The court ruled that amendments rendering pending applications ineligible violate constitutional rights, highlighting arbitrary treatment of applicants and the State's responsibility for delays.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

(i) An appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that Rule 9(1)¼Ä½ of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES 2004 as amended by the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 as ultra vires article 14 and 19(1)¼Ä½ of the Constitution of India and Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957;

(ii) Upon such declaration, for issuance of a further appropriate writ, order direction commanding upon the concerned respondent to process the petitioner's application for grant of Mining Lease for Building Stone applied for over an area of 10.10 Acres on Plot No. 3349(Part) under Khata No.2 in Mauja Amdiya, under Kolhan Thana in the District of West Singhbhum, Jharkhand vide it's application dated 20.01.2017 in accordance with the rules of 2004.

3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the grant of leases for 'Minor Minerals' in Jharkhand is governed by the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004, which provide a specific procedure for the grant of mining leases, including for building stone. The petitioner under the extant provisions of the aforesaid rule, applied for a mining lease for building stone over an area of 10.10 acres on Plot No. 3349 (Part) under Khata No. 2, in Mauja Amdiya, under Kolhan Thana in the District of West Singhbhum, Jharkhand, through an application dated 02.11.2015.

The application was processed by the DMO Chaibasa vide letter Nos. 1302 and 1303 dated 02.11.2015, and reports were requested from the Circle Officer, Hatgamharia, and the DFO, Chaibasa, regarding Revenue and Forest perspectives, respectively.

The Circle Officer, Hatgamharia, provided his report vide letter No.383 dated 07.11.2015, and the DFO, Chaibasa, furnished his report via letter No. 2743 dated 01.12.2015, to the DMO Chaibasa.

4. Subsequently, the Petitioner obtained approval for a mining plan from the Assistant Mining Officer, Chaibasa, which was communicated to the petitioner's consultant through a letter contained in Memo No. 1460 dated 05.12.2015.

The petitioner was also granted “Environmental Clearance” for an area of 4.08 hectares within the applied area by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) via letter No. 2618 dated 31.12.2015, as required under rule 9(1)¼x½ of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004, as amended by the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter to be referred as “Rules of 2004”).

It further reveals that for the grant of a mining lease for a minor mineral, holding a Gram Sabha was imperative in terms of Rule 24(5) of the Rules of 2004. The petitioner's application was approved by the Gram Sabha held on 07.05.2016. Notably, the Rules of 2004, under rule 11¼d½ provided for the issuance of a letter of intent (LoI) within 120 days from the date of application.

5. Since the petitioner was not issued such letter of intent (LoI) within 120 days from the date of its application dated 2nd November 2015, it reapplied for a mining lease over the same area through applications dated 09.03.2016 and 19.07.2016. The petitioner’s application was duly acknowledged, but no decision was made, compelling the Petitioner to submit another application before the expiry of 120 days from the date of application. Finally, vide letter dated 13.01.2017, the Petitioner's application dated 19.07.2016, was rejected, and the petitioner reapplied