Back
2017 Supreme(Ori) 42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
INDRAJIT MAHANTY & BISWANATH RATH, JJ.
Sri Kshirod Chandra Pradhan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa and others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C). No. 20533 of 2012
Decided On : 12-01-2017
For the Petitioner: M/s. Umesh Chandra Pattnaik, S.D. Mishra, S. Patnaik & K.K. Rout.
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. B. Bhuyan (Addl. Govt. Advocate), Mr. A.K. Bose (Asst. Solicitor General).
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner had obtained necessary approval for the mining plan and there was no violation of the Circular dated 31.05.2012, leading to the court's decision to direct the execution of the mining lease in favor of the petitioner.
Headnote:
Mining Lease - Approval of Mining Plan - MMDR Act, 1957, Section 5(1) and 5(2) - The court found that the petitioner had obtained necessary approval for the mining plan from the appropriate authority and concluded that there was no violation of the Circular dated 31.05.2012. The court directed the opposite parties to execute the mining lease in favor of the petitioner over the reduced area at the earliest.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to execute a mining lease for 'Unchabali, Nayagarh Iron Ore Mines' in the district of Keonjhar. The State objected, citing the petitioner's failure to submit the approved mining plan within the stipulated time period and the need for fresh approval for the reduced area.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had obtained necessary approval for the mining plan and concluded that there was no violation of the Circular dated 31.05.2012. The court directed the opposite parties to execute the mining lease in favor of the petitioner over the reduced area at the earliest.
Issues: 1. Whether the Circular issued by the Union of India in the Ministry of Mines dated 31.05.2012 is in consonance with the MMDR Act, 1957 read with the concerned M.C. Rules? 2. Whether the prayer made by the writ petitioner seeking direction to the State to execute the mining lease is justified in the present facts and circumstances of the case?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had obtained necessary approval for the mining plan and concluded that there was no violation of the Circular dated 31.05.2012. The court directed the opposite parties to execute the mining lease in favor of the petitioner over the reduced area at the earliest.
Final Decision: The writ application is allowed, and the opposite parties are directed to execute the mining lease in favor of the petitioner over the reduced area at the earliest.
JUDGMENT :
I. Mahanty, J.
The present writ application has come to be filed by the petitioner-Sri Kshirod Chandra Pradhan, originally with the prayer seeking a direction to the opposite parties to execute the mining lease deed in respect of “Unchabali, Nayagarh Iron Ore Mines” in the district of Keonjhar, in favour of the petitioner and further to direct Opposite Party No. 2 (Collector, Keonjhar) to issue necessary surface right operation within a stipulated period.
2. After notice was issued in the present writ application to the State of Odisha, a counter affidavit came to be filed through Shri Debadutta Suranjita Jena, Under Secretary, Department of Steel & Mines, Government of Odisha on 22.06.2013, essentially objecting to the prayer of the petitioner by raising the plea that “the petitioner failed to submit the approved mining plan within the stipulated time period and also did not seek extension of the period for submission of the approved mining plan. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of mining lease.”
3. A rejoinder affidavit came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, stating that the Director of Mines, Odisha vide its letter dated 04.05.2004 communicated the “precise area map” over 27.794 hectares. In terms of Rule 22(4) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (in short, the “MC Rules”), the petitioner immediately prepared the mining plan and submitted the same to the Central Government on 02.07.2004, before the Indian Bureau of Mines, Ministry of Mines, Government of India and the said mining plan was duly approved vide communication dated 11.11.2004. The petitioner also submitted the said approved mining plan with the State of Odisha in the department of Steel and Mines under cover of its letter dated 17.11.2004. Consequently, the allegation of delay in submitting the aforesaid Mining, as alleged by the State, is not a fact.
Insofar as the modification of the area of lease is concerned, it is alleged that the modification became necessary, on account of the directions issued by the Odisha State Pollution Control Board, who under their order dated 18.11.2006 conveyed their “consent to establish” under Annexure-10, but limited the area to 24.570 hectares, instead of 27.794 hectares.
4. The aforesaid direction of the State Pollution Control Board was communicated to the Director of Mines, Odisha under cover of its letter dated 22.08.2009 who, thereafter, once again provided the “precise area map” by reducing the original area from 27.794 hectares to 24.570 hectares.
The petitioner in turn, submitted the modified mining plan to the Central Government under cover of his letter dated 26.11.2009 and the Central Government i.e. the Indian Bureau of Mines, Ministry of Mines, Government of India accorded its necessary approval to the modified mining plan on 14.01.2010 under Annexure-18 to the writ application. The said approval of the modified mining plan was also sent by the petitioner in original to the Director of Mines, Odisha with the request for grant of mining lease at an early date.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, it was asserted on behalf of the petitioner that the delay being the ground on which the State sought to justify their inaction, is wholly without any application of judicial mind, since there has been no delay on the part of the petitioner in seeking for and obtaining the necessary approvals of the modified mining plan as noted hereinabove.
6. Subsequent to the counter affidavit dated 24.06.2013, an additional affidavit came to be filed on behalf of the State by Sri Sundar Lal Seal, Additional Secretary, Steel & Mines Department, Government of Odisha. In the said additional affidavit, it was asserted that while the petitioner was granted with the mining lease over 27.794 hectares vide letter dated 08.01.2004, subsequently, the area approved under Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short, the “MMDR Act, 1957”) was reduced to 24.570 hectares a
