Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(Online)(SC) 345

SUPREME COURT
*F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.
Muneer Enterprises (M/s. ) v. M/s Ramgad Minerals and Mining Ltd. and Others
W.A.No.5377 of 2004 | W.P.No.23782 of 2005 | W.P.No.31690 of 2003 | S.L.P.No.11508 of 2006

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kapil Sibal
For the Respondents: Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Ms. Anitha Shenoy

The mining lease lapsed due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, and any subsequent transfer is void and not enforceable under law.

Headnote:(A) Mining and Minerals Development and Regulations Act, 1957 - Section 19 - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Section 2 - Renewal of mining lease - The original lease lapsed without compliance of S.2 of the Forest Act - Mining lease M.L. No.2010 was effectively surrendered by M/s. Dalmia, and accepted by the State, rendering any transfer null and void - The Director of Mines acted outside his authority in approving the transfer of the lease to the first respondent, which was not legally permissible post-surrender. (Paras 118, 119)

(B) Surrender of Lease - Requirements for surrender to be effective - Submission of notice as per R.29 of the Mineral Concession Rules - The surrender was accepted before the expiration of the notice despite objections, establishing that the authority had acted in compliance with the requirements, thus the lease was deemed void post-acceptance of surrender. (Paras 29, 88)

(C) Principle of Waiver - State Government acted incorrectly by facilitating permit post-surrender, overlooked statutory requirements, and created irregularities and collusions in the transfer approval process. (Paras 85, 88)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a judgment setting aside a lease transfer from M/s. Dalmia to the first respondent, which was contested on the basis that M/s. Dalmia had inadequately surrendered their mining lease and that the transfer did not comply with legal requirements stipulated under mining laws and forest conservation mandates. (Paras 4, 10, 48)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that M/s. Dalmia had surrendered the lease, rendering it void, confirming that there were serious regulatory violations concerning the required approvals under relevant laws, and the transfer was not legal due to these violations. (Paras 118, 119)

Issues: Whether M/s. Dalmia’s mining lease was validly surrendered, whether the conditions of the Forest Act were complied with, legality of transfer of the mining lease post-surrender, and if the director had the authority to approve the transfer. (Paras 46, 48)

Ratio Decidendi: The termination of M/s. Dalmia’s rights and the invalidity of any transfer thereafter were central to the judgment, citing that the mining lease could not be transferred without compliance to statutory requirements. The Court reiterated that leases should not be treated as mere contractual agreements but as public interests embodying statutory regulations. (Paras 110, 118) Result : The appeals were allowed, and the transfer was deemed invalid.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the common judgment dated 26.08.2009, passed in W.A.No.5377 of 2004 and W.P.No.23782 of 2005.

3. The writ appeal was preferred by the first respondent herein against the judgment in W.P.No.31690 of 2003 of the learned Single Judge dated 10.11.2004 in and by which the order of transfer of mining lease from the original licencee M/s. Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Limited (hereinafter called "M/s. Dalmia") to and in favour of the first respondent herein was set aside.

4. Writ petition in W.P.No.23782 of 2005 was filed by one Dinesh Kumar Singhi, a mine operator praying for a direction to the State of Karnataka and Director of Mines and Geology to dispose of his application dated 03.05.2001 for grant of licence to operate 819.20 acres of the forest mining area in Jaisinghpur village covered by the erstwhile mining lease No.M.L.No.2010 of M/s. Dalmia. We are not concerned with the said writ petition, as the said writ petitioner has not challenged the order of the Division Bench by which his writ petition was dismissed. We are only concerned with the judgment in W.A.No.5377 of 2004.

5. Having regard to the chequered history of this case, the detailed facts pertaining to the grant of mining lease with reference to M.L.No.2010 over an extent of 331.50 hectares (819.20 acres) of forest area in Jaisinghpur village, R. M. Block, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District has to be necessarily stated. The said mining lease was originally granted in favour of M/s. Dalmia on 25.11.1953. The said lease expired on 24.11.1983. Based on the application of M/s. Dalmia Cements, the mining lease was renewed for 20 years with retrospective effect from 25.11.1983 by an order dated 07.03.1986. It is required to be noted that though Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 , hereinafter called "The Forest Act, 1980" came into force w.e.f. from 25.10.1980, the requirement of prior approval of the Central Government as prescribed in S.2 of the said Act was not taken at the time of first renewal.

6. Be that as it may, the effect of non - compliance of approval under S.2 of the Forest Act, 1980 was the subject matter of consideration of this Court in the decision reported in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Others, 1997 (2) SCC 267 (Godavarman I). By virtue of the said judgment, the Director of Mines and Geology, the third respondent herein directed M/s. Dalmia to stop all mining activities by its order dated 25.01.1997. M/s. Dalmia stopped its mining activities from January 1997. Based on the subsequent judgment of this Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Others, 1997 (3) SCC 312 (Godavarman II), the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF) granted conditional in - principle (Stage - I) approval for renewal of M/s. Dalmia's mining lease over 201.50 hectares of forest land out of 331.50 hectares by an order dated 24.12.1997.

7. By its letter dated 16.04.1999, M/s. Dalmia surrendered 196.58 hectares of land out of the leased area of 331.50 hectares to the Forest Department of the State Government. Subsequently, M/s. Dalmia in its letter dated 27.03.2001, expressed its desire to surrender the remaining area held by it indicating that such notice being given for determination of the lease as required under the terms of the mining lease deed and that the lease would expire after 12 months notice period from 01.04.2001 or any time earlier if permitted by the State Government. In response to M/s. Dalmia's letter dated 27.03.2001 by letter dated 25.05.2001, the office of the Director of Mines while communicating to one of its officers marked a copy of its letter dated 25.05.2001 calling upon M/s. Dalmia to surrender its lease deed book and mining plan. By letter dated 16.06.2001 M/s. Dalmia surrendered the lease deed book and informed that its mining plan was missing.

8. Subsequently, one M.S.P.L. Limited, through its Executive Director Mr. Rahul Baldota applied for grant of mining lease of the ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(Online)(SC) 345

SUPREME COURT*F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.Muneer Enterprises (M/s. ) v. M/s Ramgad Minerals and Mining Ltd. and OthersW.A.No.5377 of 2004 | W.P.No.23782 of 2005 | W.P.No.31690 of 2003 | S.L.P.No.11508 of 2006

The mining lease lapsed due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, and any subsequent transfer is void and not enforceable under law.

Cases Referred (4)

SUPREME COURT
*F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.
Muneer Enterprises (M/s. ) v. M/s Ramgad Minerals and Mining Ltd. and Others
W.A.No.5377 of 2004 | W.P.No.23782 of 2005 | W.P.No.31690 of 2003 | S.L.P.No.11508 of 2006