appeal challenging the rejection of the renewal of mining leases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the renewal of the mining leases would be futile and impractical due to the defunct status of the company and the lack of tangible benefit. The court set aside the judgment and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Renewal of mining leases, legal provisions under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, and the Companies Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the renewal of the mining leases would be futile and impractical due to the defunct status of the company and the lack of tangible benefit.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment and dismissed the appeal, clarifying that the applications for renewal of the leases will be treated as rejected or dismissed. The proceedings will continue before the Company Court of the High Court at Calcutta in accordance with the law, and the workmen and TGP will be entitled to raise all pleas and contentions for payment and enforcement of their dues.
Permission to file the special leave petition by TPG Equity Management Private Limited, impugning the orders dated 09.03.2023 and 13.10.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, is granted. Delay in filing of the appeals is condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant – the Government of Odisha, has approached this Court against the judgment dated 03.03.2020 by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta, which upholds the directions given by the Company Judge, that the Central Government in consultation with the Government of Odisha and the Odisha Mineral Development Company Ltd,1[For short, ‘OMDC’.] shall form a High Powered committee of not more than three members representing the interests of the three stakeholders to take a decision by a reasoned order with regard to the renewal of mining leases, viz. Kolha-Roida Iron and Manganese Ore Block,2[For short, ‘Kolha-Roida’.], Thakurani Iron & Manganese Ore Block,3[For short, ‘Thakurani’.] and Dalki Manganese Ore Block,4[For short, ‘Dalki’.], within three months. It is also directed that TGP Equity Management Private Ltd,5[For short, ‘TGP’.] will be heard. The decision will be submitted to the Company Court in the form of a report.
4. This judgment will also decide the appeal preferred by TGP challenging the judgment dated 09.03.2023 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, whereby Writ Petition No. 1852 of 2010 filed by the State of Odisha has been allowed setting aside the order of the revisional authority dated 02.02.2009. This judgment relates to one of the mining leases, namely, Kolha-Roida. TGP has also impugned the order dated 13.10.2023 by which its application for the review of the order dated 09.03.2023 was dismissed on the grounds of delay, and on the grounds of review not being made out.
5. The case has a long and chequered history. However, in view of the judgment that we are pronouncing, we shall only refer to the relevant facts.
6. Bird and Company Limited,6For short, ‘Bird & Co.’.] was granted three mining leases, namely, Kolha-Roida, Thakurani and Dalki, for 30 years on 15.08.1926, 10.10.1924, and 10.10.1924 respectively, by the Raja of Keonjhar. The three leases were granted first renewal for a period of 20, 30, and 20 years with effect from 18.08.1956 to 18.08.1976, 01.10.1954 to 30.09.1984, and 01.10.1954 to 30.09.1974 respectively. The Kolha-Roida lease was thereafter renewed for the second time for 20 years from 15.08.1976 to 14.08.1996. The Thakurani lease was renewed for the second time from 01.10.1984 to 30.09.2004 for 20 years. The Dalki lease was renewed for 20 years from 01.10.1974 to 30.09.1994.
7. Bird and Co., however, had never undertaken winning and mining activities. It is an accepted case that the beneficiary of the said lease was OMDC, a subsidiary of Bird and Co.
8. Bird and Co. was nationalised by an Act of Parliament called the Bird and Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking and Other Properties) Act, 1980.
9. As per Section 3,7[“3. On the appointed day, the undertakings of the company and the right, title and interest of the Company in relating to its undertakings shall, by virtue of this Act, stand transferred to, and vest in, the Central Government.”] of the 1980 Act, the undertakings of Bird and Co. and the right, title and interest relating to the undertakings stood transferred and vested with the Central Government, that is, the Union of India.
10. Under Section 7,8[“7. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that a Government company is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as that Government may think fit to impose, direct, by notification, that the undertakings of the Company and the right, title and interest of the Company in relation to its undertakings which have vested in the Central Government under section 3, shall, instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government, vest in the Government company either o
The State Government's order revising the commencement date of renewal of the mining lease was illegal, absurd, and a colourable exercise of power by the State violating the Petitioners' rights under....
Court affirmed that governmental compliance with judicial orders is mandatory, but eligibility for mining leases can be affected by subsequent legislative amendments.
A statutory body retains no right to resume possession of leased land post-winding up without permission from the Company Court, despite lease cancellation being legally permissible.
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 Mines Tribunal has the authority to determine lease terms for mining operations under statutory provisions, affirming that statutory leases are bound by the same conditions as contractual ones, i....
The court upheld that parties lacking legitimate claims or authority cannot disrupt lawful mining operations, affirming pre-existing rights granted under legislated provisions.
The renewal of a mining lease must comply with procedural requirements, including consultation with the Gram Panchayat and conducting a Joint Inspection as mandated by applicable rules.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
