IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3075 OF 2021 Prafulla S/o Ram Lanjewar Aged – 61 years, Occ. Business, .. Petitioner R/o. MIG Colony, Wanjari Nagar, Nagpur Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra through it’s Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Energy and Labour Mantralaya, Mumbai .. Respondents

2. The Director, Directorate of Geology & Mining, Government of Maharashtra, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur Mr. A. J. Gilda, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. N. R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents.

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATED : 11/10/2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

Heard Mr. A. J. Gilda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. R. Patil, learned AGP for respondents.

(2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3) The petitioner, a holder of lease for mining Manganese Ore available in a parcel of land admeasuring 30.82 acres situated at Hiwara, Tahsil Bhandara, District Bhandara since the year 1971, faced an order passed on 31/03/2021 by respondent No.2 declaring that his mining lease had lapsed on account of failure to commence the mining operations within a stipulated period of two years from the date of the execution of the mining lease. The mining lease was executed in favour of the petitioner on 25/02/2011, initially for a period of three years and lateron, by the order passed by respondent No.2 on 29/06/2018, it was extended till 18/11/2021. But, before the expiry of the lease period, an order recording lapsing of the lease was passed on 31/03/2021. Realizing the serious consequences of the order dated 31/03/2021, the petitioner filed an application dated 08/04/2021, seeking revival of the mining lease and as it was not decided by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No.2487 of 2021 seeking issuance of a necessary direction to decide it within certain time. This Court by the order passed on 16/07/2021, directed the respondents to decide the application within three weeks from the date of the order. Now, a decision has been rendered by the respondent No.2 but, the decision, if perused carefully, would appear to be no decision in the eye of law. This could be gauged from the solitary reason stated in the order dated 30/07/2021, which is followed by order dated 13/08/2021, impugned herein. The reason given is that the provisions of Rule 20(7) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic & Hydrocarbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (for short “Rules of 2016”) have turned ineffective after amendments introduced to Section 4A(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short “Act, 1957”) by Notification dated 28th March, 2021 issued by Ministry of Law and Justice.

(4) The reason so stated in the impugned order is questioned for its correctness and approach by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends that if the reason for refusing to decide the application filed by the petitioner seeking revival of mining lease is accepted, the petitioner would have nowhere to go and the provision of Rule 20 of Rules of 2016 would be rendered nugatory. Mr.N.R.Patil, learned AGP, however, supports the impugned order stating that since the “mining operations” or the “production and dispatch” activity on the mine under lease was not commenced by the petitioner within stipulated period of time, the lease has been rightly said to be lapsed and now there is no question of revival of the same, especially when the application has been filed for its revival after lapsing of the lease.

(5) The rival arguments would necessitate consideration of the unamended Section 4A(4) of the Act, 1957, the amendments introduced to it by the Notification dated 28th March, 2021 and also the provisions of Rule 20(7) of the Rules of 2016. The relevant portion of the unamended Section 4A(4) reads thus :-

“Section 4-A Termination of prospecting licenses or mining le