Suggulammagudda Mining Co. Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/383555
SubjectEnvironment
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnAug-21-1992
Case NumberW.P. No. 20448 of 1992
JudgeShivaraj Patil, J.
Reported inILR1992KAR2761; 1992(3)KarLJ590
ActsMineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rule 24A(6); ;Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Sections 2
AppellantSuggulammagudda Mining Co.
RespondentState of Karnataka
Appellant AdvocateD.L.N. Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateSateesh Doddamani, HCGP
DispositionWrit petition allowed
Excerpt:
mineral concession rules, 1960 - rule 24a(6) read with forest (conservation) act, 1980 (central act no. 69 of 1980) - section 2 - object of act : to check deforestation, ecological inbalance and environmental deterioration - embargo on state government to make any order regarding forest land without prior approval of central government - rule 24a(6) extending period of lease, order does not attract section 2 of act.; the object sought to be achieved by the act 1980 appears to check deforestation, to fight against ecological imbalance and prevent environmental deterioration. section 2 of the act, 1980 places restriction on the preservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. an embargo is placed notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in a state, no state government without the prior approval of the central government make any order directing that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by government. there is no difficulty to apply section 2 of the act 1980 and insist prior approval of the central government before a lease is granted by the state government in regard to any forest land, but for rule 24a(6) of the rules in this case. in the case on hand, by virtue of rule 24a(6) the period of lease gets extended subject to the limitations contained in the said rule. there is no question of state government passing an order directing to grant any lease or renewal so as to attract section 2 of the act, 1980. if the state government rejects the application filed for renewal, the period of lease comes to an end on the date of receipt of the order even within a period of one year as contemplated in sub-rule (6) of rule 24a of the rules. (para-7) - order 39, rules 1 & 2: [h.n. nagamohan das, j] passing off grant of injunction - alleged trade name used by plaintiff in respect of rubber products whereas defendants trading twisted steel rod under same trade name goods, end user and channel of marketing are different - no prima facie evidence to prove that defendants were intentionally misrepresenting public causing loss to plaintiff held, balance of convenience is not in favour of plaintiff. injunction cannot be granted. shivaraj patil, j. 1. the facts briefly stated, which are considered necessary for disposal of this writ petition, are :the petitioner was granted a mining lease in respect of iron ore covering an area of 10.11 hectares in sandur taluk of bellary district on 14-3-1972 for a period of 20 years by the first respondent under the mines and minerals (regulation and development) act, 1957 read with the mineral concession rules, 1960 (for short the act 1957 and the rules). the petitioner worked the area by investing substantial sum for developing the area and has carried on the operations. it filed an application for renewal of its mining lease in accordance with rule 24a of the rules. it contends that since no orders were passed on the renewal application within the statutory period there was a deemed rejection of the application. it filed a revision petition to the central government under section 30 of the act 1957 read with rule 54 of the rules. the revision petition was allowed on 13-3-1991 setting aside the deemed rejection and directed the state government to consider the application filed by the petitioner for renewal. but so far no orders are passed and the application for renewal is pending disposal. according to the petitioner the lease granted expired on 14-3-1992 and by virtue of sub-rule (6) of rule 24a of the rules, the mining lease of the petitioner stood extended for a further period of one year, that is upto 14-3-1993 as the application for renewal is not disposed of. the petitioner submitted a representation to the director of mines and geology on 13-1-1992 stating that it has a right to work under rule 24a(6) and on that basis sought for issuance of working permit and similar request was also made to the first respondent on 10-3-1992 the third respondent informed the petitioner to stop mining operation with effect from 14-3-1992 until further orders as working permission for grace period had not been received from the state government. on 7-4-1992 the second respondent sent a communication to the petitioner as per annexure-c informing that the grant of working permission was not desirable until the forest clearance was obtained in view of the instructions issued by the government of india. section 2 of the forest (conservation) act 1980 (for short 'the act, 1980') states that except with the prior approval of the central government, no state government or other authority shall make any order directing that any reserved forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. the petitioner states that the lease was granted in 1972 and it has worked the area for 20 years and question of breaking up or clearing any forest land at this stage does not arise and that section 2 of the act, 1980 is attracted only in cases of leases to be granted on lands after the coming into force of the said act.the further case of the petitioner is that the principal chief conservator of forests (management) in the letter dated 26-6-1992 (annexure-d) addressed to the petitioner has stated that the government of india in their letter dated 29-5-1992 have agreed in principle for approval for diversion of 10.11 hectares of forest land subject to fulfillment of the two conditions mentioned in annexure-d. the petitioner contends that asking the petitioner to pay double the cost of afforestation is not correct.the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 10-3-1992 annexure-b and the endorsement dated 3/7-4-1992 annexure-c. the petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's right to carry on mining operations as per rule 24a(6) of the rules in the schedule land.2. statement of objection is filed on behalf of the respondents contending that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for. the act 1957 was enacted by the parliament with a view to regulate the mines and development of minerals under the control of the union of india. under sections 13 and 18 of the act 1957 the central government has promulgated:(a) mineral concession rules 1960(b) mineral conservation and development rules 1958.the respondents further state that the petitioner filed an application for renewal with requisite fee on 28-6-1990. since the schedule land falls within the forest area the opinion of the forest authorities and the indian bureau of mines was needed. as such the application could not be disposed of within the statutory period. the application filed on 13-1-1992 by the petitioner for extension of lease period for one year or