2018 Supreme(P&H) 78

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURYA KANT, SUDHIR MITTAL, JJ.
Baljit Singh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
CWP Nos. 12664, 13166, 13553, 13579, 13578, 13530, 13428, 13574, 13573, 13586, 13509, 13510, 13511, 13512, 13570, 13571, 13572, 13587, 13588, 13508, 13522, 13567, 13427, 13311, 13521, 13577, 13531, 13581, 13583, 13585, 13580, 13584, 13524, 13523, 13590, 13568, 13569, 13564, 13532, 13994, 14002, 13264, 13426, 13513, 13514, 13515, 13516, 13517, 13518, 13519, 13520, 13525, 13526, 13527, 13533, 13563, 13565, 13566, 13575, 13576, 13582, 13589, 13591, 25701, 25703, 25733, 25734, 25736, 25755, 25775, 25779, 25786, 25790, 25838, 25839, 26001, 26263, 26266, 26292, 26306, 13993, 13996, 14003 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 12-01-2018

State empowered to regulate prospecting of mines and minerals in accordance with powers provided by Act and Rules - Such regulation includes formulation of terms and conditions on which mining lease or licence or concession is to be granted, procedure for obtaining same, period for which concession may be granted, terms and conditions of auction, manner in which contract money is payable and conditions under which termination of lease/licence may be done - State entitled to change its policy and such changed policy is applicable to existing contracts - Impugned action taken pursuant to changed policy and therefore, is legal and permissible in law - Petitioners given option to either carry on prospecting under changed conditions or to exercise their right under Rule 39 and surrender contract - Petitioners chose to contest case instead, clearly indicating that excuse of inability to carry on prospecting under changed conditions, was merely a red herring - Petitioners are class apart from new entrants into field - They cannot claim to be equal to persons who may choose to bid for mine after introduction of new policy - Unequals cannot seek protection of Article 14 of Constitution of India - Petitioners submit that once contract had been entered into, it was their legitimate expectation that same would run its complete course unless interrupted through termination for violation of any of prescribed terms - This argument rejected - No promise has ever been held out by State that terms of contract would not be changed during its subsistence - On contrary, provisions of Act, Rules, E-auction notice and conditions of Form-L show that statutorily State could alter terms of existing contract - Thus, very basis being non-existent in this case, argument has to be rejected.

Headnote:

MINERALS - CONTRACT - AUCTION - [Punjab Minor Minerals Rules, 2013, Rules 34, 36, 39, 41(2), 44] - Petitioners, holders of contracts permitting them to mine minor minerals in Punjab, challenged impugned notices asking them to either surrender existing contracts or execute fresh contract at rate at which mines within Districts have been given for prospecting of minor or minerals by auction through ‘progressive bidding’; in absence of any mines having been auctioned by ‘progressive bidding’ within District, at auction rate of adjoining District - HELD, impugned action has sanction of law and is in public interest - State empowered to regulate prospecting of mines and minerals in accordance with powers provided by Act and Rules - Such regulation includes formulation of terms and conditions on which mining lease or licence or concession is to be granted, procedure for obtaining same, period for which concession may be granted, terms and conditions of auction, manner in which contract money is payable and conditions under which termination of lease/licence may be done - State entitled to change its policy and such changed policy is applicable to existing contracts - Impugned action taken pursuant to changed policy and therefore, is legal and permissible in law - Petitioners given option to either carry on prospecting under changed conditions or to exercise their right under Rule 39 and surrender contract - Petitioners chose to contest case instead, clearly indicating that excuse of inability to carry on prospecting under changed conditions, was merely a red herring - Petitioners are class apart from new entrants into field - They cannot claim to be equal to persons who may choose to bid for mine after introduction of new policy - Unequals cannot seek protection of Article 14 of Constitution of India - Petitioners submit that once contract had been entered into, it was their legitimate expectation that same would run its complete course unless interrupted through termination for violation of any of prescribed terms - This argument rejected - No promise has ever been held out by State that terms of contract would not be changed during its subsistence - On contrary, provisions of Act, Rules, E-auction notice and conditions of Form-L show that statutorily State could alter terms of existing contract - Thus, very basis being non-existent in this case, argument has to be rejected.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, holders of contracts permitting them to mine minor minerals in Punjab, challenged impugned notices asking them to either surrender existing contracts or execute fresh contract at rate at which mines within Districts have been given for prospecting of minor or minerals by auction through ‘progressive bidding’; in absence of any mines having been auctioned by ‘progressive bidding’ within District, at auction rate of adjoining District.

Finding of the Court:

Impugned action has sanction of law and is in public interest - State empowered to regulate prospecting of mines and minerals in accordance with powers provided by Act and Rules - Such regulation includes formulation of terms and conditions on which mining lease or licence or concession is to be granted, procedure for obtaining same, period for which concession may be granted, terms and conditions of auction, manner in which contract money is payable and conditions under which termination of lease/licence may be done - State entitled to change its policy and such changed policy is applicable to existing contracts - Impugned action taken pursuant to changed policy and therefore, is legal and permissible in law - Petitioners given option to either carry on prospecting under changed conditions or to exercise their right under Rule 39 and surrender contract - Petitioners chose to contest case instead, clearly indicating that excuse of inability to carry on prospecting under changed conditions, was merely a red herring - Petitioners are class apart from new entrants into field - They cannot claim to be equal to persons who may choose to bid for mine after introduction of new policy - Unequals cannot seek protection of Article 14 of Constitution of India - Petitioners submit that once contract had been entered into, it was their legitimate expectation that same would run its complete course unless interrupted through termination for violation of any of prescribed terms - This argument rejected - No promise has ever been held out by State that terms of contract would not be changed during its subsistence - On contrary, provisions of Act, Rules, E-auction notice and conditions of Form-L show that statutorily State could alter terms of existing contract - Thus, very basis being non-existent in this case, argument has to be rejected.

Issues: None

Ratio Decidendi: State empowered to regulate prospecting of mines and minerals in accordance with powers provided by Act and Rules - Such regulation includes formulation of terms and conditions on which mining lease or licence or concession is to be granted, procedure for obtaining same, period for which concession may be granted, terms and conditions of auction, manner in which contract money is payable and conditions under which termination of lease/licence may be done - State entitled to change its policy and such changed policy is applicable to existing contracts - Impugned action taken pursuant to changed policy and therefore, is legal and permissible in law - Petitioners given option to either carry on prospecting under changed conditions or to exercise their right under Rule 39 and surrender contract - Petitioners chose to contest case instead, clearly indicating that excuse of inability to carry on prospecting under changed conditions, was merely a red herring - Petitioners are class apart from new entrants into field - They cannot claim to be equal to persons who may choose to bid for mine after introduction of new policy - Unequals cannot seek protection of Article 14 of Constitution of India - Petitioners submit that once contract had been entered into, it was their legitimate expectation that same would run its complete course unless interrupted through termination for violation of any of prescribed terms - This argument rejected - No promise has ever been held out by State that terms of contract would not be changed during its subsistence - On contrary, provisions of Act, Rules, E-auction notice and conditions of Form-L show that statutorily State could alter terms of existing contract - Thus, very basis being non-existent in this case, argument has to be rejected.

Final Decision: Writ petitions dismissed.