SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Raj) 897

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.B.Sharma, I.S.Israni, JJ.
Veer Bala Purohit - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2014 of 1986.
Decided On : 8-12-1988

A new mineral found during the working of a mining lease cannot be included in the lease-deed. The lessee will have to apply for a separate lease under the relevant rules.

Headnote:

MINES AND MINERALS - Inclusion of new mineral in mining lease - Rules of 1960 and Rules of 1986 - Harmonization - New mineral found during working of mining lease - Inclusion in lease-deed not possible - Separate lease to be obtained under Rules of 1986.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner was granted a mining lease for silica sand and soap-stone. During the working of the mines, the petitioner discovered iron ore and marble. The petitioner applied for inclusion of marble in the mining lease or for a separate lease for marble. The Mining Engineer informed the petitioner that he should submit a No Objection Certificate from the Forest Department for carrying out mining operations on the area for excavating marble mineral.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Rules of 1960 and the Rules of 1986 cover different fields and apply to major and minor minerals respectively. If a new mineral is found while working a mining lease, being a minor mineral, that mineral cannot be included in the lease and the only course open to the lessee will be to apply for a separate lease under the Rules of 1986.

Issues: Whether a new mineral found during the working of a mining lease can be included in the lease-deed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rules of 1960 and the Rules of 1986 cover different fields and apply to major and minor minerals respectively. If a new mineral is found while working a mining lease, being a minor mineral, that mineral cannot be included in the lease and the only course open to the lessee will be to apply for a separate lease under the Rules of 1986.

Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ petition and directed the non-petitioners to decide the application filed by the petitioner for a fresh grant of lease for marble mineral for the mining area which has been cleared. The application shall be disposed of in accordance with Rules of 1986 as early as possible, but in no case later than four months.

JUDGMENT

1. - Under the powers vested in the Central Government under Section 13 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short, the Act), the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short, the Rules of 1960) were framed by the Central Government. The said Rules, it is not disputed, only cover the grant or renewal etc. of mining leases for major minerals. The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 1986 (for short, the Rules of 1986) were framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15 of the Act and so far as Rules of 1986 are concerned, provision has been made for grant of mining lease and their renewals. Under sub-rule (6) of rule 4 of the Rules of 1986 no mining lease shall be granted or renewed in the forest area without clearance from the Central Government in accordance with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Rules made thereunder.

2. There is no dispute that in the present case the petitioner applied for grant of mining lease in respect of area comprising of 207.205 hactares in accordance with rule 22 of the Rules of 1960 near village Raisala, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh District-Jaipur. The petitioner was granted mining lease by the State Government for silica sand and soap-stone vide order dated October 12, 1976. The petitioner had obtained a No Objection Certificate No. 324 dated January 9, 1975 from the Forest Department. The mining lease No. 19/75 was executed by the petitioner and the State Government on February 5, 1977 and it was got registered on March 5, 1977 in the Tehsil Jamwaramgarh. The said lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of 20 years with effect from the date of its registration i.e. March 5, 1977 and therefore it was to expire on March 4, 1997.

3. When the petitioner was doing mining operations, it was found that there was possibility of excavating Iron Ore and therefore the petitioner reported to the State Government the discovery in the leased area of the mineral. The said mineral i.e., iron ore was also included in the mining lease of the petitioner under Order dated March 15, 1980 and rider agreement was executed and the petitioner thereafter started winning iron ore also.

4. When the petitioner was undertaking the mining operations in this area, it was found that marble can be won out from the pits made for the purpose of excavating soap stone. It may be stated that during the working of mines the petitioner came to know that dolomite and silica sand were not in such quantity or state so as to do winning or disposing the same economically and practically and therefore the petitioner surrendered the minerals viz. Dolomite and Silica sand from the lease in accordance with rule 29 of the Rules of 1960. The petitioner applied on February 11, 1986, to the Mining Engineer Jaipur for inclusion of the mineral namely Marbel for the area 100 X 100 sq. meters in the said lease or in the alternative it was prayed that separate lease of 100 X 100 sq. meters for the marble may be granted. The petitioner was informed by the Mining Engineer that he should submit No Objection Certificate from the Forest Department for the purpose of carrying out mining operations on the area of 100 X 100 sq. meters for excavating marble mineral. The petitioner did not comply with that order and taking as implied refusal for grant of mining lease for the area 100 x 100 sq. meters, filed the present writ petition in this Court.

5. Notice was given to the non-petitioners and reply has been filed and basically the reply is that unless the petitioner gives No Objection Certificate from the Forest Department and unless the petitioner files no dues certificates, the mining lease cannot be granted. So far as the question of inclusion of area 100x100 sq. meters is concerned it is the case of the non-petitioners that both sets of Rules operate in different fields and have been framed by different authorities namely State Government and Central Government and the min





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top