Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - 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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.

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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$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

1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment 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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$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

2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.

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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$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

3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.

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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$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

4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.

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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$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. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.

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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$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

6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the 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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$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

7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same 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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$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 Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.

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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$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. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.

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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 10
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

10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-

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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 11
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 10 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 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 11 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 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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 12
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

11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 13
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”.

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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 14
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

12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.

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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 15
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

13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.

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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 16
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

14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.

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' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '69931',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '69931',
		(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs Mines and Geological Survey - Citation 69931 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '69931',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2016-04-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.</p><p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.</p><p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.</p><p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.</p><p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.</p><p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.</p><p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.</p><p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.</p><p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.</p><p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-</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 10 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 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 11 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 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>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of 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”.</p><p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.</p><p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.</p><p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.</p><p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Mines and Geological Survey',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '69931',
	(int) 1 => 'khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/69931/khushal-arjun-rathor-vs-geological-survey'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6358 of 2015 Khushal Arjun Rathor S/o Shri Arjun ladha R/o Court Road, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum ….... Petitioner Vrs.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines & Geology 2. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ..... Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. K. Venu Gopal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Natrajan, A.S.G.I : Mrs Anubha Rawat Choudhary : Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, J.C to A.A.G0428.04.2016 The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 2 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 3 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016. Submissions have been advanced questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said order at Annexure-IA/1 only cites the alleged violations related to statutory clearances, such as forest clearance, environment clearance, absence of consent to operate etc. Without recording any findings on the reply to the show cause submitted by petitioner before the committee constituted by the State, it has straightway proceeded to hold that the lessee has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and therefore the lease in question cannot be extended. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously tried to take this Court to the individual charges of lack of statutory clearances or delay in obtaining the same including violations of Ministry of Mines Letter issued under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration; violation of rule 28/28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapsing provisions; violations of terms and conditions of the lease deed as enumerated under Para 2, 3 and 5 of Para VII of Form K (lease deed) as also certain findings of the Justice M.B.Shah Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the renewal application has been pending since 1998 and since 1999 the lessee is not operating the mines for want of environmental clearance, forest clearance and consent to operate certificate. It is submitted that consent to operate can only be issued by the State Pollution Control Board after obtaining the aforesaid clearances. He has referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.C4No.8258 of 2014 and Civil Misc. No.19190 of 2014 dated 25.4.2016 where under the Union of India had given an assurance that the petitioner's application for environmental clearance shall be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks. It is pointed out that the Stage-I Forest clearance has been granted to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 and there are certain compliance required to be made which is to be reported by the Forest Department of the State Government to the ministry of Forest and Environment for further clearances. It is also pointed out that the mining plan has been approved on 2.5.2013 by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Wildlife Management Plan has been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibsasa on 28.11.2003 ( at page 388 of the writ petition) to the Office of Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Chaibasa and is awaiting approval. Petitioner has also obtained certificate of the competent authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 on 29.6.2011, which is at page 238 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to show that the Institution entrusted by the State Government with the responsibility to inspect the alleged violations found by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission i.e. Indian School of Mines has in its report i.e. part of Annexure-2 (page 47 to 68 to the writ petition) not found violations relating to the terms and conditions of the lease. It has also not found violations relating to carrying out of mining operations on an area of 3.58 hectares beyond the sanctioned mining lease as alleged. On the basis of satellite imagery it has found that lessee has operated the mines over an area of 32.59 hectares. The requirement of environmental clearance has only come in the year 1994 and since renewal application has remained pending since 1999, petitioner has not been able to mine the lease 5 hold area since 1999 itself. All these explanation were furnished in the reply to the show cause notice, none of which has been considered by the State Government while rejecting the renewal application. The decision to reject the renewal application therefore suffers from jurisdictional error and failure to confirm to the procedure prescribed as also violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that on such counts petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition to challenge the order of rejection of renewal application. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR1958SC86 para 11 and also in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Regitrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC1 para 50.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions of Section8(A) in the case of Common Cause(supra), the petitioner is entitled to the deemed extension of its lease for a period of 50 years from the original grant i.e. 11.11.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however fairly submitted that in terms of para 27 of the same judgment, unless it obtains statutory clearance / approval / consent to operate and satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease, the benefit of the lease would not be extended to it. Reliance has been placed upon the interim order dated 23.4.