Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
M/s Spectrum Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and Another – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 1300 of 2021
Decided On : 24-08-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 30 - Lease Deed - Mining lease - Grant - Petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 with its Head Office and petitioner no. 2 is one of Directors as well as Shareholders of petitioner no. 1 - Petitioner no. 1 was initially named as “Spectrum Meghalaya Cement Company Private Limited” however, name was changed to the present name with effect and said change has been duly incorporated in Registrar of Companies vide certificate dated - Petitioner company had applied for a mining lease for Sillimanite over an area of 1 sq. kilometer in the area - Said application which was duly submitted with all enclosures was acknowledged by Directorate of Geology and Mining, Government of Assam - Since area was within Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, necessary No Objection was issued by the said Council - Subsequently, Department vide communication dated informed petitioners that the State of Assam had agreed to grant a mining lease for Sillimanite over said area of 1 sq. km. petitioner no. 1 was accordingly requested to submit a Mining Plan within six months which was to be approved by Indian Bureau of Mines and to also obtain environmental clearance.
Findings of the Court:
Court is not inclined to entertain attempt on part of State Government to question legality of the order dated inasmuch as, such question can be raised only by specific challenge to same and not in a position of a respondent in a proceeding - There is no scope in a writ proceeding for cross objection and even otherwise, only pleaded issue was change of name which has been answered by Revisionary Authority by assigning reasons and discussing case laws and same has attained finality- Case law referred to by State are not applicable in the instant case - Instant case is not a case where there is any legal Bar for final execution of Lease Deed which has been directed by Revisionary Authority vide order dated - Case of Santosh Kumar (Supra) on issuance of writ under Article 226 of Constitution of India is clearly not applicable in instant case as in that case, there was element of fraud, corruption and collusion - On other hand, case laws relied upon by petitioners are found to be applicable - In any case, Court has held that controversy at hand has been put to rest by order dated and therefore present is a fit case for issuance of a writ of Mandamus.
Result: Instant Writ Petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
1. The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by the petitioners in respect of a direction of the Central Government dated 27.11.2018 passed under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called, the Act). It is the case of the petitioners that their rights have been recognized by the Central Government wherein a direction has been given for executing a Mining Lease Deed with the petitioner no. 1, no consequential action has been taken by the respondent authorities.
2. Before coming to the issue which has arisen for determination in this case, it would be convenient to state the facts of the case in brief.
3. The petitioner no. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 with its Head Office, Guwahati and the petitioner no. 2 is one of the Directors as well as Shareholders of petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no. 1 was initially named as “Spectrum Meghalaya Cement Company Private Limited” however, the name was changed to the present name with effect from 03.07.2014 and the said change has been duly incorporated in the Registrar of Companies vide the certificate dated 03.07.2014.
4. It is the projected case of the petitioner that on 07.12.2009, the petitioner company had applied for a mining lease for Sillimanite over an area of 1 sq. kilometer in the area of Chippilanso and Hapjan. The said application which was duly submitted with all enclosures was acknowledged by the Directorate of Geology and Mining, Government of Assam. Since the area was within the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, necessary No Objection was issued by the said Council on 27.07.2010. Subsequently, the Department vide communication dated 02.03.2012 informed the petitioners that the State of Assam had agreed to grant a mining lease for Sillimanite over the said area of 1 sq. km, the petitioner no. 1 was accordingly requested to submit a Mining Plan within six months which was to be approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines and to also obtain the environmental clearance. As indicated above, in the meantime, the petitioner no. 1 has changed its name by duly following the Rules and the same was allowed by the RoC.
5. In compliance of the Letter of Intent dated 02.03.2012, the petitioners had submitted the various requirements including the Mining Plan with Progressive Mine Closure Plan, duly approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines on 08.07.2014. The petitioners had accordingly submitted the same on 17.07.2014 to the State Government for doing the needful. The Pollution Control Board, Assam had also informed the Ministry of Environmental Forest, Government of India vide communication dated 24.02.2014.
6. As a matter of record, on 12.01.2015, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance 2015 was promulgated whereby Section 10A was inserted in the Act. As per the said Section, all applications received prior to 12.01.2015 shall become ineligible except provided in Sub-Section (2). As per the said Sub-Section, the applications for rights of existing concession holders as provided in the provisions of Sub-Section (2) were not to become ineligible.
7. As, in the comprehension of the petitioners, the Ordinance did not have any effect on its pending application, the petitioner no. 1 issued a communication dated 10.04.2015 to the Department of Mines and Minerals informing that since all the formalities were completed, the mining lease be granted at the earliest. Subsequently, on 22.07.2015, the Central Ministry, Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department accorded the Environment Clearance (EC) in favour of the petitioners in respect of the present mining proposal.
8. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that during that time, the Minerals (Other Than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concessions Rules, 2016 were brought into force and Rule 8 of the MCR, 2016 provided for the rights under the provisions of Section 10A(2)(
There cannot be a collateral challenge to an order by a respondent in a writ proceeding instituted by a petitioner for implementation of such order.
Court affirmed that governmental compliance with judicial orders is mandatory, but eligibility for mining leases can be affected by subsequent legislative amendments.
The State cannot take advantage of its own wrong, and a wrongdoer should not be permitted to make a profit out of their own wrong.
The court upheld that the State's refusal to renew a prospecting license was justified due to prior leases and forest designation, affirming that leases contrary to the Mines Act are void.
The court upheld that parties lacking legitimate claims or authority cannot disrupt lawful mining operations, affirming pre-existing rights granted under legislated provisions.
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
