SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.

( 1 ) THE facts briefly stated, which are considered necessary for disposal of this writ petition, are: the petitioner was granted a mining lease in respect of iron ore covering an area of 10. 11 hectares in sandur taluk of bellary district on 14-3-1972 for a period of 20 years by the first respondent under the mines and minerals (regulation and development) Act, 1957 read with the mineral concession rules, 1960 (for short the 'act, 1957' and the 'rules' ). The petitioner worked the area by investing substantial sum for developing the area and has carried on the operations. It filed an application for renewal of its mining lease in accordance with Rule 24-a of the rules. It contends that since no orders were passed on the renewal application within the statutory period there was a deemed rejection of the application. It filed a revision petition to the central government under Section 30 of the Act, 1957 read with Rule 54 of the rules. The revision petition was allowed on 13-3-1991 setting aside the deemed rejection and directed the state government to consider the application filed by the petitioner for renewal. But so far no orders are passed and the application for renewal is pending disposal. According to the petitioner the lease granted expired on 14-3-1992 and by virtue of sub-rule (6) of Rule 24-a of the rules, the mining lease of the petitioner stood extended for a further period of one year, that is upto 14-3-1993 as the application for renewal is not disposed of. The petitioner submitted a representation to the director of mines and geology on 13-1-1992 stating that it has a right to work'under Rule 24-a (6) and on that basis sought for issuance of working permit and similar request was also made to the first respondent. On 10-3-1992 the third respondent informed the petitioner to stop mining operation with effect from 14-3-1992 until further orders as working permission for grace period had not been received from the state government. On 7-4-1992 the second respondent sent a communication to the petitioner as per Annexure-C informing that the grant of working permission was not desirable until the forest clearance was obtained in view of the instructions issued by the government of india. Section 2 of the forest (conservation) Act, 1980 (for short the 'act, 1980') states that except with the prior approval of the central government, no state government or other authority shall make any order directing that any reserved forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. The petitioner states that the lease was granted in 1972 and it has worked the area for 20 years and question of breaking up or clearing any forest land at this stage does not arise and that Section 2 of the Act, 1980 is attracted only in cases of leases to be granted on lands after the coming into force of the said act. The further case of the petitioner is that the principal chief conservator of forests (management) in the letter dated 26-6-1992 (Annexure-D) addressed to the petitioner has stated that the government of India in their letter dated 29-5-1992 have agreed in principle for approval for diversion of 10. 11 hectares of forest land subject to fulfillment of the two conditions mentioned in Annexure-D. The petitioner contends that asking the petitioner to pay double the cost of afforestation is not correct. The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 10-3-1992, Annexure-B and the endorsement dated 3/7-4-1992, aimexure-c. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's right to carry on mining operations as per Rule 24-a (6) of the rules in the schedule land.

( 2 ) STATEMENT of objection is filed on behalf of the respondents contending that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for. The act 1957 was enacted by the parliament with a view to regulate the mines and devel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document