IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 487 of 2014 with I.A.No. 6222 of 2014 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary having office at Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Bhawan, HEC Township, Dhurwa, PO & PS- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Nepal House, PO & PS- Doranda, District- Ranchi 3. The District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, PO & PS- Chaibasa, District- West Singhbhum …... Appellants/Respondents Versus 1. Steel Authority of India Limited through the General Manager (liason) Mr. Debananda Marndi, son of late Balai Marndi, resident of Room No. 26, IEH, SAIL Satellite Township, PO- Dhurwa, PS- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand, having office at ISPAT Bhawan, Raw Materials Division, Steel Authority of India Limited, Ranchi, PO & PS- Doranda, District- Ranchi …...Respondent/Petitioner 2. The Jharkhand State Election Commission, through its Secretary, Nirwachan Bhawan, PO & PS- Ratu Road, District- Ranchi …...Proforma Respondent/Respondent No.4 -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL -------- For the appellants: M/s M. L. Verma, Sr. Advocate, Amit Pawan, S.C., Jai Prakash, A.A.G. & Debolina Sen Hirani, Advocate For the respondents: M/s P. S. Patwalia, Addl. Solicitor General of India, Ajay Sharma, Indrajit Sinha, Jagmohan Sharma & Krishanu Ray, Advocates -------- th Order No. 03: Dated 11 December, 2014 Per Virender Singh, C.J.: L.P.A. No. 487 of 2014:
1. Looking to the contentious issues, raised in this Letters Patent Appeal, this Appeal is Admitted.
2. Notice of admission is waived by the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for both the sides have jointly requested for listing of W.P.(C) No. 5640 of 2014 along with this Letters Patent Appeal, because the issue in the said writ petition is also connected with the renewal of mining lease, however, subject to certain conditions imposed by the State, challenge to which has been thrown in this petition.
4. Ordered accordingly.
5. List this Letters Patent Appeal along with aforesaid W.P.(C) No. 5640 of 2014 on 20th January, 2015 for the reason that no earlier date suits either to 2. Mr. M. L. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the State or Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent no.1.
6. Counter affidavit, if any, is to be filed by the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 5640 of 2014 within two weeks and rejoinder, if any, will be filed within a further period of two weeks thereafter, so that this writ petition can also be finally heard and disposed of along with L.P.A. No. 487 of 2014.
7. Registry to indicate both the cases under the heading “For Final Hearing” on 20th January, 2015. I.A. No. 6222 of 2014:
8. This interlocutory application has been preferred for getting stay against the impugned judgment/order, rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 5368 of 2014 dated 13 th November, 2014, whereby, the writ petition preferred by respondent no.1 (writ petitioner) has been allowed, by quashing and setting aside the orders dated 3rd September, 2014 and 4th September, 2014, issued by the State of Jharkhand, whereby the mining operation was stopped.
9. Mr. H.L. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that no writ of mandamus can be issued for execution of an act, which has been declared illegal, as per the decision, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & ors., as reported in (2014)6 SCC590 which view is reiterated in another decision, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India & ors., as reported in 2014 (7) SCALE591 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the writ petitioner has a right to prefer application for renewal of the lease only, but, there is no right vested in the writ petitioner to carry out mining activities, even though the second lease is not granted by an express order of the State under Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereafter referred to as “the MMDR Act, 1957” for the sake of brevity). It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that there was applicability of the Modal Code of Conduct, issued under Article 324 of the Constitution of India by the Election Commission and, therefore, there was no question of passing any express order under Section 8(3) of the the MMDR Act, 1957. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, hence the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned judgment and order may kindly be stayed.
10. Mr. P. S. Patwalia, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent no.1 (writ petitioner) has submitted that the writ petitioner was granted 30 years lease in the year, 1949 for mining purposes.
3. Thereafter, it was renewed for next 30 years in the year, 1979. The lease was to expire in the year, 2009 and, therefore, renewal application was preferred well in advance by the writ petitioner before the State of Jharkhand in the year, 2008. The State of Jharkhand had not scrutinized the said renewal application nor was there any reply, given by the State of Jharkhand that the renewal application preferred was defective on any count despite several reminders sent by the writ petitioner to the State of Jharkhand. It is submitted by the learned ASGI that as required in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1960” for the sake of brevity), a report was sought by the State Government from the Indian Bureau of Mines (hereinafter referred to as “the IBM” for the sake of brevity). The said letter written by the State of Jharkhand to the IBM is dated 25th April, 2014, upon which the IBM recommended for renewal of mining lease. Meanwhile, one more letter was written by the State of Jharkhand to the Government of India that extension of mining lease is in the interest of the State and it should be given with retrospective date i.e. 22 nd February, 2009, otherwise excavation done after 22nd February, 2009 will fall within the category of illegal mining (paragraph no. 5 of the letter written by the State of Jharkhand dated 20th August, 2014). Thus, from this letter, it is explicitly clear that mining operations carried out by the writ petitioner is in the interest of the State.
