Back
2020 Supreme(J&K) 682
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJEEV KUMAR, J.
Ashaq Hussain Paddar and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of J&K and Others – Respondents
OWP No. 363 of 2019, WP (C) No. 1057 of 2019
Decided On : 01-05-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: A.H. Naik, D.S. Chauhan.
For the Respondents: S.H. Naqashbandi, Sunil Sethi.
For the Intervenor : Ravi Abrol.
Headnote:
JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR, J. CM No. 1038/2020 This application has been filed for impleadment of eight persons as party respondents on the ground that they are vitally interested in the outcome of these petitions for [It seems to be read as “the” - Editor] favour the decision of the Government to allot mining leases only by way of e-auction.
Fact of the Case:
Pursuant to an Advertisement Notification issued by respondent No. 2, which came to be published in various newspapers, an open auction for approval of different minor minerals blocks located in various districts of the Jammu and Kashmir including the Districts of Srinagar, Budgam, Anantnag, Poonch and Udhampur etc. was conducted by duly constituted Committees headed by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district. Apart from others, the petitioners holding eligibility to participate in the open auction also participated in the process and were declared the highest bidders for identified mining blocks. Consequent upon the approval to the highest bids of the petitioners for their respective blocks, granted by the Chairman of District Auction Committee (Deputy Commissioners concerned), the petitioners in terms of Rule 55(9) of the Mining Rules, were issued the letters of intent with a direction to submit approved mining plan and the environmental clearance besides depositing remaining 50% of the bid amount within a period of six months enabling respondent No. 2 to grant formal mining lease in favour of the petitioners for extraction of minor minerals from the allotted blocks.
Finding of the Court:
The petitioners have miserably failed to do so. Other than submitting the mining plan prepared by the RQP, they have failed to submit environmental clearance as also to deposit the remaining bid amount within the statutory period of six months.
Issues: 1. Whether by issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI) by the respondents and acceptance of 50% of the bid amount along with approved mining plan, right has been created in favour of the petitioners to claim allotment/execution of the mining leases. 2. Whether failure of the petitioners to obtain environmental clearance from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SLEIAA) within a period of six months stipulated in their LOIs is a reason good enough for the respondents to refuse grant of mining lease. 3. Whether in the given facts and circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to invoke the principle of estoppel and legitimate expectation. 4. Whether failure of the petitioners to obtain environmental clearance from the SLIEAA within the stipulated period is attributable solely to the petitioners or to the respondents; or it has resulted in frustration of contract without any party being responsible for such failure. 5. Whether the impugned decision of the government to scrap the open auctions held under the Rules of 2016 (un-amended) is arbitrary, irrational and affects/takes away the accrued/vested rights of the petitioners. 6. What is the impact of substitution of Rule 104-A in the Rules of 2016, which was aimed at facilitating the carrying on of all the mining operations by the petitioners without there being lease deeds executed between the petitioners and the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners knew that under the statute as also in terms of the LOI issued in their favour, they would be entitled to the grant of mining leases only after they complete the requisite formalities. There was, thus, no unequivocal promise extended to the petitioners that the successful bidders shall be allotted the mining leases, notwithstanding their failure to complete the requisite formalities.
Final Decision: Accordingly, issue is answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV KUMAR, J.
CM No. 1038/2020
This application has been filed for impleadment of eight persons as party respondents on the ground that they are vitally interested in the outcome of these petitions for [It seems to be read as “the” - Editor] favour the decision of the Government to allot mining leases only by way of e-auction.
The petitioners, however, oppose the plea of the applicants for impleadment but submit that they have no serious objection in case the applicants are permitted to intervene.
The applicants, for the reasons stated therein, and also for the reason that they have vital interest in the outcome of the writ petitions, are permitted to intervene.
The application is disposed of.
1. The petitioners in all these petitions are persons having been issued letters of intent for grant of mining leases for extraction of minor minerals from various minor minerals blocks located in erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir (now UT of Jammu and Kashmir). In all these petitions, petitioners have raised a common grievance against a communication of the Department of Industries and Commerce issued through its Under Secretary bearing No. Ind/legal-239/2018 dated 26.02.2019 whereby the Director, Geology and Mining Department, Jammu and Kashmir has been conveyed the approval of the competent authority to the scrapping of open auction carried under the Jammu and Kashmir Mining Minerals Concession, Storage Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Mining Rules of 2016) and providing further that fresh auction shall be carried out only through e-auction mode. The petitioners are also aggrieved of the condition (ii) of the impugned communication whereby it is provided that till the time fresh allotments are made through e-auction, the existing mechanism would continue. The petitioners claim and pray for writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to allow them to continue with the mining activities in their respective blocks without any interference for a period of 05 years.
2. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners in all these petitions have a common grievance and cause to agitate and are seeking identical relief, it has been decided to hear all these petitions together and decide the same by a common judgment.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. Pursuant to an Advertisement Notification issued by respondent No. 2, which came to be published in various newspapers, an open auction for approval of different minor minerals blocks located in various districts of the Jammu and Kashmir including the Districts of Srinagar, Budgam, Anantnag, Poonch and Udhampur etc. was conducted by duly constituted Committees headed by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district. Apart from others, the petitioners holding eligibility to participate in the open auction also participated in the process and were declared the highest bidders for identified mining blocks. Consequent upon the approval to the highest bids of the petitioners for their respective blocks, granted by the Chairman of District Auction Committee (Deputy Commissioners concerned), the petitioners in terms of Rule 55(9) of the Mining Rules, were issued the letters of intent with a direction to submit approved mining plan and the environmental clearance besides depositing remaining 50% of the bid amount within a period of six months enabling respondent No. 2 to grant formal mining lease in favour of the petitioners for extraction of minor minerals from the allotted blocks. It is pertinent to note that intending bidders were supposed to deposit 50% of the bid amount on the fall of hammer. The formal communication in this regard was addressed by the respondent No. 2 to each of the successful bidders. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioners being the approved highest bidders and having been issued the letters of intent got the mining plan approved from the prescribed authority and submitted the same to the respondent No
