Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1308
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. KULKARNI, ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
Ashapura Minechem Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Indian Bureau of Mines through Ministry of Mines
WRIT PETITION NO. 4160 OF 2024
Decided on : 06-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Harsh Meghani a/w. Mr. Ashish Parwani a/w. Mr. Dikshet Mehra and Mr.
For the Respondent: Mithilesh Challa i/by Rajani Associates Ms. Anjali N. Helekar a/w. Ms. Anu C. Kaladharan Ms. S.D. Vyas, Addl. G.P. a/w Ms. T.J. Karpe, AGP
The court upheld that retroactive application of amendments to mining laws is valid when it aligns with constitutional provisions, asserting that the petitioner failed to comply with the statutory conditions leading to the lapse of mining lease.
Headnote:(A) Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 4-A(4) and 10A(2)(c) - The court examined the retroactive application of Amendment Act 2021 affecting mining leases executed before this amendment; it considered if provisions imposing conditions on leasing were in violation of petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Court found lapsing of the lease valid due to non-compliance as per statutory provisions by the petitioner. (Para 1, 4, 22, 56, 61)
(B) Legal principles - The principle of prospective application of legislative provisions established where no express intention for retroactivity is indicated. (Paras 31, 72)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a writ to declare amended provisions of the Act as inapplicable to leases executed prior to the amendatory date. The lease was declared lapsed due to non-compliance with statutory provisions by the petitioner, which challenged this validity on constitutional grounds. (Paras 1-4, 22)
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the petitioner failed to comply with mandatory conditions for mining lease execution and that the lease lapsed as per statutory provisions, and identified that extensions beyond a statutory period were impermissible. (Paras 70-74)
Issues: The core issues included the application of statutory amendments to leases executed before the amendment, the vesting of rights in the petitioner, and the legality of the lapsing order issued against the petitioner’s lease. (Paras 1, 4, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that statutory provisions regarding mining operations must be adhered to, seeing any lessee's failure to comply as a valid reason for lapsing the lease, thus, offering clarity on judicial non-involvement in legislative interpretations. (Paras 61, 72)
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for mining lease validity. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. amendment of mines act regarding lease conditions. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 3. arguments regarding the retrospective effect of amendments. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 4. conditions for mining commencement are mandatory. (Para 56 , 60 , 66) |
| 5. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 73 , 74) |
JUDGMENT :
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
Any State Largess is rooted in the foundation of “trusteeship, which is premised on need and not on the individual greed.[The quoted, italicized portion are the “telling words” of the Father of the Nation – Mahatma Gandhi.]
1. This is a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs which reads thus.
“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that Section 4 -A(4) of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as amended with effect from 28.3.2021 does not apply to leases executed prior thereto and that such lease shall be governed by the provisions of Section 4 -A(4) of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as they stood on the date of execution of such leases;
(b) To declare that the retrospective application of the provision under Sec. 4-A as amended by the said Amendment of 2021 is violative of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner under Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 as guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution.
(c) That in the alternative to prayer (a) above, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold that in computing the period of two years or a further period of one year, as the case may be under the amended section 4-A, the time taken by Government authorities and/or agencies and/or bodies to pass the revival order dated 24th March 2023 and the subsequent extension order dated 9th February 2024 (i.e. 32 months in aggregate out of 36 months) be excluded;
(d) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records and proceedings leading to the passing of the Order dated 24th March, 2023 (Exhibit V hereto) and the Order dated 9th February, 2024 (Exhibit AA hereto) and after going into the legality, validity and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the same to the extent they seek to arbitrarily impose the condition of commencing production and dispatch on or before 28th March, 2024;
(e) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition, or a Writ in the nature of Prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, leading to the passing of the Order dated 24th March, 2023 (Exhibit V hereto) and the Order dated 9th February, 2023 (Exhibit AA hereto) and after going into the legality, validity and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the same to the extent they seek to arbitrarily impose the condition of commencing production and dispatch on or before 28th March, 2024.
(f) For a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records and proceedings lying with the Controller of Mines & Officer in charge, Indian Bureau of Mines, Goa Regional Office, Respondent No.1, and after examining the validity, legality and propriety thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned emails.
(g) For a declaration that the erstwhile Rule 8(4) of the MCR 2016 is unconstitutional for violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(h) For a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any otherappropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the letter dated 27th November, 2018 issued by the Respondent No.5 for being bad in law.
(i) For a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or dir
