Judgment:
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. Whether statutory extension of tease for a period of one year in terms of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 24-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 is applicable in relation to a mining lease granted within the reserved forest or not, is the question involved in this writ application.
2. The fact of the matter lies in a narrow compass. A mining lease over an area of 149.73430 hectares of land situated in village Tatiba in the Karapampda Reserve Forest within Saranda Forest Division was originally granted to M/s. Ratan Lal Surajmal by a deed of lease dated 28-7-1953 for a period of 20 years. The said lease was transferred in favour of M/s. Ratan Lai Tarachand by a registered deed dated 16-2-1970.
The aforementioned lease was renewed for a period of ten years by the State Government in terms of its letter dated 10-8-1978. The said period was again extended for a further period of 10 years by the State Government in term of its letter dated 16-11-1979.
3. The petitioner purchased the aforementioned lease hold area after obtaining sanction of the State of Bihar by a registered deed of sale dated 4-5-1987. The petitioner, thus, became the mining lessee in relation to the area in question.
4. The petitioner tiled an application for renewal of lease on 10-6-1992. It also submitted a proposal under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 on 30-4-1993 which was received in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer on 30-5-1993. According to the petitioner as the said application for renewal of mining lease was not disposed of by the State of Bihar, a revision application was led by, it in terms of Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 before the Central Government. The revisional authority by an order dated 22-6-1993 directed the State of Bihar to dispose of the said application for renewal of mining lease expeditiously on merits. The petitioner, however, has contended that no order on the said application has been passed by the State of Bihar. By a letter dated 6-4-1993 respondent No. 2 intimated to the petitioner that as the period of lease of the petitioner expired on 27-7-1993 and the same has not been renewed, he should not carry on mining activities after expiry of the said period.
A copy of the said order is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application.
5. The petitioner, on reciept of the said letter, intimated to the respondent No. 2 that it had already applied for renewal of the mining lease on 10-6-1992 by his letter dated 10-7-1993 as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application. It also stated that in terms of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 24-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, it is entitled to carry on mining activities for a period of one year after expiry of the mining lease. However, by an order dated 27-7-1993 as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application, the petitioner was asked not to carry on any mining operation.
6. Mr. B.B. Sinha, learned Counsel-appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application.
Learned Counsel submitted that the matter relating to grant of mining lease and or its renewal is governed by the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. According to the learned Counsel in terms of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 24-A of the Mining Concession Rules if an application for renewal of the mining lease is not disposed of, the said mining lease, by a legal fiction, would be deemed to have been renewed for a period of one year. Learned Counsel, there-fore, contended that the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to carry on mining lease operation for a period of one year in terms of the said provisions.
7. As noticed hereinbefore, admittedly petitioner's mining lease expired with effect from 28-7-1993. The petitioner has filed an application for grant of third renewal. Such renewal of mining lease can be granted by the State Government only with the prior approval of the Central Government and the same shall be subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, as required under Sub-rule (7) of Rule 24-A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Section 8 of the Act reads as follows :
8. Periods for which mining lease may be granted or renewed.--(1) The period for which a mining lease may be granted shall not exceed twenty years.
(2) A ming lease may be renewed for two periods each not exceeding ten years:
Provided that no mining lease granted in respect of a mineral specified in Schedule I shall be renewed except with the previous approval of the Central Government.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2), if the Central Government is of the opinion that in the interests of mineral development it is necessary so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded, authorise the renewal of a mining lease for a further period or periods not exceeding in each case the period for which the mining lease was originally granted.
8. In this case, as noticed hereinbefore, original mining lease expired in 1973 and, thereafter, the said mining lease was renewed for two periods ; each for a period of 10 years. Sub-section (3) of Section 8 ot the Act only empowers the Central Government to authorise renewal of mining lease for further period not exceeding in each case for which the mining lease was originally granted only if it is of opinion that in the interests of mineral development it is necessary so to do and for reasons recorded therefor. The petitioner's application for renewal of mining lease was, therefore, not to be allowed automatically. It can be allowed only subject to the approval of the Central Government in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 24-A of the Mineral Concession Rules reads thus :
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Sub-rules, if an application for renewal of a mining lease within the time referred to in Sub-rule (1) is not disposed of by the State Government before the date of expiry of the lease, the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period of one year or end with the date of receipt of the orders of the State Government thereon, whichever is shorter.
