Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Rahul Vyas S/o Shri Prakash Bhai Vyas – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10181, 10184, 10194, 10204, 10209, 10217, 10224 of 2024
Decided On : 20-09-2024
Mining - Mining Lease - MMCR 2017 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, particularly rule 5, emphasizing the necessity of fulfilling financial obligations for the validity of mining lease applications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a mining lease for Silica Sand, received a Letter of Intent (LOI), but failed to deposit required fees and provide Environmental Clearance, leading to the cancellation of the LOI.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the LOI was justified due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the financial requirements stipulated in the MMCR, particularly rule 5.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of the LOI was lawful given the petitioner's failure to deposit the required fees and provide Environmental Clearance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compliance with financial obligations under rule 5 of the MMCR is essential for the validity of mining lease applications, and failure to meet these conditions justifies cancellation of the LOI.
Result: The writ petitions were dismissed.
ORDER :
1. All these writ petitions involve identical facts and grounds and therefore, are being decided conjointly.
2. For the purpose of clarity and convenience, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10181/2024 titled as Rahul Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan and Others are being taken into consideration.
3. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of mining lease on 18.06.2013 for the area ad-measuring 4.5 hectares near Village Parewar, Tehsil & District Jaisalmer for mineral Silica Sand. Petitioner’s application was processed and a Letter of Intent (for short ‘LOI’) dated 28.01.2014 came to be issued in his favour.
4. On 28.08.2015, the respondent no. 4-Additional Director (Mines) sent a communication to the petitioner to produce Environmental Clearance as per the Notification dated 07.10.2014 issued by the Central Government so also to deposit FDR of Rs. 75,000/-. Before needful could be done, the mineral-Silica Sand [which was major mineral and covered by the provisions of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MMDR’)] came to be declared as ‘minor mineral’ and thus, governed by Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1986’).
5. Be that as it may. The Rules of 1986 were repealed and new set of rules known as the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MMCR’) came to be promulgated w.e.f. 01.03.2017.
6. According to rule 5 of the MMCR, the pending applications including the applications under MMDR were saved subject, however, to the provisions of sub-rule (1) and other relevant provisions of rule 5 of MMCR.
7. The respondent-Mining Engineer sent a letter dated 30.03.2017 and asked the petitioner to pay differential application fee of Rs.6,500/- premium amount of Rs. 1,68,750/- and the consent of the land holder, if the LOI is in respect of a khaterdari land.
8. On 03.05.2017, the petitioner submitted a reply and stated that the mining area in the relation whereof, the LOI has been issued to him, is not a khatedari land and also that he would carry out the remaining compliance to the notice dated 30.03.2017 at the time of registration of mining lease.
9. The respondent no. 5 again sent a communication dated 21.08.2017 and asked the petitioner to deposit the amount mentioned in the notice dated 30.03.2017 within a period of 30 days, failing which the action in accordance with law would be taken. The respondent no. 5 had also warned that the State would be recovering 10 times penalty as provided under rule 16(2) of the MMCR, for delay in complying with the terms of LOI.
10. The petitioner filed a reply raising objections regarding the stipulation about penalty under rule 16(2) of the MMCR, but did not pay differential application fee and premium amount.
11. As the petitioner chose not to deposit the amount of Rs.1,68,750/- alongwith the differential application fee as required by the letter dated 30.03.2017, by way of the order dated 13.11.2017, the respondent no. 4 cancelled the LOI granted to the petitioner, giving out reasons that the petitioner has failed to deposit the differential application fee of Rs.6,500/- the premium amount of Rs.1,68,250/- being 2.5 times of amount of annual dead rent for the applied area and also because he has failed to hand over No Objection Certificate by the khaterdar-tenant.
12. For completion of facts, it may be stated that the petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition challenging the order aforesaid, which writ petition came to be disposed of by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.03.2018 requiring the petitioner to file a revision petition before the State Government.
13. Petitioner’s revision petition filed before the State Government, came to be rejected vide order dated 31.05.2024. While rejecting petitioner’s revision petition, the State Government observed that the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount mentioned in the notic
AI
Compliance with financial obligations under the MMCR is essential for the validity of mining lease applications, and failure to meet these conditions justifies cancellation of the LOI.
The State cannot take advantage of its own wrong, and a wrongdoer should not be permitted to make a profit out of their own wrong.
A mining lease holder must obtain Environmental Clearance before commencing operations, and failure to do so precludes any extension of the lease period under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession R....
The court emphasized the importance of considering extenuating circumstances, such as the petitioner's medical condition, and held that arbitrary decisions without due consideration are not permissib....
Rule 18 (21) of Rules, 1986, which provide for alternate consequences of breach of conditions of lease.
No lapsing of a mining lease occurs where operations are statutorily restrained until requisite environmental clearances are obtained, making provisions inapplicable until such clearances are availab....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of Rule 29 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2017, in directing the government to issue an....
Mining Lease approvals were revoked due to the petitioners' failure to comply with statutory requirements, rendering prior approvals void.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
