Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar, JJ.
M/s. Ghosh Stone Works - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.1511 of 2018
Decided On : 29-11-2023
lease - mining lease - Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (Rule 9(1)) - 9(1) - The court discussed the application of Rule 9(1) of the JMMC Rules, which provided for the deemed extension of existing/pending renewal leases till 31.03.2020 or for a greater period for which it is granted/renewed. The court highlighted the interpretation and application of this rule in the context of the lease renewal and its impact on the validity period of the lease.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner sought to quash the order denying the renewal of a mining lease for a period of 10 years, as it was only renewed for 5 years instead. The petitioner argued that similar benefits were granted to other licensees and challenged the decision based on the amended JMMC Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lease was valid up to 10.10.2020 and the petitioner had carried out mining operations during this period. The court held that the petitioner could not challenge the decision after accepting the terms and conditions of the lease. The court also emphasized the application of Rule 9(1) of the JMMC Rules in determining the validity period of the lease.
Issues: The issues involved the challenge to the denial of a 10-year lease renewal, the application of Rule 9(1) of the JMMC Rules, and the authority's decision in light of the petitioner's acceptance of the lease terms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the terms and conditions of a lease are accepted, the party cannot challenge them. Additionally, the court emphasized the application of Rule 9(1) of the JMMC Rules, which deemed the extension of existing leases till 31.03.2020 or for a greater period for which it is granted/renewed.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no grounds for interference in the impugned order.
ORDER :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein quashing of the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Respondent No.2 in Revision Case No.84/2016 by which while dismissing the revision, the claim of the writ petitioner to grant the lease for a period subject to maximum of 10 years has been declined.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition which are required to be enumerated, read hereunder as :-
3. The fact of the writ petition is that a mining lease over the area in question was granted in favour of the writ petitioner for 10 years with effect from 11.10.2000 to 10.10.2010. Thereafter, the said lease was renewed in favour of the petitioner for further 05 years with effect from 11.10.2010 to 10.10.2015.
4. The writ petitioner, subsequent thereto, had made an application on 02.06.2015 for renewal of the aforesaid stone mining lease for a period of 10 years with effect from 11.10.2015 to 10.10.2025.
5. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that the said renewal application was made after getting the environmental clearance certificate by the SEIAA, Jharkhand which is valid for 10 years. However, the Deputy Commissioner has granted approval for renewal of the stone mining lease in favour of the writ petitioner for a period of 05 years.
6. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the said renewal for a period of 10 years having been denied while the similar benefits have been granted to the other licensees. As such, the writ petitioner preferred revision before the Revisional Authority being Revision Case No.84/2016. But, the Revisional Authority has dismissed the revision application on the ground of amended Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter to be referred as JMMC Rules) which contains a rule as under Rule 9(1) whereby and whereunder the provision has been made that all the existing/pending renewal lease will be deemed to be extended till 31st March, 2020 or for a greater period for which it is granted/renewed.
7. The Revisional Authority, by taking into consideration the statutory command as provided under Rule 9(1) of the JMMC Rules, has taken as one of the grounds in rejecting the revision application. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.
8. Learned counsel has submitted by assailing the order passed by the Revisional Authority that the same is absolutely mechanical and without application of mind, since, the consideration has been given regarding the application submitted by the writ petitioner for renewal of the lease for a period of 10 years which was made on 02.06.2015.
9. The contention has been made that the same has been renewed but not for the period of 10 years, rather, it is only for the period with effect from 11.10.2015 to 10.10.2020 instead of up to 10.10.2025 and hence the gross illegality has been committed by the competent authority who was to renew the lease.
10. The further contention has been made that since the application was dated 02.06.2015, hence the subsequent rule as contained under Rule 9(1) of the JMMC Rules will not be applicable.
11. Per contra, Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-II, has defended the order passed by the Revisional Authority on the basis of the averment made in the counter affidavit. In addition to that, the ground has been taken that issuance of lease is not a vested right of the party concerned, rather, it is up to the licensing authority to issue license for the specific period and the applicant cannot claim that the license be issued for a particular period.
12. It has been contended that based upon the application dated 02.06.2015, which was made for 10 years, the lease was extended up to 10.10.2020, but, thereafter there was amendment in the JMMC Rules by insertion of provision under Rule 9 wherein the provision has been made that all the existing/pending renewal lease will be deemed to be extended till 31st March, 2020 or
Once the terms and conditions of a lease are accepted, the party cannot challenge them. The application of statutory provisions, such as Rule 9(1) of the JMMC Rules, must be adhered to in determining....
A Letter of Intent constitutes a binding contract, and subsequent amendments to renewal rules do not retroactively affect rights accrued prior to the amendment.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to lease conditions and highlighted that sympathy or mercy cannot override the terms and conditions of a lease agreement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application of Rule 29(1) and Rule 29(2) of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, determines the eligibility of pending applic....
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
