A statutory authority vested with the power to decide an application is under a corresponding obligation to exercise such power within a reasonable time to avoid uncertainty and prejudice to the applicant.

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

Order on Board

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions to the respondent authorities for consideration and decision of the petitioner’s application for grant of Mining Lease (ML) over an area of 29.20 hectares situated at Village Medesara, District Durg, State of Chhattisgarh. The grievance of the petitioner primarily arises out of the inaction on the part of the respondents in deciding the said application despite lapse of considerable time. Hence, petitioner has prayed for seeking following reliefs :

“10.1) To direct the respondents to execute and decide the petitioners application for grant of Mining Lease as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Indocil Silicons Pvt. Ltd V/s. Union of India, in the interest of justice.

10.2) To issue any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.”

2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner was granted a Prospecting Licence (PL) by the State Government of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 20.11.2014 for limestone over the subject land admeasuring 29.20 hectares. Pursuant to the grant of the Prospecting Licence, the petitioner undertook necessary prospecting operations and, thereafter, submitted an application for grant of Mining Lease before Respondent No. 2 (State Government) on 25.02.2017 along with all requisite documents and information. It is the case of the petitioner that upon due consideration, the State Government issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 19.09.2018 in favour of the petitioner for grant of Mining Lease. Following the issuance of LOI, the petitioner complied with all statutory requirements, including submission of a Mining Plan within the prescribed period and initiation of the process for obtaining Environmental Clearance. It is stated that even the public hearing process was completed; however, the Environmental Clearance could not be finalized due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the meantime, amendments were introduced to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), first in 2015 and subsequently in 2021. The petitioner contends that its case falls within the protected categories under Section 10A(2) of the Act, particularly in view of the grant of PL and issuance of LOI. The petitioner further submits that the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), vide communication dated 25.05.2021, declared the previously approved Mining Plan as infructuous on account of non-execution of the lease prior to 28.03.2021. It is also brought on record that Respondent No. 1 issued a communication dated 09.07.2021 directing the State authorities to take a decision on pending mining lease applications in accordance with the amended provisions. However, despite the said direction, no final decision has been taken by the respondent authorities till date. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has acquired a vested and accrued right for consideration of its Mining Lease application in view of the grant of Prospecting Licence and subsequent issuance of Letter of Intent. It is argued that the petitioner’s case falls squarely within the exceptions carved out under Section 10A(2) of the MMDR Act, as amended in 2015, and therefore, the application cannot be treated as lapsed. Learned counsel further submits that the