Back
2023 Supreme(UK) 515
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
M/s Adi Gold Mining Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (M/s) No. 3351 of 2023
Decided On : 21-12-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Piyush Garg, Nachiketa Vajpayee.
For the Respondent: V.D. Bisen.
The court emphasized that a Letter of Intent (LOI) does not confer a legal right to obtain a mining lease and highlighted the importance of fulfilling conditions stipulated in the LOI.
Headnote:
Mines and Minerals - Cancellation of LOI - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, Section 10(2)(c), Notification of the Government of India, dated 04.03.2016
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief against the cancellation of the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued for granting a mining lease. The LOI was subject to conditions, including obtaining clearance from the National Board of Wildlife, which the petitioner failed to fulfill within 15 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the LOI did not confer a legal right to the mining lease and observed that the petitioner had not made efforts to fulfill the conditions stipulated in the LOI, causing financial loss to the government.
Issues: The issues revolved around the cancellation of the LOI, the petitioner's failure to fulfill the conditions, and the legal rights conferred by the LOI.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, and the notification of the Government of India, dated 04.03.2016, to support its decision. It emphasized the importance of fair and transparent mineral rights dispersal and the government's need for revenue.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was misconceived and devoid of merit.
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, thereby directing the Respondent No. 2 to recall the Office Memo bearing No. 274/VII-A-1/188/2005, dated 11.09.2023, vide which the LOI dated 26.12.2007 granted to Petitioner was cancelled and the concerned LOI is restored as operative and effective.
(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, thereby directing the Respondents to relax the condition requiring the Petitioner to obtain a clearance from NBWL or grant reasonable time of a minimum of 12 months, to the Petitioner to obtain the same.
(iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, thereby allowing the Petitioner to execute the mining lease deed; or in the alternative.
(iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, thereby directing the Respondents to duly consider the Annexure P-10 representation made by the Petitioner.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s firm, namely, M/s ADI Gold Mining Pvt. Ltd. involved in mining operations having registered office at Bangalore and on 10.03.1997, a Memorandum of Understanding (for short “MoU”) was entered into between the Uttar Pradesh State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. and Pebble Creek Resources Ltd. to form a joint venture company for the purposes of exploration and exploitation of the valuable minerals, and in terms of the said MoU, the petitioner’s company became a subsidiary of Pebble Creek Resources Ltd., which had assigned its rights and obligations under the MoU to the petitioner.
3. On 23.09.1998, the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh granted a Prospecting License to the petitioner for a period of three years in Village Baida, Gadali, Bijori, Dounikhela etc. of Tehsil Didihat, District Pithoragarh, and on the basis of the said Prospecting License, the petitioner executed the Prospecting License deed on 12.06.2000, and carried out detailed mining prospecting operations.
4. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred an application on 11.03.2005 for seeking grant of mining lease over an area of 3.86 sq. km. (380 hectares), which was recommended by the State Government to the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, for approval.
5. Thereafter, the Nodal Officer and the Chief Conservator of Forests, Department of Forests, Dehradun, sent a letter on 24.09.2007 to the Chief Conservator of Forests (Central), Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, Regional office at Lucknow, acknowledged the following conditions to be fulfilled by the petitioner, which are as under:
“(i) A sum of Rs. 4,43,256/- was deposited by the Petitioner, which was to be transferred to Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority, Uttarakhand (hereinafter referred as “CAMPA”) for the purpose of afforestation in land admeasuring twice the size of the subject area to be affected because of the mining operations.
(ii) A sum of Rs. 32,85,000/- towards NPV was duly deposited, which was to be transferred to CAMPA.
(iii) A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was duly deposited for the purpose of afforestation on the vacant areas of land on either side of the proposed roads for mining operations.”
6. Thereafter, on 26.12.2007, the Letter of Intent (for short “LOI”) was issued to the petitioner by the Industrial Development Department, Government of Uttarakhand, for the purpose of granting mining lease over an area of 3.86 sq. km. (380 hectares) for a period of thirty years and pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed mining plan. Thereafter, the Indian Bureau of Mines, vide approval letter dated 02.09.2008, approved the mining plan submitted by the petitioner, and following by the aforementioned approval of the mining plan, environmental clearance was also granted to the petitioner by the Ministry of Environment & Forests,