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 2722 of 2015 with W.P.C. No. 3921 of 2015 in the case of M/s Thakur Prasad Sao Vrs. the Union of India & others. It is submitted that this Court in the said case relating to second renewal, where also the application for renewal has been rejected after 12.1.2015 i.e. coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015, has gone to hold that the impugned order dated 9.2.2015 passed 6 by the State Government would have no legal effect. However, in the said case also this Court after considering the requirement of statutory clearances to be obtained by the lessee has restrained the lessee from carrying out mining operations till the time they are obtained and it satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the Common Cause Case(supra), specifically para 32 sub para 4 and submitted that the petitioner having applied 12 months before the expiry of the original lease , which was not rejected by 12.1.2015, should be considered as valid lease holder till the expiry of 2 years i.e. 17.7.2016 as per amended Rule 24(A) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Petitioner therefore, would also have the benefit of sub section (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 as has been held in the said judgment. Therefore petitioner's lease should be treated as subsisting till 17.7.2016 and would also be entitled to the benefit of deeming fiction under Section 8A(3) and treat its lease period for 50 years from the date of original grant. The order dated 22.1.2016 therefore cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny in any case. It is also added that unless the order dated 22.1.2016 is quashed or held to be of no legal effect, petitioner would be precluded from obtaining statutory clearances as it shall not be granted the status of a subsisting lessee. This would defeat the aim and object of the Amendment Act, 2015 as interpreted by the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Vrs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1994(2) SCC322 para 11 on the meaning of deeming fiction.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in 7 the presence of alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted that the issue raised herein involves questions of fact relating to the alleged violations which can properly be scrutinized by the Revisional Authority. Other such aggrieved lessees have also invoked the remedy of Revision. It is pointed out that petitioner has on the one hand moved the Delhi High Court with a prayer for grant of environmental clearances in respect of the same mining lease in W.P.C. No. 8258 of 2014, while on the other hand has approached this Court for a declaration that his lease should be treated as valid for 50 years from the original grant relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of Common Case (supra). He submitted that petitioner should obtain all statutory clearances before it could make a prayer for deemed extension of its lease relying upon the aforesaid judgment. There are no exigency for the present on the part of the petitioner to seek any further declaration or interim order from the Court.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also raised the question of maintainability in the presence of an alternative statutory revisional forum against the order of rejection of the first renewal. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority is equally equipped to deal with the questions of law and fact and also render its finding on the facts of the case as per the law declared in the case Common Cause (supra). Learned counsel for the Union of India has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra) and submitted that provisions of Section 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015 are required to be read together. Any benefit of deemed extension can only accrue to the petitioner on obtaining the statutory 8 clearances and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease. Reliance has been placed upon para 27 and other paragraphs of the same judgment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2010) 13 SCC1 para 95 and submitted that the Central Government Revisional Tribunal cannot be an independent and efficacious forum to adjudicate such important questions of law and issues of Jurisdictional errors involved in the matter.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. I have considered the submission of the parties in some detail and gone through the material placed on record on their behalf. As have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition was preferred in November, 2015 raising important questions of law involving interpretation of the provision relating to deemed extension under the amended provision of Section 8A under the M.M.D.R Amendment Act,2015. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected during its pendency and after the passing of the interim order dated 10.2.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Common Cause(supra) laid down the law on the provision of Section 8A of the Amendment Act, 2015 on the question of deemed extension of original grant of lease or such application of first or subsequent renewals pending as on 12.1.2015. Considering the aforesaid law laid and the legal issues involved, this Court does not consider it proper now to relegate the petitioner to the alternate Statutory forum of revision before the Central Government Revision Tribunal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. From the narration of facts recorded herein above, it is evident that the present case is that of a first renewal. Petitioner's original lease expired on 11.11.1999 and it had made an application 9 for renewal on 6.11.98 itself as is also reflected from the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016. It is also evident that the Amendment Act, 2015 has come into effect from 12.1.2015. The order of rejection of renewal application has not been made prior to 12.1.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra) has after interpreting the relevant provision of Section 8A summarized the conclusion at para 32 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below as they have definite bearing on the instant case:-',
	(int) 11 => '<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 10 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 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 11 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 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) 12 => '<p>11. Having regard to the legal position now laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause(supra), the rejection of renewal application by the State Government by the order dated 22.1.2016 i.e. after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015 on 12.1.2015 and the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015, specifically sub section (3), (5) and (6) of Section 8A, cannot be said to have any legal effect. However, it is to be taken note of at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Judgment at Para 27 has held in the following manner:-',
	(int) 13 => '<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”.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>12. 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 Amendement Act, 2015. As is apparent from pleadings in the present case and undisputed by the parties, the lessee has not obtained the statutory clearances like environmental and Forest clearances and also the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board. Lessee is also required to satisfy any of the terms and conditions of the lease which have remained unsatisfied. Lessee therefore would not be entitled to operate the 12 mines till the period such statutory clearances are obtained and terms and conditions of the lease are satisfied.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>13. 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 mine lease holders seeking revocation of the order of suspension claiming to have obtained statutory clearances/approval/consent etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that findings relating to provisions of lapse of lease i.e. Rule 28 of Minor Concession Rules, 1960 in the order of rejection dated 22.1.2016 would also be of no legal effect after pronouncement made by the Apex Court as there are no declaration by the State Government to that effect before 12.1.2015 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act,2015 came into force. Lessee is conscious of its obligation to obtain a statutory clearances from the respective authorities and only thereafter it could made a request for undertaking the mining operation. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as subsisting lessee in order to legitimately pursue his application for all statutory clearances.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>14. In such circumstances, and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 22.1.2016(Annexure-1A) would have no legal effect in view of the deeming provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause(supra). Consequently the order dated 2.2.2016 annexed as Annexure-SA-1 enclosed to the supplementary afidavit dated 8.2.2016 is also stayed. 13 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Petitioner therefore is restrained from carrying out mining operations till the time the statutory clearances are obtained and he satisfies the terms and conditions of the lease. Let the proposed amendments made in I.A. No. 566 of 2016 be incorporated in the main writ petition. An amended writ petition be filed within a period of 3 weeks.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016.          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 17
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

16. The matter is adjourned for a period of 6 months with liberty to the parties to mention. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2014 14/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 4.5.2016. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 15 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 16 W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2015 09/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 4.5.2016. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty 17 W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2014 07/28.04.2016 Since the Court's time is over, as prayed for learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 3.5.2016. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty

Court	Jharkhand High Court
Decided On	Apr-28-2016
Appellant	Khushal Arjun Rathor
Respondent	Mines and Geological Survey

Khushal Arjun Rathor Vs. Mines and Geological Survey - Court Judgment