The court established that guidelines under the MMDR Act are prospective and do not affect licenses granted before their enactment.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - Brief facts as set out by the petitioner-company which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issue involved in the present writ petition are being referred as under:-

(i) The petitioner-company had applied for Prospecting License (hereinafter referred to as P.L. ) for mining activity. The area for mining lease was approved and demarcated on 24.12.2014. The order for granting P.L. was issued for a period of three years and sanction was granted.

(ii) On 12.01.2015, the Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the MMDR Act, 2015 ) came into force whereby it was provided that all the pending applications would stand rejected except those which have been saved under Clause (a) to (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 10A, of the MMDR Act as it existed.

(iii) A decision was taken by the State Government on 17.10.2015 to cancel all the permissions granted and LoIs issued by the Mining Department for the period from 01.11.2014 to 12.01.2015 on the ground that the same were issued contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Central Government and the State Government. In pursuance thereof, a show cause notice was issued under Section 4A(3) to the petitioner-company on 03.03.2016 proposing to terminate the P.L. issued to it. The petitioner-company submitted its reply to the show cause notice. After receiving the reply, the State Government passed an order on 30.11.2016 cancelling all the LoIs and licenses.

(iv) The petitioner-company challenged the cancellation of its P.L. in Revision Petition before the Mines Tribunal, GoI (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) assailing the orders dated 17.10.2015 and 30.11.2016 (supra).

(v) A Revision Petition was decided on 19.09.2018 whereby the orders were quashed and the matter was remanded back to the State Government to take up appropriate action as per law. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of M/s. Wonder Cement Limited and the cancellation of P.L. was also quashed.

(vi) The State Government did not take any action and petitioner-company filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.8906/2019 which was disposed of by this court vide its order dated 17.05.2019 with the following directions:-

upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner and considering the nature of grievance raised and prayer addressed; the State respondents are directed to determine the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented.

(vii) The compliance was not made and a contempt petition was filed wherein this Court passed an order on 13.10.2020 to take a decision within a period of 3 days on 15.10.2020.

The decision was taken by the respondent-Mining Department upholding its earlier order dated 30.11.2016 maintaining that the P.L. was granted to the petitioner-company in contravention of the guidelines dated 30.10.2014 issued by the Central Government.

2. It is after this stage that the matter has come up before this Court.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitionercompany has strongly objected to the order passed by the Department dated 15.10.2020 and submitted that the order is absolutely illegal, malafide and arbitrary. It is objected that once the orders dated 17.10.2015 and 30.11.2016 had been quashed and set aside by the Tribunal, the State Government had no authority to revive the order dated 30.11.2016 by the impugned order dated 15.10.2020. It is urged that the arguments, which have been made the basis for reviving the order dated 30.11.2016 were already examined at length by the Tribunal and it was found that the P.L. issued to the petitioner-company cannot be said to be in violation of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as MMDR Act 2015 ). As the MMDR Act 2015 came into force w.e.f 12.01.2015 while the P.L. had been issued to the concerned petitioner-company on 24.12