till the date of receipt of orders of the state government, whichever is earlier was rejected by the letter dated 24-3-1992 on the ground that the government of india, ministry of forest had issued instructions not to continue mining activities from 1-3-1992 in the forest area and until the forest clearance is obtained from the forest department.the respondents resisted the claim of the petitioner stating that the area held under lease by the petitioner is a forest land and it requires the clearance of the forest department and the provisions of the act 1980 are attracted to the case on hand. section 2 of the act 1980 lays down that the mining operation is a non-forestry activity, which requires prior consent of the central government. even if it is assumed that the lease was granted prior to the act 1980 coming into force, the renewal amounts to granting of fresh lease. hence, section 2 of the act 1980 has to be complied with. on these grounds the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.3. sri d.l.n. rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the facts in this case are not very much in dispute. the lease was granted on 14-3-1972 to the petitioner for 20 years, the lease period came to an end on 14-3-1992; the application for renewal was made on 28-6-1990; the application is pending disposal before the first respondent as directed by the central government in revision; under rule 24a(6) of the rules the lease period automatically gets extended by one year or till the disposal of the application for renewal, whichever is earlier and the area in question is already worked out; in other words it is a broken and cleared area and there is no question of carrying out the mining operations in the virgin forest land. he also submitted that section 2 of the act 1980 is not attracted to the case on hand. in support of his submission the learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the case of state of bihar v. banshi ram modi and ors., : air1985sc814 .4. sri sateesh m. doddamani, learned high court government pleader for the respondents, urged that after the expiry of the lease period on 14-3-1992 allowing the petitioner to continue mining operation amounts to granting of lease whether it is renewal or extending the period of lease. hence, section 2 of the act 1980 gets attracted. he argued in support and justification of the action of the respondents in issuing impugned endorsements.5. i have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.6. from what is stated above, the facts are not very much in dispute. the conflicting contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties are as to the interpretation of law. in order to appreciate these contentions it is useful to extract the relevant provisions.7. rule 24a(6) of the rules reads:'notwithstanding the provisions of sub-rule 5, if an application for renewal of mining lease made 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.'section 2 of the act 1980 so far it is relevant reads thus:'2. restriction on the preservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purpose: notwithstanding anything . contained in any other law for the time being in force in a state, no state government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the central government, any order directing:(i) xx xx xx(ii) xx xx xx(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by government.(iv) xx xx xx 'by operation of rule 24a(6) the period of lease gets extended for a further period of one year or end with the date of receipt of the orders of the state government on the application filed for renewal, whichever is shorter. admittedly, the application made by the petitioner for renewal of the lease under sub-rule (1) of rule 24-a is not disposed of. the lease granted to the petitioner has expired on 14-3-1992. in view of these facts there would have been no difficulty to conclude that under rule 24a(6) the period of lease of the petitioner gets extended subject to the limitations contained in the said rule regarding the period, but we have to see as to what is the effect of section 2 of the act, 1980. the object sought to be achieved by the act 1980 appears to check deforestation, to fight against ecological imbalance and prevent environmental deterioration. section 2 of the act, 1980 places restriction on the preservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. an embargo is placed notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a state, no state government without the prior approval of the central government make any order directing that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by government. there is no difficulty to apply section 2 of the act 1980 and insist prior approval of the central government before a lease is granted by state government in regard to any forest land, but for rule 24a(6) of the rules in this case. in the case on hand, by virtue of rule 24a(6) the period of lease gets extended subject to the limitations contained in the said rule. there is no question of state government passing an order directing to grant any lease or renewal so as to attract section 2 of the act, 1980. if the state government rejects the application filed for renewal, the period of lease comes to an end on the date of receipt of the order even within a period of one year as contemplated in sub-rule (6) of rule 24a of the rules.8. in state of bihar v. banshi ram modi and ors. the supreme court in para-10 of the decision has stated:'explanation to section 2 of the act defines 'non-forest purpose1 as breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for any purpose other than reafforestation. reading them together, these two parts of the section mean that after the commencement of the act no fresh breaking up of the forest land or no fresh clearing of the forest on any such land can be permitted by any state government or any authority without the prior approval of the central government. but if such permission has been accorded before the coming into force of the act and the forest land is broken up or cleared then obviously the section cannot apply.'9. the petitioner contends that it has worked the area and it is a broken and cleared area. as such it is entitled to continue the mining operation for the extended period by operation of rule 24a(6), there is no question of granting or renewing the lease in respect of virgin forest land in the case on hand. the petitioner in my opinion is entitled to carry on the mining operation only in the broken and cleared area covered by the lease granted in its favour in 1972 till 14-3-1993 or till the receipt of the order of the state government on the renewal application, whichever is earlier.10. in the result, for the reasons stated above, i pass the following order:(1) the writ petition is allowed.(2) the endorsements dated 10-3-1992 annexure-b and 3/7-4-1992 - annexure-c are quashed.(3) the respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner's right to carry on mining operations under rule 24a(6) of the rules only in the broken and cleared area out of the schedule land till 14-3-1993 or till the date of receipt of the orders of the state government passed on the application filed for renewal, whichever is earlier.(4) no costs.
Judgment:

