ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.03.2020 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the representation for extension of lease period of the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner /Company was granted a Mining Lease for extraction of Bauxite and Limestone over an area of 10.16 acres situated in Village Argat, Tehsil Amarpatan, District Satna, vide order dated 08.01.1964. The lease was executed for a period of 20 years from 16.01.1964 to 15.01.1984. Prior to the expiry of the lease period, the Petitioner has applied on 27.12.1984 for the first renewal of the lease. The said application was rejected on 17.12.1985 by the State Government on the ground of delay. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a Revision before the Central Government. The Revisional Authority, vide order dated 29.11.1988, set aside the rejection order and directed the State Government to reconsider the renewal application on merits of the petitioner. In compliance of the order dated 29.11.1988, the State Government granted renewal of the lease for a period of 10 years vide order dated 20.11.1992, and the lease deed was executed on 18.03.1993. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the grant of renewal for only 10 years instead of 20 years, preferred a second revision before the Central Government. The Revisional Authority, vide order dated 20.02.1998, held that the petitioner was entitled to renewal for a total period of 20 years and accordingly directed modification of the lease period. In compliance, the lease stood renewed for the period from 18.03.1993 to 17.03.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner applied on 27.02.2012, seeking second renewal of the mining lease. During the pendency of the said application, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 came into force with effect from 12.01.2015, whereby the provisions relating to renewal of mining leases were abolished and Section 8-A was inserted. As per Section 8-A (6) of the Act, all mining leases granted prior to the amendment shall be deemed to have been extended up to 50 years from the date of grant or until 31.03.2020, whichever is later, subject to compliance of the lease conditions.

3. The Petitioner submitted a representation dated 06.08.2018 seeking extension of the lease period by an additional period of 09 years and 02 months on the ground that mining operations remained closed from 16.01.1984 to 18.03.1993 due to litigation and administrative delay, and therefore the said period ought to be excluded while computing the total lease period. The respondents rejected the petitioner’s claim vide impugned order dated 02.03.2020 on the ground that there is no provision under the Act or Rules permitting addition of the non-operational period to the lease period.

4. The Respondents submit that the original mining lease was granted on 16.01.1964 and, in terms of Section 8-A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended in 2015, the maximum statutory lease period of 50 years expired on 15.01.2014, and by operation of law, the lease stood deemed extended only up to 31.03.2020, whichever is later. It is further submitted that there is no provision under the Act or the Rules permitting exclusion or addition of any non-operational period for extending the lease beyond the statutory limit of 50 years, and the amendment has abolished the concept of renewal by prescribing a fixed maximum lease period. The representation of the petitioner was duly considered and rightly rejected vide order dated 02.03.2020, as the petitioner failed to establish any statutory entitlement for further extension. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner, being prior to the 2015 amendment, cannot override the express statutory provisions. Therefore, the impugned order is legal and valid, and the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for