SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 3

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Name of Judge, J
State of Jharkhand and Others v. Steel Authority of India Limited Ranchi and Another
Letters Patent Appeal | W.P.(C) No.5368 of 2014



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajit Kumar
For the Respondents: P. S. Patwalia

The State must timely address mining lease renewals; otherwise, it risks allowing continued operations based on statutory provisions.

Headnote:(A) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 8, 8A - Quashing of order stopping mining activities - The learned Single Judge quashed the state order for cessation of mining - State directed to take decision under S.8(3) of the Act, 1957 within one week, allowing respondent to continue mining if not addressed. (Paras 1, 6, 7, 8)

(B) Lease Renewal - The State must make timely decisions on lease extensions - The Supreme Court ruled renewal procedures should comply with new amendments effectively allowing for long-term leases if timely applications are processed. (Paras 2, 4, 5, 7)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a decision quashing a state order halting mining operations, citing failure of the state to process lease renewal requests adequately, and subsequent amendments providing clearer terms for lease periods.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the learned Single Judge's decision did not entail any illegality as the respondent company was in compliance with all relevant tax laws and previous directions were not executed by the State.

Issues: The primary legal issues centered around the legitimacy and procedure of lease renewal following the statutory amendments in the MMDR Act, and whether enough evidence existed to continue operations amidst pending decisions from the state.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Single Judge’s findings, reinforcing the duty of administrative bodies to expediate lease decisions and clarified the conditions under which leaseholders retain their rights amid pending applications - leading to the ruling that the respondent could continue mining operations until a final state decision is made.

Result: Letters Patent Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. validity and terms related to lease agreements. (Para 1 , 2)
2. procedural expectations for the state regarding lease renewals. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's interpretation of statutory compliance impacts on operational permissions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. conclusions about lawful administrative processes regarding mining activities. (Para 8)

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13.11.2014, passed in writ petition being W.P.(C) No.5368 of 2014 whereby, the learned single Judge quashed an order dated 04.09.2014 passed by this appellant - State. By this order dated 04.09.2014, State of Jharkhand had directed respondent to stop mining activities. While quashing an order dated 04.09.2014, learned Single Judge has directed the State of Jharkhand to take a decision under S.8(3) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1957" for the sake of brevity).

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant - State has submitted that initially the lease was granted on 22.02.1949 for 30 years, which expired in the year 1979. An application for extension of the first lease was preferred and the same was granted for another 30 years. The said extended period for lease also expired on 21.02.2009. On 08.02.2008, an application for extension of the lease was preferred and the same has not been granted by the appellant - State. Meanwhile, Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2014 (6) SCC 590 , that there cannot be automatic extension of second lease period. Thereafter, an amendment has been brought and ultimately S.8A has been added with effect from 12.01.2015 in the Act, 1957, which reads as under:
"8A. Period of grant of a mining lease for minerals other than coal, lignite and atomic minerals - (1) The provisions of this section shall apply to minerals other than those specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule.
(2) On and from the date of the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015, all mining leases shall be granted for the period of fifty years.
(3) All mining leases granted before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of fifty years.
(4) On the expiry of the lease period, the lease shall be put up for auction as per the procedure specified in this Act.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2), (3) and sub-section (4), the period of lease granted before the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, where mineral is used for captive purpose, shall be extended and be deemed to have been extended up to a period ending on the 31st March, 2030 with effect from the date of expiry of the period of renewal last made or till the completion of renewal period, if any, or a period of fifty years from the date of grant of such lease, whichever is later, subject to the condition that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2), (3) and sub-section (4), the period of lease granted before the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015, where mineral is used for other than captive purpose, shall be extended and be deemed to have been extended up to a period ending on the 31st March, 2020 with effect from the date of expiry of the period of renewal last made or till the completion of renewal period, if any, or a period of fifty years from the date of grant of such lease, whichever is later, subject to the condition that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with.
(7) Any holder of a lease granted, where mineral is used for captive purpose, shall have the right of first refusal at the time of auction held









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top