Shivaraj Patil, J.

1. The facts briefly stated, which are considered necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition, are :

The petitioner was granted a mining lease in respect of iron ore covering an area of 10.11 hectares in Sandur Taluk of Bellary District on 14-3-1972 for a period of 20 years by the first respondent under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 read with the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short the Act 1957 and the Rules). The petitioner worked the area by investing substantial sum for developing the area and has carried on the operations. It filed an application for renewal of its mining lease in accordance with Rule 24A of the Rules. It contends that since no orders were passed on the renewal application within the statutory period there was a deemed rejection of the application. It filed a revision petition to the Central Government under Section 30 of the Act 1957 read with Rule 54 of the Rules. The revision petition was allowed on 13-3-1991 setting aside the deemed rejection and directed the State Government to consider the application filed by the petitioner for renewal. But so far no orders are passed and the application for renewal is pending disposal. According to the petitioner the lease granted expired on 14-3-1992 and by virtue of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 24A of the Rules, the mining lease of the petitioner stood extended for a further period of one year, that is upto 14-3-1993 as the application for renewal is not disposed of. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Director of Mines and Geology on 13-1-1992 stating that it has a right to work under Rule 24A(6) and on that basis sought for issuance of working permit and similar request was also made to the first respondent On 10-3-1992 the third respondent informed the petitioner to stop mining operation with effect from 14-3-1992 until further orders as working permission for grace period had not been received from the State Government. On 7-4-1992 the second respondent sent a communication to the petitioner as per Annexure-C informing that the grant of working permission was not desirable until the forest clearance was obtained in view of the instructions issued by the Government of India. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 (for short 'the Act, 1980') states that except with the prior approval of the Central Government, no State Government or other authority shall make any order directing that any reserved forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. The petitioner states that the lease was granted in 1972 and it has worked the area for 20 years and question of breaking up or clearing any forest land at this stage does not arise and that Section 2 of the Act, 1980 is attracted only in cases of leases to be granted on lands after the coming into force of the said Act.

The further case of the petitioner is that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Management) in the letter dated 26-6-1992 (Annexure-D) addressed to the petitioner has stated that the Government of India in their letter dated 29-5-1992 have agreed in principle for approval for diversion of 10.11 hectares of forest land subject to fulfillment of the two conditions mentioned in Annexure-D. The petitioner contends that asking the petitioner to pay double the cost of afforestation is not correct.

The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 10-3-1992 Annexure-B and the endorsement dated 3/7-4-1992 Annexure-C. The petitioner has also sought for a Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's right to carry on mining operations as per Rule 24A(6) of the Rules in the schedule land.

2. Statement of objection is filed on behalf of the respondents contending that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for. The Act 1957 was enacted by the Parliament with a view to regulate the mines and development of minerals under the control of the Union of India. Under Sections 13 and 18 of the Act 1957 the Central Government has promulgated:

(a) Mineral Concession Rules 1960

(b) Mineral Conservation and Development Rules 1958.

The respondents further state that the petitioner filed an application for renewal with requisite fee on 28-6-1990. Since the schedule land falls within the forest area the opinion of the forest authorities and the Indian Bureau of Mines was needed. As such the application could not be disposed of within the statutory period. The application filed on 13-1-1992 by the petitioner for extension of lease period for one year or till the date of receipt of orders of the State Government, whichever is earlier was rejected by the letter dated 24-3-1992 on the ground that the Government of India, Ministry of Forest had issued instructions not to continue mining activities from 1-3-1992 in the forest area and until the Forest clearance is obtained from the Forest Department.

