Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2846
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sangeet Lodha and Dinesh Mehta, JJ.
Bajri Lease Lol Holders Welfare Society Through Its President - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To Government - Respondent
Civil Writ No. 2996 of 2018, 12394 of 2018, 4188/2018, 4784 of 2018, 4785 of 2018, 9150 of 2018, 9194 of 2018, 9195 of 2018, 9200 of 2018, 9201 of 2018, 9202 of 2018, 9298 of 2018, 9311 of 2018, 9318 of 2018, 9320 of 2018, 9326 of 2018, 9327 of 2018, 9333 of 2018, 9334 of 2018, 9335 of 2018, 9336 of 2018, 9337 of 2018, 9338 of 2018, 9483 of 2018, 10558 of 2018, 10562 of 2018, 10823 of 2018, 10827 of 2018, 10834 of 2018, 10846 of 2018, 10867 of 2018, 10955 of 2018, 10957 of 2018, 10960 of 2018, 12401 of 2018, 12406 of 2018, 12409 of 2018, 12412 of 2018, 12415 of 2018, 12418 of 2018, 13007 of 2018, 13012 of 2018, 13061 of 2018, 13126 of 2018, 13320 of 2018, 13549 of 2018, 14835 of 2018, 16599 of 2018, 17268 of 2018, 17271 of 2018, 3655 of 2018, 3683 of 2018, 10951 of 2018
Decided On : 09-04-2019
M.S. Singhvi, Adv., Abhishek Mehta, Adv., D.S. Rajvi, Adv., B.M. Bohra, Adv., Kuldeep Vaishnav, Adv., Ankur Mathur, Adv., Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, Adv., Girish Joshi, Adv., K.K. Vyas, Adv., Devendra Khatri, Adv., Rajesh Panwar, Adv., Ayush Gehlot, Adv., Utkarsh Singh, Adv., Aarohi Ojha, Adv.
The issuance of LoIs in favour of the petitioners expressing the intention of the State Government to grant mining lease in their favour, do not create any vested right which stands adversely affected on account of the period for fulfillment of the conditions specified under the LoIs being restricted to one year from the date of commencement of the Rules of 2017.
Headnote:
MINES AND MINERALS - MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 2017 - RULE 5(4) - Vires - LoI holders - Rights - Forfeiture - Validity.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, LoI holders for grant of mining lease of mineral Bajri, challenged the vires of sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (Rules of 2017), which provides that in all cases covered by Rule 5, the conditions of Letter of Intent (LoI) including execution and registration of mining lease, shall be fulfilled within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Rules of 2017 i.e. 28.2.17, failing which, the right of the LoI holders shall be forfeited and in such cases, it would not be mandatory for the Government to issue any order in this regard.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of Rule 5(4) of the Rules of 2017 restricting the right of the LoI holders to claim the mining lease in their favour on fulfillment of the conditions specified protected under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, for a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Rules of 2017 cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable so as to fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: Whether the provisions of Rule 5(4) of the Rules of 2017 restricting the right of the LoI holders to claim the mining lease in their favour on fulfillment of the conditions specified protected under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, for a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Rules of 2017 are arbitrary and unreasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the issuance of the LoIs in favour of the petitioners expressing the intention of the State Government to grant mining lease in their favour, do not create any vested right which stands adversely affected on account of the period for fulfillment of the conditions specified under the LoIs being restricted to one year from the date of commencement of the Rules of 2017.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with the observations that the vires of sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017 is upheld. The right of the petitioners herein, the LoI holders, under the Rules of 1986, who have failed to fulfill the conditions of LoI within the time specified under subrule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017, to claim consideration and disposal of their application for grant of mining lease in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 read with sub-rule (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017, shall stand closed.
JUDGMENT
Sangeet Lodha, J. - By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the vires of sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short "the Rules of 2017"), which provides that in all cases covered by Rule 5, the conditions of Letter of Intent (LoI) including execution and registration of mining lease, shall be fulfilled within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Rules of 2017 i.e. 28.2.17, failing which, the right of the LoI holders shall be forfeited and in such cases, it would not be mandatory for the Government to issue any order in this regard.
2. The petitions involving the common issues, were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. To appreciate the issues raised, it is essential to refer to the background facts in nutshell and for this purpose, we consider it appropriate to refer to the facts of D.B.C.Writ Petition No.2996/18, preferred by Bajri LoI Holders Welfare Society espousing the cause of its members, which was argued, as lead case before us.
4. The grant of quarry licenses, mining leases and other mineral concessions in respect of minor mineral in the State of Rajasthan were governed by Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short "the Rules of 1986"), framed by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short "the Act of 1957").
5. The issue of serious environmental impact on ephemeral, seasonal and perennial rivers and river beds and adverse effect on biodiversity on account of quarrying, mining and removal of sand from instream and upstream of several rivers came up for consideration of the Supreme Court in the matter of Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2012 4 SCC 629 . During the course of hearing, the Court issued directions to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to make local inspection with the intimation to Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF), of the State of U.P., State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana with regard to alleged illegal mining going on and to examine whether there has been an attempt to flout Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification dated 14.9.06 by breaking the homogenous area into pieces of less than five hectares. CEC was also directed to examine whether the activities going on in that area have any adverse environmental impact. In compliance of the order, CEC submitted a detailed report. After due examination of the report submitted by the CEC as also taking into consideration the recommendations of MoEF, the Supreme Court opined that it is highly necessary to have an effective framework of mining plan which will take care of all environmental issues and also evolve a long term rational and sustainable use of natural resource base and also the bio- assessment protocol. The court observed that sand mining may have an adverse effect on biodiversity as a loss of habitat caused by sand mining will affect various species, flora and fauna and it may also destabilise the soil structure of river banks and often leaves isolated islands. The court observed that the State of Haryana and various other States have not so far implemented the recommendations of MoEF or the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Mines before issuing auction notices granting short term permits by way of auction of minor minerals, boulders, gravel, sand etc. in the riverbeds and elsewhere of less than five hectare. Accordingly, the Supreme Court while directing all the States, Union Territories, MoEF and the Ministry of Mines to give effect to the recommendations made by MoEF in its Report of March 2010 and the model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines, within a period of six months, issued following further directions:
"28. The Central Government also should take steps to bring into force the Minor Minerals Conservation and Development Rules, 2010 at the earliest. The State Governments and UTs also sh
