2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 22787

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J
The state of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
V.Velmurugan – Respondent
W.A(MD)No.1330 of 2021 | C.M.P(MD)No.5539 of 2021 | W.P(MD)No. 2117 of 2020

Applications where Central Government communicated previous approval before MMDR Amendment Act 2015 are saved under Section 10A(2)(c); delay due to third-party litigation cannot be used to deny lease rights that have already accrued.

Headnote:(A) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 5(1), 10A, 11 - Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rule 32 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Amendment Act 10 of 2015 - Applications saved under Section 10A(2)(c) where Central Government communicated previous approval before 12.01.2015 - Delay in execution of lease deed due to third-party litigation not attributable to applicant - Applicant must deposit security deposit under Rule 32 only when lease deed execution is proposed - Territorial jurisdiction: objection must be raised at earliest; part of cause of action sufficient.

(B) Section 10A(1) renders ineligible all applications received prior to 12.01.2015, but Section 10A(2)(c) saves cases where Central Government had communicated previous approval or State Government had issued letter of intent before the amendment, and lease shall be granted subject to fulfilment of conditions within two years from commencement of amendment.

(C) Delay in final decision cannot be put against the applicant if not attributable to him; rights crystallise on date of commencement of litigation and subsequent events such as change in law cannot deny relief unless third-party interests have been created or equities tilt otherwise.

Facts of the case:
The respondent (writ petitioner) applied for a mining lease for limestone on 23.02.1996. The application was approved at district level, by the Director of Geology and Mining, and by the Central Government on 16.12.1998. The State Government issued G.O. dated 10.06.2005. Despite these approvals, the lease deed was not executed due to a suit filed by a third party (O.S.No.324/2005) which was dismissed for default on 14.03.2012. Meanwhile, the MMDR Act was amended with effect from 12.01.2015. The writ petitioner filed W.P.No.2117/2020 seeking execution of lease deed, which was allowed by the learned single Judge. The State filed this appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the single Judge's order, applying the ratio in Gujarat Pottery Works, Beg Raj Singh, and Bhushan Power and Steel. The application had progressed beyond mere submission - previous approval by Central Government had been communicated and a Government Order issued - thus rights had accrued, and Section 10A(2)(c) applied. The requirement of security deposit under Rule 32 arises only prior to execution, and since the Government never proposed to execute the lease deed, non-payment cannot be held against the petitioner. The objection regarding territorial jurisdiction was not raised in the counter affidavit or during arguments before the single Judge, and in any event part of cause of action arose within the Bench's jurisdiction. The court directed execution of lease deed within twelve weeks with reasonably revised terms.

Issues: - Whether the writ petition was maintainable before the Madurai Bench given territorial jurisdiction. - Whether failure to remit security deposit under Rule 32 disentitles the writ petitioner. - Whether the amendment to MMDR Act (Section 10A) renders the application ineligible. - Whether delay in execution due to third-party suit can be a ground to deny the lease.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Central Government has communicated previous approval under Section 5(1) for grant of a mining lease before the MMDR Amendment Act 2015, such applications are saved under Section 10A(2)(c) and the lease must be granted within two years from the date of commencement of the Act. Delay not attributable to the applicant cannot be used against him. The formal execution of lease deed is distinct from the granting of lease; rights accrue upon sanction/approval and cannot be defeated by subsequent amendments or procedural lapses not caused by the applicant. Result : Writ appeal dismissed. Lease deed to be executed within twelve weeks with revised terms. No costs.