The respondents resisted the claim of the petitioner stating that the area held under lease by the petitioner is a forest land and it requires the clearance of the Forest Department and the provisions of the Act 1980 are attracted to the case on hand. Section 2 of the Act 1980 lays down that the mining operation is a non-forestry activity, which requires prior consent of the Central Government. Even if it is assumed that the lease was granted prior to the Act 1980 coming into force, the renewal amounts to granting of fresh lease. Hence, Section 2 of the Act 1980 has to be complied with. On these grounds the respondents prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

3. Sri D.L.N. Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the facts in this case are not very much in dispute. The lease was granted on 14-3-1972 to the petitioner for 20 years, the lease period came to an end on 14-3-1992; the application for renewal was made on 28-6-1990; the application is pending disposal before the first respondent as directed by the Central Government in revision; under Rule 24A(6) of the Rules the lease period automatically gets extended by one year or till the disposal of the application for renewal, whichever is earlier and the area in question is already worked out; in other words it is a broken and cleared area and there is no question of carrying out the mining operations in the virgin forest land. He also submitted that Section 2 of the Act 1980 is not attracted to the case on hand. In support of his submission the learned Counsel placed reliance on a Decision in the case of STATE OF BIHAR v. BANSHI RAM MODI AND ORS., : AIR1985SC814 .

4. Sri Sateesh M. Doddamani, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents, urged that after the expiry of the lease period on 14-3-1992 allowing the petitioner to continue mining operation amounts to granting of lease whether it is renewal or extending the period of lease. Hence, Section 2 of the Act 1980 gets attracted. He argued in support and justification of the action of the respondents in issuing impugned endorsements.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

6. From what is stated above, the facts are not very much in dispute. The conflicting contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties are as to the interpretation of law. In order to appreciate these contentions it is useful to extract the relevant provisions.

7. Rule 24A(6) of the Rules reads:

'Notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-rule 5, if an application for renewal of mining lease made 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.'

Section 2 of the Act 1980 so far it is relevant reads thus:

'2. Restriction on the preservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purpose: Notwithstanding anything . contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing:

(i) xx xx xx(ii) xx xx xx

(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government.

(iv) xx xx xx '

By operation of Rule 24A(6) the period of lease gets extended for a further period of one year or end with the date of receipt of the orders of the State Government on the application filed for renewal, whichever is shorter. Admittedly, the application made by the petitioner for renewal of the lease under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 24-A is not disposed of. The lease granted to the petitioner has expired on 14-3-1992. In view of these facts there would have been no difficulty to conclude that under Rule 24A(6) the period of lease of the petitioner gets extended subject to the limitations contained in the said Rule regarding the period, but we have to see as to what is the effect of Section 2 of the Act, 1980. The object sought to be achieved by the Act 1980 appears to check deforestation, to fight against ecological imbalance and prevent environmental deterioration. Section 2 of the Act, 1980 places restriction on the preservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. An embargo is placed notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government without the prior approval of the Central Government make any order directing that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government. There is no difficulty to apply Section 2 of the Act 1980 and insist prior approval of the Central Government before a lease is granted by State Government in regard to any forest land, but for Rule 24A(6) of the Rules in this case. In the case on hand, by virtue of Rule 24A(6) the period of lease gets extended subject to the limitations contained in the said Rule. There is no question of State Government passing an order directing to grant any lease or renewal so as to attract Section 2 of the Act, 1980. If the State Government rejects the application filed for renewal, the period of lease comes to an end on the date of receipt of the order even within a period of one year as contemplated in Sub-rule (6) of Rule 24A of the Rules.

8. In STATE OF BIHAR v. BANSHI RAM MODI AND ORS. the Supreme Court in para-10 of the Decision has stated:

'Explanation to Section 2 of the Act defines 'non-forest purpose1 as breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for any purpose other than reafforestation. Reading them together, these two parts of the section mean that after the commencement of the Act no fresh breaking up of the forest land or no fresh clearing of the forest on any such land can be permitted by any State Government or any authority without the prior approval of the Central Government. But if such permission has been accorded before the coming into force of the Act and the forest land is broken up or cleared then obviously the section cannot apply.'

9. The petitioner contends that it has worked the area and it is a broken and cleared area. As such it is entitled to continue the mining operation for the extended period by operation of Rule 24A(6), There is no question of granting or renewing the lease in respect of virgin forest land in the case on hand. The petitioner in my opinion is entitled to carry on the mining operation only in the broken and cleared area covered by the lease granted in its favour in 1972 till 14-3-1993 or till the receipt of the order of the State Government on the renewal application, whichever is earlier.

10. In the result, for the reasons stated above, I pass the following order:

(1) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(2) The Endorsements dated 10-3-1992 Annexure-B and 3/7-4-1992 - Annexure-C are quashed.

(3) The respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner's right to carry on mining operations under Rule 24A(6) of the Rules only in the broken and cleared area out of the schedule land till 14-3-1993 or till the date of receipt of the orders of the State Government passed on the application filed for renewal, whichever is earlier.

(4) No costs.