Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Nandita Tiwari – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (M/s) No. 666 of 2017
Decided On : 14-12-2023
Mining Lease - Renewal - 1957 Act, Section 13, 15 - 1960 Rules, Rule 22(3)(h), 24A(6) - 2001 Rules, Rule 8 - Uttarakhand Minor Minerals Policy, 2015 - Section 10A of the 1957 Act
Fact of the Case:
A mining lease was granted to the petitioner's husband in 1976, which was renewed multiple times. After the husband's death, the petitioner applied for further renewal, but objections were raised by villagers. The State Government recommended renewal of the lease except for the objected land. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that the lease area should not be reduced under the 1960 Rules and that the denial of renewal violated her Fundamental Rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the renewal application had not been decided, and after 2015, soapstone was classified as a minor mineral, making the 2001 Rules applicable. The court held that the petitioner did not have a vested right to renewal and that the application had to be considered according to the rules in force at the time of disposal. The court also found that the reduction of the mining area was valid and in compliance with Rule 8 of the 2001 Rules. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the application for renewal had become ineligible under Section 10A of the 1957 Act.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of the 1960 Rules and 2001 Rules, the validity of the reduction of the mining area, and the applicability of the Uttarakhand Minor Minerals Policy, 2015 and Section 10A of the 1957 Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application for renewal had to be considered according to the rules in force at the time of disposal, and the reduction of the mining area was valid under Rule 8 of the 2001 Rules. The court also found that the application had become ineligible under Section 10A of the 1957 Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
INTRODUCTION
1. A mining lease was granted to the husband of the petitioner, on 21.08.1976. It was renewed on multiple occasions. Last time, it was extended for ten years till 15.05.2002. The husband of the petitioner died in the year 2000. The petitioner moved an application on 07.06.2001 for further renewal of the lease. Meanwhile, certain villagers raised objections with regard to 14.328 hectares land of the lease area. By impugned Office Memorandum dated 27.02.2017, the respondent no. 1 recommended for renewal of the lease except 14.328 land of the lease area, on which objections were raised by the villagers of the village Pangchaura. This order dated 27.02.2017 has been challenged in this petition on the ground that this order wrongfully curtails the lease area. Subsequent to it, recommendation was made on 06.08.2001 for grant of lease in favour of the private respondents that has also been challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought other reliefs in the petition.
FACTS
2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows:
(ii) The lease was further extended for ten years w.e.f. 14.05.1982 to 15.05.1992.
(iii) The lease was further extended for a period of ten years till 15.05.2002.
(iv) The husband of the petitioner, who happened to be original lessee died in the year 2000, when the lease deed was in existence.
(v) The petitioner moved an application on 07.06.2001 for renewal of the lease, but it was not renewed.
(vi) It appears that the villagers of Village Pangchaura, raised objections for mining of the land of which they are owners. Therefore, the State Government by its order dated 23.05.2006, recommended renewal of lease, except the land on which the villagers of Village Pangchaura Loharkhet had raised objections.
(vii) The petitioner did challenge order dated 23.05.2006 of the State Government before the Revisional Authority (Central Government) under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“1957 Act”) which was decided on 15.09.2010. The revisional authority remanded the matter for passing orders under law within six months from the date of order of the revisional authority.
(viii) It appears that the State Government did not decide the matter, as directed by the revisional authority, therefore, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition (M/s) No. 1321 of 2012, Smt. Nandita Tiwari vs. State before this Court, which was decided on 28.06.2002 (“the petition”). This Court directed that the matter may be considered within four weeks since then.
(ix) On 23.01.2013, the State Government permitted the mining operation under Rule 24 (A) 6 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (“1960 Rules”) till the decision is taken on the application of the petitioner for renewal of the lease.
(x) By the impugned office memorandum dated 27.02.2017, the State Government approved the proposal to renew the lease except the land falling within village Pangchaura.
(xi) On 15.05.2008, the State of Uttarakhand renewed the lease for 35.372 hectares land under the Uttarakhand Minor and Minerals Policy, 2015 (“2015 Policy”).
(xii) 14.328 hectares land falling within Village Pangchaura was not renewed for mining.
(xiii) A proposal was sent by the respondent no. 3 Director, Mining Directorate of Industries, State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun for grant of lease to the private respondent of the land falling within Village Pangchaura. It appears that it includes some of the land which had earlier been sanctioned for the petitioner for mining and for which the lease was not renewed for the petitioner.
(xiv) The office memorandum dated 27.02.2017 of the respondent no. 1, the State Government and recommendation dated 06.08.2021 of the respondent no. 3 are sought to be quashed. Other related re
The application for renewal of a mining lease must be considered according to the rules in force at the time of disposal, and the reduction of the mining area must be in compliance with the relevant ....
The renewal of a mining lease must comply with procedural requirements, including consultation with the Gram Panchayat and conducting a Joint Inspection as mandated by applicable rules.
The Mines Tribunal has the authority to determine lease terms for mining operations under statutory provisions, affirming that statutory leases are bound by the same conditions as contractual ones, i....
Mining Lease approvals were revoked due to the petitioners' failure to comply with statutory requirements, rendering prior approvals void.
The State must timely address mining lease renewals; otherwise, it risks allowing continued operations based on statutory provisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
