IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the statutory provisions of the MMDR Act limit the duration of mining leases to 50 years, and acceptance of lease terms precludes claims for additional time based on interruptions not qualifying as force majeure.

JUDGMENT

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, C.J.

A mining lease was executed on 21.02.1974 by the Collector, Sundargarh on behalf of the State of Orissa in favour of the late Ram Avatar Jalan, in accordance with the Mines and Minerals Concessions Rules, 1960 in respect of the land having description in Part-I of the schedule to the said lease of limestone and dolomite ore over an area of 573.0536 hectares in village Dharuara, Lanjiberna, Kukuda, Bihabandh and Falsakani under Sadar Sub-Division of Sundargarh Districts for 20 years i.e. upto 20.02.1994. After expiry of the validity period of said lease deed, the lessee continued with mining operation under the deemed extension provision of Section 8 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short, 'MMDR Act'), admittedly, with the permission of the competent authority under the State, in terms of an interim order of this Court dated 11.02.2015 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 18700 of 2014 arising out of W.P.(C) No. 21203 of 2014.

2. The petitioner No.2 in the present proceeding is the son and thus legal heir of the late Ram Avatar Jalan. Certain amendments came to be introduced in the MMDR Act by Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (Act 10 of 2015) with effect from 12.01.2015 including the insertion of Section 8-A therein, Sub-Section 3 thereof contemplates that all the mining leases granted before the commencement of the Act 10 of 2015 shall be deemed to have been granted for 50 years.

3. Manifestly, invoking the provision under Sub-Section (3) of Section 8-A of the MMDR Act, the validity period of the original lease dated 21.02.1974 has been extended in the case of the lessee to 20.02.2024, by a supplementary deed executed on 30.03.2016. petitioner No.2, who is the legal heir of late Ram Avatar Jalan, has approached this Court by filing the present writ application, primarily seeking a direction that he should be allowed to conduct mining operations based on the original lease deed dated 21.02.1974 read with Section 8-A (3) of the MMDR Act for an additional period equivalent to the period (09.01.2012 to 05.11.2015) for which the petitioner could not conduct the mining operations because of interruptions/disruptions caused by the State authorities, which the lessee could not reasonably prevent or control. The force majeure clause (Clause 4 of Part-F) of the lease agreement read with Rule 12 (1)(ff) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Mineral) Concession Rules, 2016 (in short, 'Rules of 2016') is the substratum of the petitioners' claim.

4. We have heard Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assisted by Mr. S.S. Tripathy, learned counsel and Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, learned Advocate General of the State assisted by Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.

5. The facts in this case are not at all in dispute which need to be taken note of, at the outset before dealing with the issues raised and submissions advanced on behalf of the rival parties.

6. The mining lease for Limestone and Dolomite over an area of 573.0536 hectares was granted in favour of the lessee, as noted above, with effect from 21.02.1974. The original lessee had surrendered a part of the lease area which was consequently reduced to 39.42 hectares of land. Before the expiry of the said lease period, an application was filed by the lessee seeking the first renewal of the lease in accordance with the provisions under Rule 24-A of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (in short, 'Rules of 1960') made by the Central Government in the exercise of its power conferred under Section 13 of the MMDR Act. The renewal application remained pending before the State Government. The lessee, however, continued the mining operations by virtue of Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 24-A of the Rules of 1960 till 07.11.2009. Therefore, the lessee was asked by the Deputy Director of Mines,