Indocil Silicons Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Mines

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Kar) 186

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RITU RAJ AWASTHI, S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
Indocil Silicons Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Mines & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1920 of 2021 c/w Writ Petition Nos. 8807 of 2020, 5973 of 2021, 17402 of 2021 (GM-MMS)
Decided On : 27-05-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate For Sri Lomesh Kiran N.
For the Respondent: Sri Shivakumar S., CGC, Sri S.S. Mahendra, AGA.

Headnote:
MMDR Act - Sections 11, 24(1)(b) , 10A(2)(b) - Bombay Rent Act - Section 15-A - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 7(15)(a)(ii) - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Sections 4, 21 and 22 - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 297(2)(d)(ii) and 148 - Land Acquisition Act - Section 23(1-A) Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 - Establish mineable reserves of iron ore of low grade - Execute the mining lease within a stipulated time bound - grant of the environment clearance in respect of mining lease - Agreement and Mining Lease Deed - Petitioner was granted a Prospecting License for iron ore and associated minerals over an area District by Government a period of 3 years - Prospecting is to be undertaken in accordance with requirements of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 and prospecting report is required to be submitted - Mineable quantity of mineral is found in scientific prospecting and prospecting report is found to be in accordance with law, licensee has a right in law to apply for mining lease in terms of Section 11 of MMDR Act - Prospecting License and MMDR Act, petitioner undertook detailed prospecting operations in terms of Prospecting Scheme duly approved by Indian Bureau of Mines at considerable cost to petitioner - Scientific operations undertaken by petitioner – Held, Fallacy of proposed method of interpretation is not far to seek. - It sins against the fundamental rule of construction that a proviso must be considered with relation to principal matter to which it stands as a proviso - It treats it as if it were an independent enacting clause instead of being dependent on main enactment - Courts ... have refused to be led astray by arguments such as those which have been addressed to us, which depend solely on taking words absolutely in their strict literal sense, disregarding fundamental consideration that they are appearing - Court is of considered view that proviso cannot nullify the provision of Section 24(1)(b) nor can it set at naught real object of enactment, but it can further by providing higher compensation, thus dealing with matters in Section 24 - Provision could have been omitted with retrospective effect. Having not done so and rather having opted legislative tool of a proviso being inserted to main provision, well settled principles of the object and purpose of a proviso would come into play - Respondents have also relied on a large number of judgments with regard to effect of a proviso - retrospective effect, the writ petition which has been filed by petitioner claiming that the right under Section 10A(2)(b) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Court are of considered opinion that provisos to Section 10A(2)(b) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as inserted vide Amendment Act No.16 of 2021 w.e.f. 28.03.2021 are not applicable to applications - W.P.No.1920/2021 is allowed - W.P.No.8807/2020 is hereby allowed - W.P.No.17402/2021 is hereby allowed - W.P.No.5973/2021 is hereby allowed.

ORDER :

The Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 (for short 'the MMDR Act') has seen several amendments including the amendments vide Central Act 10 of 2015 w.e.f. 12.01.2015. One such amendment was insertion of Section 10A, whereby 3 categories of persons described in Section 10A(2)(a),(b) and (c) comprising of reconnaissance permit holders who became entitled to prospecting licence followed by a mining lease and prospecting licence holders who became entitled to a mining lease, as the case may be.

2. Subsequently, by Amendment Act 16 of 2021 which came into force on 28.3.2021, Section 10A(2)(b) referred to supra was further amended by incorporating 2 provisos to the said provision. It is the interpretation of the said provisos to Section 10A(2)(b) of the MMDR Act (as amended by Act No.16 of 2021 w.e.f. 28.03.2021) and applicability of the same to the petitioners herein which falls for consideration in the present writ petitions.

Prayers in all the writ petitions

W.P.No.1920/2021 was filed on 28.01.2021 by Indocil Silicons Private Limited, seeking the following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to grant prior approval for the application dated 6.10.2008 of the petitioner herein; and/or

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to expeditiously grant mining lease in favour of the petitioner in terms of the recommendation of the Screening Committee; and/or

(c) In the alternative, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to process the application dated 6.10.2008 of the petitioner herein and to expeditiously execute the mining lease within a stipulated time bound manner in terms of Section 10A(2)(b) of the MMDR Act read with Rule 7(6)(b) of the MCR, 2016 at Annexure - D; and/or

(d) Award costs of these proceedings in favour of the petitioner; and

(e) Grant such other relief(s) as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and necessary in the interests of justice and equity.

W.P.No.8870/2020 is filed on 27.06.2020 by Dalmia Cement (Bharath) Limited, seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ / direction / order against the Respondents to execute the Mine Development and Production Agreement and the Mining Lease in favour of the petitioner, pending the grant of the EC in respect of the mining lease area of 995.97 ha in Beeranahalli, Arebammanahalli, Konkanhalli, Taranahalli & Sedam (Shettihuda) Village, Sedam Taluk, Kalaburgi District, Karnataka in a time bound and expeditious manner;

(ii) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.

W.P.No.5973/2021 is filed on 22.03.2021 by Shree Cements, seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ / direction / order against the Respondents to execute the Mine Development and Production Agreement and the Mining Lease Deed in favour of the petitioner, pending the grant of the environment clearance in respect of the mining lease area of 1445.83 Ha. In Balwad, Tilgul, Kirangi and B Saradgi Villages, Taluk & Dist. Kalaburagi in a time bound and expeditious manner;

(ii) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.

W.P.No.17402/2021 is also filed on 18.09.2021 by Shree Cements, seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction / directions quashing the impugned order / letter dated 01.06.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 i.e., Regional Controller of Mines, IBM at Annexure A.

(ii) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.

Factual Matrix - W.P.No.1920/2021

3. Petitioner was granted a Prospecting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Kar) 186

Cases Referred (48)