Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(Raj) 763

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vineet Kothari, J.
Meenakshi Metacast (P) Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8830 of 2011.
Decided On : 7-02-2013

For the Petitioner:D.D. Thanvi, Arivind Shrimali, Pankaj Sharma, Vishal Sharma, and Amit Vyas, Advocates.
For the Respondents:G.R. Punia, Addl. Advocate General with R.K. Soni, Sr. Advocate, M.R. Singhvi and Dharma Ram, Advocates.

The approval of the Central Government under Section 17A(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is not a condition precedent for reservation of areas for mining operations through a Government Undertaking or company.

Headnote:
MINES AND MINERALS - RESERVATION OF AREAS - SECTION 17A(2) OF THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 - APPROVAL OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - WHETHER A CONDITION PRECEDENT - REJECTION OF APPLICATIONS OF PRIVATE OPERATORS WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - QUASHING OF IMPUGNED ORDERS.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, private miners or applicants, applied for mining lease and prospecting licenses in the reserved area prior to the impugned order dated 10/3/2010 in the year 2008 itself along with the prescribed fee of Rs. 5,000/- but before its applications could be decided, the said Policy decision of the State Government was notified on 10/3/2010 imposing a ban on private operators to undertake any mining work in these reserved areas and in the same order in para 3 it was stated that the applications of the private operators, except in cases where the Courts have passed the stay orders, will be liable to be rejected under the said Policy decision dated 10/3/2010.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the impugned orders rejecting the applications of the petitioners dated 15/3/2011 or of different dates in other connected cases, are quashed and set aside and the applications of the petitioners, accordingly, would stand revived and the concerned authority is directed to re-decide the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within the aforesaid time frame of six months itself.
Issues: 1. Whether the approval of the Central Government under Section 17A(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is a condition precedent for reservation of areas for mining operations through a Government Undertaking or company? 2. Whether the rejection of applications of private operators without complying with the principles of natural justice is valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that it is premature to decide whether the approval of the Central Government under Section 17A(2) of the Act is a condition precedent or could be obtained ex post facto, as the facts in that regard have not been placed on record by the Mining Department of the State Government or State Government itself. 2. The Court held that the rejection of applications of private operators without complying with the principles of natural justice is not valid and quashed the impugned orders.
Final Decision: The Court directed the State Government to immediately undertake the necessary steps for complying with the provisions of Section 17A(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957 and set a time frame of six months to avoid any further delay. The Court also quashed the impugned orders rejecting the applications of the petitioners and directed the concerned authority to re-decide the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within the aforesaid time frame of six months itself.

JUDGMENT

1. - This batch of 22 writ petitions is being disposed of by common order since the controversy involved in these cases is common and the facts of Writ Petition No. 8830/2011 (Meenakshi Metacast (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & ors.) are illustratively taken for the said purpose.

2. The petitioners came to this Court challenging the impugned order issued by the Deputy Secretary, Mining Department, Govt. of Rajasthan on 10/3/2010 (Ann Ex. 6) reserving the notified Scheduled Tribe areas for mining of major minerals for which Reconnaissance Permits/Prospecting License/ Mining Lease in the specified areas of the State of Rajasthan are to be notified in which the backward class people of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and other Tribal people live and to allow the mining of minerals reserved in the said notified area only to the Govt. of Rajasthan Undertaking, namely; Rajasthan State Mines & Mineral Limited ('RSMM' for short).

3. The petitioners, the private miners or applicants, applied for the mining lease and prospecting licenses in the said reserved area prior to this impugned order dated 10/3/2010 in the year 2008 itself along with the prescribed fee of Rs. 5,000/- but before its applications could be decided, the said Policy decision of the State Government was notified on 10/3/2010 imposing a ban on private operators to undertake any mining work in these reserved areas and in the same order in para 3 it was stated that the applications of the private operators, except in cases where the Courts have passed the stay orders, will be liable to be rejected under the said Policy decision dated 10/3/2010, which is quoted below for ready reference:-

"jktLFkku ljdkj[kku (xzqi&2) foHkkxdzekad% i0(10)[kku@xzqi&2@99 t;iqj] fnukad 10 ekpZ 2010vkns'kbl foHkkx ds lela[;d vkns'k fnukad 03-07-2009 ds dze esa fuEu vkns'k tkjh fd;s tkrs gS%& 1- jktLFkku jkT; dh vf/klwfpr vuqlwfpr tutkfr {ks=ksa esa iz/kku [kfutksa ds u;s fjdksuslsUl ijfeV@iwoZs{k.k vuqKki=@[kuu iV~Vs dsoy jkT; ljdkj ds midze jktLFkku jkT; [kku ,oa [kfut fy0 RSMML dks fn;s tk;saxsA RSMML ;fn pkgs rks futh fuos'kdksa ds lkFk la;qDr midze (Joint Venture) Hkh dj ldsxh] ij mlls RSMML dh de ls de 51 izfr'kr fgLlsnkjh gksxhA vf/klwfpr vuqlwfpr tutkfr {ks=ksa esa Lohd`r [kuu iV~Vksa esa [kuu ls gksus okys ykHk dk de ls de 20 izfr'kr LFkkuh; vkfnokfl;ksa ds dY;k.k ij [kpZ fd;k tk;sxk rFkk ;g jkf'k MsV jsaV vkSj jk;YVh ds vfrfjDr gksxh vf/klwfpr vuqlwfpr tutkfr {ks=ksa esa Lohd`r [kuu iV~Vksa esa [kuu dk;Z gsrq lacaf/kr iV~Vk/kkjh de ls de 50 izfr'kr LFkkuh; vkfnokfl;ksa dks fu;ksftr djsxkA2- iz/kku [kfut ds tks [kuu iV~Vs flrEcj] 2000 ls iwoZ ls izHkko esa gS] os [kuu iV~Vs ;Fkkor jgsaxs rFkk mudk uohuhdj.k Hkh fu;ekuqlkj gks ldsxkA uohuhdj.k ds laca/k esa U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu vkns'kksa dh ikyuk Hkh lqfuf'pr dh tk,A3- vf/klwfpr vuqlwfpr tutkfr {ks= esa iz/kku [kfut ds lHkh yafcr vkosnu i= (U;k;ky; LFkxu vkns'kksa dks NksM+dj) fujLrh ;ksX; gksaxsA vf/klwfpr vuqlwfpr tutkfr {ks= esa viz/kku [kfutksa ds vuqnku ckcr i`Fkd ls vkns'k tkjh fd;s tk;saxsA

vkKk ls

mi 'kklu lfpo"

4. In pursuance of the said order dated 10/3/2010, the applications of the petitioners came to be straightaway rejected after about one year vide Ann Ex. 10 dated 15/3/2011, admittedly, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-applicants and also forfeiting their application fees of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by the petitioners. Aggrieved of the same, the present petitioners approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by present set of writ petitions.

5. The respondent Mining Department as well as RSMM have filed separate replies to the writ petition and a detailed rejoinder thereto has also been filed by the petitioners.

6. By the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions were heard finally at the admission stage, since the pleadings are complete.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D.D. Thanvi, Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Mr. Arvind Shrimali, Mr. Vishal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2013 Supreme(Raj) 763

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTVineet Kothari, J.Meenakshi Metacast (P) Ltd. - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan and others - RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8830 of 2011.Decided On : 7-02-2013

The approval of the Central Government under Section 17A(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is not a condition precedent for reservation of areas for mining operations through a Government Undertaking or company.

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vineet Kothari, J.
Meenakshi Metacast (P) Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8830 of 2011.
Decided On : 7-02-2013