Compliance with the conditions of the Letter of Intent is essential for the issuance of a mining lease, and objections regarding 'charagah land' do not preclude lease issuance if proper undertakings are provided.

JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts which require to be noticed are that on 05.06.2007, the Mines Department notified an area of 318.78 hectares under Rule 59(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 free for grant of mining lease and invited applications for establishment of Cement Plant with the capacity of 1 MTPA. The petitioner-company had applied for the same and a Letter of Intent ("Lol") was granted to the petitioner-company on 10.10.2007 wherein four conditions were laid down. Extension ofLol was granted on 11.03.2008 and the Forest Department issued NOC on 11.08.2008. Another extension for Lol was granted on 08.08.2008 and the mining plan was approved on 22.12.2008 and an environmental clearance was given on 06.05.2010 after extension of Lol was given upto 10.10.2007. Thus, four conditions, which required, environmental clearance, permission of mining plan, statement of khatedari land and submission of NOC from the Forest Department as required under the Lol, were complied with and a compliance letter was submitted by the petitioner-company on 07.07.2010. The Mining Engineer accordingly recommended for issuing mining lease. Another letter of extension of Lol was issued on 03.12.2010 whereby three additional conditions were laid down in Lol i.e. increasing capacity of plant from 3 MT to 4 MT, keenness money of Rs.2.2. crore per MT to be deposited and the stamp duty towards change of name of the demerger of the cement business of Grasim Industries Ltd. to M/s Samraddhi Cement Ltd. and amalgamation of M/s Samraddhi Cement Ltd. to M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., was to be deposited. The petitioner-company initially applied as Grasim Industries Ltd.

2. It is stated that the petitioner-company challenged the levy of stamp duty before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur and an interim order was passed on 25.09.2013 and by the Jaipur Bench on 06.01.2014.

3. An affidavit was also filed before the State Government pointing out that issue relating to stamp duty on account of demerger was under challenge before the High Court and the company would undertake to pay stamp duty as per final decision. While case of the petitioner-company was pending, the State Government floated an Amnesty Scheme. It is stated that the petitioner-company deposited the stamp duty with regard to demerger and amalgamation and the writ petitions were accordingly withdrawn. A letter of compliance was thereafter submitted, however, the mining lease was not continued on the premise that in the mining lease area, about 1.38 hectares of "charagah land" was spread all over the mining lease area to which the assurance was given by the petitioner-company that they will not undertake any mining operations without prior permission from the authority. The petitioner-company has also placed on record affidavit in this regard.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company submits that in view of all the compliances having been made, the respondents were required to issue mining lease but they have not issued mining lease and after cut-off date i.e. 11.01.2017 as provided under Section 10A(2)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the State Government may reject the application of the petitioner-company.

5. Learned counsel submits that as per amendment made under sub-section (2) of Section 10A of the MMDR Act, the Central Government has communicated prior approval and the Lol has been issued. The mining lease was required to be granted subject to the conditions laid down in the Lol and within two years the lease should have been issued. Since the petitioner-company had completed all the requisite conditions, there was no occasion for the respondents not to have released the Lol. The rights of the parties stood crystalised as on the date the petitioner-company approached the court as held in the case of Beg Raj Singh Vs. State of UP & Ors., reported in (2003) 1 SCC 726 and in State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Mandira Chatterjee, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 582.

6. Learn