Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
Sunil Kumar Khandelia S/o Jagdesh Prasad Khandelia - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Geology And Mining and ors. – Respondents
WPC No. 2210 of 2024
Decided On : 27-08-2024
(A) Mines Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 – Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand (Quarrying and Trade) Rules, 2019 – Amendment to Rule 4 – The petitioner sought extension of lease period for sand mine based on the amendment to Rule 4, which increased the lease duration from 3 to 5 years. The court held that the amendment does not apply retrospectively as there was no express provision for retrospective effect. (Paras 2, 4, 9, 12, 13)
(B) Legislative Intent – The court emphasized that legislative amendments are generally prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. (Paras 9, 10)
(c) Executive Authority – The court ruled that the executive cannot alter legislative provisions without proper authority. (Paras 4, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was granted a lease for sand mining for 2 years, extendable for 1 year, but sought a further extension based on a recent amendment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the amendment to Rule 4 does not apply retrospectively and upheld the original lease terms. Issues: The main issues were whether the amendment to Rule 4 could be applied retrospectively and the authority of the executive to issue clarifications on legislative amendments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the amendment was prospective and did not affect existing leases.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-
10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction to the authorities, to extend the benefit of the amendment made in the Rule 4 of Rules of 2019 to the petitioner by extending the lease period of sand mine situated at the village Kareli Chhoti Tehsil Magarlod, District – Dhamtari, having Khasra No. 409 bearing Rakba 4.90 hectares petitioner for another two years as per the mandate of the amendment made in Rule 4 of the Rules of 2019 vide notification dated 15.05.2023.
10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.
10.4 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.”
2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was granted lease of sand mines at Village Kareli Chhoti, Tehsil – Magarlod, District – Dhamtari over the land bearing Khasra No. 409 admeasuring 4.90 hectares. The lease was executed on 02.11.2020 for a period of 02 years up till 01.11.2022 which was extended in accordance with the provisions as provided under Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand (Quarrying and Trade) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Rules, 2019) . The extended period of one year also came to an end on 01.11.2023. During subsistence of the lease period of the petitioner, the State of Chhattisgarh has brought amendment in Rules, 2019 and the duration of quarry lease as provided under Rule 4 of Rules, 2019 has been made as 05 years from the date of registration of quarry lease deed.
3. After coming into force the amended provision of Rule 4 of Rules, 2019, the petitioner submitted an application dated 15.09.2023 before the Respondent No. 4 (Annexure P/4) for extending the period of lease for a further period of 02 years from 01.11.2023, in view of the amendment brought in Rule 4 of the Rules, 2019 with respect to the duration of lease as 05 years in place of 03 years. It appears that looking to the questions posed by the respective Collectors, Respondent No. 2 has issued letter to all the Collectors of the State of Chhattisgarh clarifying the effect of the amendment brought in Rule 4 of Rules, 2019 and held that the amended provision will not apply retrospectively. The petitioner after getting knowledge of the letter issued by the Respondent No. 2 as filed this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issuance of letter by the Respondent No. 2 is non-est in the eyes of law. It is contended that the executive and the authorities cannot issue any clarification on the legislative amendment issued by the State Government without prior approval of the Hon’ble the Governor. Letter dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure P/3) is not in the name of Hon’ble the Governor. By issuing letter dated 12.03.2024 (Annexure P/5), the Respondent No. 2 has curtailed the rights of the petitioner to carry his business for a further period of 02 year, making it total period of lease of the petitioner as 05 years by the executive order. The action on the part of the Respondent No. 2 is also in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The Executive has no authority under the law to add the words on the wisdom of the Legislature, once the amendment as brought under any Rule or Section, original seizes to exist and therefore, the duration of the lease mentioned in the lease deed executed and registered in favour of the petitioner of 02 years, further extendable for 01 year under Rule 4 will be substituted by 05 years automatically. Therefore, the duration for lease for the petitioner will be 05 years as the amendment is brought in by Legislature during the curr
Legislative amendments are generally prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise, and the executive cannot alter legislative provisions without proper authority.
A Letter of Intent constitutes a binding contract, and subsequent amendments to renewal rules do not retroactively affect rights accrued prior to the amendment.
Point of law: Amendment – Rules - substitution made by Rule 7 of the Amendment Rules of 2020 will have a retrospective operation.
Mining authorities cannot refuse lease extensions based on policy when statutory provisions support such extension, especially if the delay was not the lessee’s fault.
Only existing quarry leases prior to the commencement of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 are eligible for extension under the specified provisions.
Once the terms and conditions of a lease are accepted, the party cannot challenge them. The application of statutory provisions, such as Rule 9(1) of the JMMC Rules, must be adhered to in determining....
Only quarry leases granted or renewed before the commencement of the Gujarat Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 are eligible for extension under Rule 12.
Only existing quarry leases granted before the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, can be extended under Rule 12, affecting the petitioner's claim.
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