11. It is further submitted by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned ASGI, that, in fact, the State of Jharkhand has already taken a decision under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act, 1957 dated 22nd October, 2014 for extension of the lease. The said letter is at Annexure 3/1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. This letter has been addressed to the Central Government for grant of relaxation under Section 31 of the MMDR Act, 1957. Thus, principally looking to this letter as well as looking to another letter dated 22 nd October, 2014, which is written by the State of Jharkhand to the writ petitioner, which is at Annexure 3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, it appears that mining activities carried out by the writ petitioner is in the interest of the State of Jharkhand and upon certain conditions, it is agreed by the State of Jharkhand to extend the lease period under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act, 1957. However these conditions have been challenged by way of a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5640 of 2014, which has been adjourned for 21st January, 2015 by the learned single Judge and now to be taken along with this Appeal for its adjudication. Undertaking, as required, has also been given by writ petitioner, as per the order, passed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment/order. He further submitted that the State, which earlier took long six years for 4. considering the case of the writ petitioner for renewal of lease, has now imposed very harsh conditions for passing an express order under Section 8(3) of MMDR Act, 1957. According to the learned counsel, the writ petitioner is wholly owned by the Central Government and is being unnecessarily put to trouble by the State, as such, there is no prima facie case in favour of the appellant-State. He further submitted that the balance of convenience is also not in favour of the appellant-State, thus, no irreparable loss will be caused to the State, if the stay, as sought for, is not granted.
12. On the strength of these submissions, Mr. Patwalia, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, prays that this interlocutory application may not be entertained by the Court.
13. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the writ petitioner was granted mining lease in the year, 1949 for 30 years and thereafter, it was extended up to the year, 2009. As per rules, application was preferred much in advance i.e. in the year, 2008 for renewal of the lease. The State of Jharkhand has not decided the same and after the judgment, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & ors. [(2014)6 SCC590, the State is writing a letter to IBM to give report at the earliest, as required under Rule 24(3) of the Rules, 1960. One more letter the State of Jharkhand is writing to the Central Government for grant of relaxation under Section 31 of the MMDR Act, 1957, which is dated 20 th August, 2014 and in paragraph no.5 thereof, it is stated that it is in the interest of the State of Jharkhand to renew the mining lease, with retrospective effect viz. 22nd February, 2009. Looking to the tenor of this letter it appears that principally the State of Jharkhand has no objection in extending the lease period. Similarly, looking to another letter, written by the State of Jharkhand dated 22nd October, 2014 to the Central Government, it appears that the State is granting extension of mining lease, upon certain conditions. It appears that the State of Jharkhand is ready to renew the mining lease, but by imposing certain conditions, mentioned in the said letter, which have now been questioned through W.P.(C) No. 5640 of 2014.
14. It is worth mentioning here that the learned single Judge vide a detailed order dated 16th October, 2014, after hearing learned counsel for both the sides and finding strong prima facie case in favour of the writ petition for issuance of an interim mandamus to the State of Jharkhand, directed the State to take a decision on an application already moved by the writ petitioner on 8th February, 2008, seeking grant of second renewal of Durgaibutu Mining Lease of Gua Ore Mines within stipulated period of two weeks, but not later 5. than 5th November, 2014. It is thereafter only, on 22 nd October, 2014 the State had shown its willingness to renew the mining lease by imposing certain conditions, which have become subject matter of W.P.(C) No. 5640 of 2014.
15. The learned single Judge has already stated in the impugned judgment/ order that the writ petitioner shall give an undertaking to the State of Jharkhand that it would abide by the decision, rendered in W.P.(C) No. 5640 of 2014. Thus, in our view all care has been taken by the learned single Judge of the conditions attached with the renewal of mining lease and that pursuant to the said direction the writ petitioner has also given an undertaking. It is a Public Sector Undertaking wholly owned, managed and controlled by Central Government and not a fly by night company, being in existence since more than half a century.
16. Looking to the conditional renewal order of mining lease, prima facie, it appears to us that the State of Jharkhand has no objection, if the mining activities are being carried out by the writ petitioner, but, it must be subject to certain conditions and the main condition is about certain amount, to be paid by the writ petitioner-company to the State of Jharkhand. As stated above, these conditions have been challenged by the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5640 of 2014. Thus, prima facie, the dispute revolves around the conditions attached with the renewal of lease and out of these conditions, one is about the payment of money by the writ petitioner-company to the State of Jharkhand. However, we, in the present appeal, are concerned with the mining activities, to be carried out by the writ petitioner. .
17. Thus, looking at the present case, in the aforesaid factual matrix and the documents available on record, there appears to be no prima facie case in favour of the appellant, so far as present interlocutory application is concerned. The balance of convenience is also not tilting towards the appellants. Thus, no irreparable loss will be caused to the appellants, if the stay, as prayed for, is not granted.
18. Resultantly this Interlocutory Application merits dismissal.
19. Ordered accordingly. (Virender Singh, C.J.) ( D.N. Patel, J.
) A.K.Verma/