Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, PRASENJIT BISWAS, JJ.
IRC Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
MAT 1458 Of 2018
Decided On : 11-10-2023
Joint Venture Agreement - Mining Lease - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Section 12A(6), Section 17A(2B), Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules - The court discussed the Joint Venture Agreement for mining of rock phosphate apatite, the amendments to the Mines and Minerals Act, and the applicability of the provisions to the agreement. The court held that the amendments to the Act were not applicable to the Joint Venture Agreement executed prior to the amendments, and therefore, the cancellation of the agreement was not justified.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a Joint Venture Agreement for mining of rock phosphate apatite, where the respondent cancelled the agreement citing amendments to the Mines and Minerals Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendments to the Act were not applicable to the Joint Venture Agreement executed prior to the amendments, and therefore, the cancellation of the agreement was not justified.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the amendments to the Mines and Minerals Act to the Joint Venture Agreement executed prior to the amendments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of express statutory authorization, delegated legislation in the form of rules or regulations cannot operate retrospectively.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law, within 8 weeks from the date of the judgment, and supported with cogent reasons.
JUDGMENT :
Prasenjit Biswas, J.
1. An order dated November 16, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the appellants’ writ petition being W.P. No. 20023 (W) of 2018. The writ petition was filed challenging a letter dated September 17, 2018, cancelling a joint venture agreement between the appellant no. 1 and the respondent no. 4. The learned Judge directed exchange of affidavits and kept upon the issue of maintainability of the writ petition. This order has been challenged in the present appeal.
2. Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the learned Single Judge to pass an interim order restraining the respondents from transferring the concerned mines/mining lease in favour of third parties, the writ petitioners have come up by way of this appeal. At the time of admission the appeal, the parties submitted that the writ petition should be heard out along with the appeal. Accordingly a Coordinate Bench directed as follows:-
“For the purpose of expeditious disposal of the matter, we propose to take up the writ petition in view of the consent given by the parties ..........
List the appeal and the application for injunction as well as the writ petition, being W.P. 20023 (W) of 2018, in the first week of February, 2019, under an appropriate heading.”
Accordingly, we have heard the appeal, the connected application and the writ application together.
3. The West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Ltd. invited expression of interest on 11th December, 2012 from different entrepreneurs for selection of Joint Venture Partner for the purpose of exploration and exploitation of mineral deposits (rock phosphate, granite and fire clay) along with setting up and running of processing plants in this State. Consequent to that 9 numbers of bidders submitted their expressions of interests and out of them 6 bidders were selected by the West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Ltd. giving them scope to submit their financial bids. Ultimately, the Petitioner No.1 was selected by the WBMDTCL as its Joint Venture Partner for mining of rock phosphate apatite in the Beldih Apatite Mine in Purulia.
4. Thereafter, a Joint Venture Agreement was entered in between the petitioner no.1 and WBMDTCL (Respondent No.4) on 16th August, 2014 for organization, operation and Management of Joint Venture Company (JVA) and in terms of the agreement this petitioner no.1 caused a Performance Bank Guarantee for rupees one crore to be furnished in favour of WBMDTCL which was renewed from time to time till the cancellation of the agreement.
5. Clause 2.1(C) of the joint venture agreement stipulates that the mining lease would be transferred in the name of Joint Venture Company subject to prior approval of the Government of West Bengal. Clause 3.3 of the agreement provides about the share holding pattern of the company which would be WBMDTCL 26% and the petitioner No.1 74% share. The said agreement also provides a clause stating that the Joint-Venture Company would set up a processing plant at Rangadih Grinding Unit in Purulia District.
6. Clause 5(1) provides that the leasehold mining rights in the name of the Respondent No.4 at Beldih in Purulia would be transferred to the Joint Venture Company by the Respondent No.4 subject to the Government approval.
7. As per terms of the agreement till incorporation of the Joint Venture Company, the agreement would be managed by constituting a steering committee and accordingly the committee was constituted on 27th August, 2014 with the representatives of WBMDTCL/ Respondent No.4 and the Petitioner No.1 Company.
8. In the meantime, pending the incorporation of the JVC section 12A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 was amended by insertion of Section 12A(6) with effect from 12.01.2015 which entails as follows-
“The transfer of mineral concessions shall be allowed only for concessions which are granted through auction.
[Provided that where a mining lease has
AI
The court found that a petitioner lacks standing to challenge mining lease rejections when the applicant's prior applications have become ineligible under the amended MMDR Act.
A party must demonstrate a specific legal interest adversely affected by an action to establish locus standi; executive guidelines can clarify laws but do not override statutory provisions.
The court ruled that a recommendation by the State does not constitute a vested right or letter of intent under the MMDR Act, and the amended provisions apply prospectively.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasoned decisions based on relevant facts, the importance of providing an opportunity of personal hearing, and the need to rec....
The principle of harmonious construction was applied to reconcile conflicting provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 and the Rules of 2016, ensuring that no provision was rendered ineffective....
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
