SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 77

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
A.S. Chandurkar, M.S. Jawalkar, JJ.
Shrikrupa Stone Crusher through its Partner Avinash Madhukar Tayde and Others – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4588, 4589, 4590, 4591, 4592 of 2019
Decided On : 17-03-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri. S/Shri Shantanu Khedkar, V.B. Bhise and R.D. Dhande, Advocates
For the Respondent: Ms. N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader

The main legal point established in the judgment is that short term quarry permits for minor minerals under Rule 59(1) should be granted based on an application made to the Competent Authority and not through public auction, as the procedure for grant of quarry lease under Rule 9 is distinct from the procedure for grant of short term permit under Rule 59.

Headnote:

short term permit - grant of short term permit for minor minerals - Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 - Rule 59

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought short term permits for extraction of minor minerals, but were informed that such permits would only be granted through e-auction. They challenged this decision and sought a direction for the issuance of the permits.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that short term quarry permits under Rule 59(1) should be granted based on an application made to the Competent Authority and not through public auction. The Government Resolution dated 23.01.2019, which prescribed the procedure for public auction under Rule 9, was found not applicable to the grant of quarry permits under Rule 59 of the Rules of 2013.

Issues: The main issue was whether short term permits for minor minerals should be granted through public auction or based on an application to the Competent Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant statutory provisions and found that the procedure for grant of quarry lease under Rule 9 was distinct from the procedure for grant of short term permit under Rule 59. It emphasized that Rule 59(1) intended to operate notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing rules, including Rule 9, and that the mode of granting such permit on an application made had been retained.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders refusing to grant short term quarry permit by stating that the same can be granted only by way of public auction. It directed the petitioners to make applications for the quarry permits under Rule 61(1) and Form P as prescribed, and held that the Competent Authority shall decide the same in accordance with law and in the light of the court's observations.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The question that arises in this batch of writ petitions is whether grant of short term permit for minor minerals under Rule 59 of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 (for short, the Rules of 2013) ought to be preceded by holding public auction or whether such short term permit can be granted on the basis of an application made to the Competent Authority ?

3. Each petitioner claims to hold permission to operate stone crushers. The petitioners were informed by the Additional Collector that in view of Government Resolution dated 23.01.2019 grant of short term permit would be permissible only through e-auction. For that reason, the request made by the petitioners for grant of short term permit came to be refused. Being aggrieved by the issuance of such communication the petitioners have challenged the orders passed in that regard and further seek a direction that the respondents be directed to issue short term permit for extraction of minor minerals to the petitioners.

4. Shri Shantanu Khedkar, learned Counsel alongwith S/Shri V.B. Bhise and R.D. Dhande, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Additional Collector by misconstruing the provisions of Rule 59 of the Rules of 2013 alongwith Government Resolution dated 23.01.2019 has refused to grant short term permit for excavation of minor minerals. Inviting attention to the provisions of Rule 2(s) which defines “quarry license or lease” and Rule 2(t) which defines “quarry permit”, it was submitted that the Rules of 2013 make a distinction between quarry license or lease and quarry permit. Rule 9 of the Rules of 2013 prescribes the mode of granting quarry lease and under sub-rule (1) the Competent Authority can grant quarry lease either on receipt of an application or by way of public auction. Inviting attention to Rule 59 it was submitted that for grant of short term permit to extract any minor mineral it was necessary only to make an application to the Competent Authority and the said Rule did not provide for conducting any auction in that regard. It was further submitted that on 12.01.2018 the Revenue and Forest Department issued Notification seeking to amend the Rules of 2013. Rule 9 as existing was substituted making it obligatory on the part of the Competent Authority to grant quarry lease by way of public auction. While introducing such amendment the provisions of Rule 59 of the Rules of 2013 were not so amended and hence there was no basis for the Additional Collector to hold that grant of short term permit was also to be through public auction. On a plain reading of Rule 9 as amended and Rule 59, it was submitted that there was no reason to hold that grant of short term permit was to be through public auction. Rule 59 began with the use of a non obstinate clause and therefore there was no occasion to apply the provisions of Rule 9 while granting short term permit for excavation of minor minerals. The learned counsel referred to the decision Laxmi Devi vs. State of Bihar and others (2015) 10 SCC 241. It was thus submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Additional Collector were liable to be set aside and the application for grant of short term permit ought to be considered in the light of Rule 59 of the Rules of 2013.

5. Ms. N.P. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions. She submitted that under Section 15 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, the Act of 1957) the State Government was empowered to make Rules in respect of minor mineral. The Rules of 2013 were accordingly framed. As per Rule 9 a quarry lease could be granted after holding public auction. The same modality was to be followed for grant of short term quarry permit. Inviting attention to Government Resolution dated 23.01.2019 it was submitted

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top