9. From a bare perusal of the said provision as also reading the provisions of Sub-rule (2) to Sub-rule (5) of Rule 24-A of the Rules, it is evident that the said provisions will have no application in a case where the question as to whether further renewal should be granted or not, lies within the domain of the Central Government. Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act clearly postulates that renewal of such mining lease should not be ordinarily granted unless the same is in the interest of mineral development wherefor the Central Government is also required to record its reasons.
10. In this view of the matter, ex facie Sub-rule (6) of Rule 24-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 has no application where an order of the Central Government is required in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act.
11. Further, admittedly, the area in question is situated within the Reserve Forest. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 puts a total embargo in the matter of grant of mining lease or a renewal thereof except with the prior aproval of the Central Government.
12. It is now well-settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court of India as also this Court that the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act are mandatory in nature and no grant can be made for non-forest purposes except with prior approval of the Central Government. The Central Government has also made rules in terms of Section 4 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Rule 5 of the said Rules, deal with the manner in which such applications for grant of approval by the Central Government are to be dealt with.
13. In Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and Ors. : [1987]1SCR562 , the Supreme Court held as follows:
The rules deal with a situation prior to the coming into operation of 1980 Act. 1980 Act was an Act in recognition of the awareness that deforestation and ecological imbalances as a result of deforestation have become social menace and further deforestation and ecological imbalances should be prevented. That was the primary purpose writ large in the Act of 1980. Therefore, the concept that power coupled with the duty enjoined upon the respondents to renew the lease stands eroded by the mandate of the legislation as manifest in 1980 Act in the facts and circumstances of these cases. The primary duty was to the community and that duty took precedence, in our opinion, in these cases. The obligation to the society must predominate over the obligation to the individuals.
14. The Supreme Court further reiterated the same item in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendras v. State of U.P. : AIR1988SC2187 and held as follows :
In view of the provision of the Conservation Act and the opinion expressed in Ambica Quarry Works case (supra) with which we are in agreement, the decrees also would not be sustainable where prior approval of the Central Government has not been obtained. We agree with Brother Mukharji that whether it is a case of first grant or renewal following exercise of option by the lessee, the compliance of Section 2 of the Conservation Act is necessary as a condition precedent.
15. A Division Bench of this Court of which one of us, S.B. Sinha, J, was a member, in Kamaljit Singh Ahluwalia v. Union of India (UOI) 1992 BBCJ, 215, upon consideration of the aforementioned decisions as also the decisions of this Court, held as follows :
Renewal of a mining lease amounts to a fresh grant. In such a situation, the prior approval of the Central Government in terms of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is required to be obtained by State Government even before an order on the application of mining lease filed by the petitioner can be passed by it.
16. The Forest (Conservation) Act is a special law. The said law would, therefore, prevail over the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act or the rules framed thereunder. Thus, in this case, the case, the principles expressed in the maxim Generalia Specialinus Non Derogant shall apply.
17. In Jogendra Lal Saha v. State of Bihar and Ors. : AIR1991SC1148 , the Supreme Court has held that Sections 82 and 83 of the Forest Act, 1927 are special provisions which would prevail over the provisions of Sale of Goods Act.
18. Further, the Forest (Conservation) Act contains a non-obstante clause. The said Act is also a later Statute. In that view of the matter too the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act shall prevail over the provisions of Mineral Concession Rules even it be held that Sub-rule (6) of Rule 24-A has any application in the facts and circumstances of this case.
19. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is not to carry on any mining operation unless a fresh lease is granted in its favour upon obtaining prior approval of the Central Government not only in terms of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 but also in terms of Sub-section (8) of Section 8 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.
20. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this application which is, accordingly dismissed.
Narayan Roy, J.
21. I agree.