Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIKRAM NATH, R.M.CHHAYA, JJ.
GAMBHIRSINH RATHOD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondents
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 882 of 2021
Decided On : 04-05-2021
Constitution of India- Article 226- Gujarat Mineral Concession Rules, 2017- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957- Development and regulation of mines and minerals - Declare, in the alternative to prayer (a) and (B) above that the proviso to Rule 15(1) of the Gujarat Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 and the Government Resolution dated 18.10.2017 is not applicable to the petitioner for the purpose of mining blacktrap.
Finding of the Court : It provides that if in the same lease hold area, more than one minor mineral is permitted to be mined, the lessee shall be liable to pay royalty for each such mineral or as the case may be, the Government shall not charge separate dead rent for every such minor mineral. It further provides that the lessee would be liable to pay aggregate of royalty in respect of all minerals and the highest dead rent applicable to the minerals included in the quarry lease. In the present case there is no question with regard to payment of dead rent. The only issue involved in this petition is with regard to payment of royalty. The petitioner is admittedly paying royalty on both the minor minerals - It is settled that no mining lease is to be given without holding public auction so that the maximum revenue is earned by the State. That is the provision under the Rules also for granting a general lease of minor mineral. It was only in the case of new discovery by the lessee during the subsistence of lease for a minor mineral that provision was made under Rule 41 of the 2010 Rules to grant lease to the same lessee for mining the newly discovered minor mineral as otherwise it would be practically impossible to grant lease to two different persons for mining two different minor minerals from over the same land covered by the two lessees.
Result: Petition allowed
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been flied praying for the following reliefs:
[B] declare illegal and set aside the Government Resolution dated 18.10.2017;
[C] declare, in the alternative to prayer (a) and (B) above that the proviso to Rule 15(1) of the Gujarat Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 and the Government Resolution dated 18.10.2017 (Annexure-1) is not applicable to the petitioner for the purpose of mining blacktrap;
[D] to quash and set aside the two impugned demand letters dated 21.07.2020 and 07.11.2020 (Annexure 2 and 3 respectively;
[E] to stay, pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, the operation, implementation and execution of the two impugned demand letters dated 21.07.2020 and 07.11.2020 and thereby direct that the petitioner’s ATR / e-royalty account of blacktrap be opened;
[F] to provide for the costs of the present Special Civil Application;
[G] to pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;”
RELEVANT ACT & RULES
2. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as MMDR Act) was enacted to provide for the development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union. Section 15 of the MMDR Act confers power on the State Government to make rules for regulating grant of quarry leases, mining leases and other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for the other purposes connected therewith.
2.1 The State of Gujarat for the first time promulgated Gujarat Minor Minerals Rules, 1966 [for short, 1966 Rules]. Under 1966 Rules there was a provision in Rule 22(xvii) that the lessee shall report the discovery of any material not specified in the list in the leased area and that the lessee would not win or dispose off such mineral without obtaining lease.
2.2 In 2010, the Government of Gujarat framed another set of Rules viz. Gujarat Mining Minerals Concession Rules, 2010 [for short, 2010 Rules]. Under Rule 74 of the 2010 Rules, the 1966 Rules were repealed to the extent provided therein. Rule 41 of the said 2010 Rules provided that lessee upon discovery of any mineral not specified in the list shall report to the competent authority and shall apply for lease under the 2010 Rules for grant of mining lease of the newly discovered mineral within a period of 3 months from the discovery.
2.3 Again in the year 2017, The State of Gujarat in exercise of powers under Section 15 of the MMDR Act framed the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 [for short, 2017 Rules]. Rule 92 of the 2017 Rules provides for repeal and saving of the 2010 Rules. Further, Rule 56(5) of the 2017 Rules provide for payment of royalty for each such mineral in case more than one minor mineral is permitted to be mined in the same leasehold area. Rule 15(1) of the 2017 Rules provided for new discovery and levy of auction premium of newly discovered mineral in respect of quarry lease executed after 2017 Rule. However, the proviso to Rule 15(1) provided that where the quarry lease for a minor mineral was granted prior to commencement of 2017 Rules, the Government shall have power to specify the rate of payment of the new mineral discovered. Pursuant to the proviso to Rule 15(1), the Government issued a resolution dated 18.10.2017 laying down the rate of payment for the newly discovered mineral. According to the Government Resolution the lessee would have to pay in addition to the royalty and dead rent as per Schedule-I and Schedule-II of the 2017 Rules, an additional amount being 80% of the royalty.
FACTS RELATING TO LEASE FOR MINING SAND
2.4 The Collec
Merely because Rule 15(1) and its proviso of 2017 Rules was mentioned in the order of the Commissioner would not make the Rule applicable. Wrong mention of a provision cannot make the provision appli....
Point of law: State Government have not so far issued any notification in terms of Section 17A, the Industrial Policy–2007 of the Kerala State Government does not have the effect of making a valid re....
Point of Law : Orders and actions of the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedents, as understood in ....
The court affirmed that applications for quarry leases must comply with statutory rules, and administrative instructions cannot override these provisions.
Compliance with mining lease terms is essential for valid surrender; failure to pay dues justifies lease termination and forfeiture of security deposit.
Only quarry leases granted or renewed before the commencement of the Gujarat Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 are eligible for extension under Rule 12.
The Granite Rules, 1999 prevail over the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1996 and the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Auction Rules, 2022 in the event of repugnancy.
The court ruled that amendments rendering pending applications ineligible violate constitutional rights, highlighting arbitrary treatment of applicants and the State's responsibility for delays.
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
