Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69782',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69782',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69782',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69782',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69782/shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69782',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69782',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69782',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69782',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69782/shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69782',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69782',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69782',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69782',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69782/shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69782',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69782',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69782',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69782',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69782/shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69782',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69782',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69782',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69782',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69782/shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69782',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69782',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69782',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69782',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69782/shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69782',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69782',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69782',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69782',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69782/shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69782',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69782',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69782',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69782',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69782/shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69782',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69782',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69782',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69782',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69782/shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69782',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69782',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and ors - Citation 69782 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69782',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.</p><p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.</p><p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.</p><p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-</p><p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”</p><p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-</p><p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.</p><p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.</p><p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69782',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69782/shri-ramesh-prasad-sao-vs-secretary-ministry'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2015 M/s Thakur Prasad Sao, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Chaibasa, through one of its partners, Sri Sandeep Sao, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West .. … Petitioners (in both cases) Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents(in both cases) with W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015 Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao ... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Ors. ... … Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Respondents: M/s Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate N.K. Pasari, Mythili & Rahul Gupta, Advs [In W.P.(C) Nos. 2722 & 3921 of 2015] M/s K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Abhijit Sinha, Uday Tiwari, Indrajit Sinha & Krishanu Ray, Advs [In W.P.(C) No. 1680 of 2015] For the Union of India : Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate, M/s Mandan Prasad, CGC & Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P. C. For the State : M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. … 10/23.04.2016 Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 -2- refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure- 7 to the W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below:- “ In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a “person aggrieved”. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 -3- to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts”.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter-se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 has considered the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically Section 8A and declared the position in law so far as the question of deemed extension of original lease/ first, second and subsequent renewal of lease are concerned.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the State. From the submission of the parties and pleadings on record, it is evident that the impugned order of rejection of renewal application has been passed on 9.2.2015 i.e. after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f. 12.1.2015. Such rejection in the light of what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause (supra) would therefore not dis- entitle the lessee from the benefit of deemed extension of lease as no such rejection was passed before the specified date -4- 12.1.2015 as has been categorically held at para 32(v) of the judgment in Common Cause Case. For better appreciation the opinion of the Apex Court contained at para 32 of the judgment summarizing the conclusion are being reproduced herein:-',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on consideration, such an application has been rejected, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder, because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency, under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application had not been considered and rejected (though not entitled to any benefit under the unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule 24A(6) of the -5- Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be remedied by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non- captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. Thirdly, a leaseholder having -6- suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.”',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. However it is to be taken note at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment at para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>“27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative for us to clarify, that the benefit of extension of the lease period postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a further overriding condition, namely, “... that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with”. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act”. In effect the benefit of deemed extension would not be available to the lease holder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/ consent in terms of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act, 2015.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. As is apparent from the pleadings of the present case, lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like Environment and Forest Clearances, Revised Approved Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Consent to Operate by the State Pollution Control Board and certificate of the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Lessee is also required to satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. In such circumstances, the benefit of deemed extension would only enure to the benefit of lessee on obtaining statutory clearances and upon compliance of terms and conditions of the lease. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to operate the mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and the terms and conditions of lease are satisfied. It would not be out of place to mention herein that in the case of Common Cause (supra) itself the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.5.2014 had restrained 102 mining lease holders from carrying on any mining operations as they had failed to obtain statutory clearances/approval/consent required to carry the mining operations. The judgment dated 4.4.2016 (Supra) has in fact been rendered on an application filed by those mines lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. -7- 7. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub Section (5),(6) of Section 8A. However, as is apparent from the said order itself and also undisputed by the petitioner, petitioners are required to obtain the statutory clearances and also comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that since no decision on the question of lease deed was taken for all time since 1994 as also found by the learned Central Government Mines Tribunal, petitioner cannot be accused of failing to comply with the statutory requirement and also compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, so far as the provisions relating to lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 is concerned and submit that findings in the impugned order relating to lapses of lease would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly and fairly stated that this Court is not required to make any comment upon the inter-se dispute between the parties relating to partnership firm. It is the lessee, who is required to obtain statutory clearances. Learned counsel for the petitioner have therefore prayed for reasonable time of 6 months for obtaining statutory clearances from the concerned competent authorities and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. Petitioners therefore are restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and they satisfy the terms and conditions of the lease. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Mohanti

Court	Jharkhand High Court
Decided On	Apr-23-2016
Appellant	Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao
Respondent	Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors

Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Mines and Ors - Court Judgment