M. Amithkumar vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4499 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     Date of decision: 14th September, 2011
+                   W.P.(C) 6540/2011 & CM No.13179-13181/2011

         M. AMITHKUMAR                                         ..... Petitioner
                    Through:              Mr. K.B. Shiva Kumar, Adv.

                                      versus

    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                  ..... Respondents
                 Through: Ms. Sweety Manchanda.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may        Not necessary
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?              Not necessary

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported             Not necessary
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition inter alia impugns the order dated 30th June, 2011 of

the Revision Authority (Central Government) under the Mines and

Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 rejecting the revision

application preferred by the petitioner and confirming the order dated 13 th

May, 2010 of the Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Bangalore,

Karnataka rejecting the application of the petitioner for renewal of a

mining lease as time barred.

2. One Shri Venkataswamy Naidu was on 28th January, 1956 granted a

mining lease for Iron Ore over an area of 19 acres in Devgiri Village,

Sandur Taluk, Bellary District for a period of 20 years. The said mining

lease expired on 27th January, 1976. The petitioner, claiming to be the

grandson of aforesaid Shri Venkataswamy Naidu, on 23rd June, 2009

applied for renewal thereof.

3. The respondent no.3 Director, Department of Mines & Geology,

Bangalore, Karnataka issued a notice dated 19th April, 2010 to the

petitioner to show cause as to why the application for renewal be not

rejected as time barred. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said

application.

4. As aforesaid, the Director, Department of Mines & Geology,

Bangalore, Karnataka vide order dated 13 th May, 2010 rejected the

application holding that under Rule 24A(1) of the Mineral Concession

Rules, 1960 the renewal application should have been made to the State

Government at least 12 months before the date on which the lease was due

to expire i.e. on or before 27th January, 1975 but had been filed after 35

years and under Rule 24A(10) there is no provision for considering the

renewal application filed after the expiry of period of mining lease or to

condone the delay in applying therefor.

5. It was the case of the petitioner before the Director, Department of

Mines & Geology, Bangalore, Karnataka that in six other cases, the mining

leases had been renewed on the basis of applications filed after the expiry

of the period of mining lease and hence the case of the petitioner should

also be considered compassionately and without showing any

discrimination. However it was held that there being no power to entertain

the application for renewal filed after the expiry of lease, no relief could be

granted to the petitioner.

6. Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner preferred the Revision Petition

under Section 30 of the Act r/w Rule 55 of the Rules of the Central

Government.

7. The Central Government also in the order dated 30 th June, 2011

impugned herein has held that there being no provision for consideration of

renewal application filed after the expiry of period of mining lease by the

State Government and/or there being no power in the State Government to

condone the delay, no error could be found in the order of the State

Government.

8. The petitioner has before this Court stated that his grandfather Shri

Venkataswamy Naidu died on 2nd January, 1965; that his father applied for

renewal on 22nd November, 1969 but the file vide which the renewal was

applied was lost; that his father died on 12th May, 2006 and in these

peculiar circumstances, the delay occurred.

9. The counsel for the petitioner however fairly admits that there is no

proof of any application for renewal having been made on 22 nd November,

1969; no discussion on the said aspect is found in the order of the State

Government or of the Central Government; the counsel for the petitioner

has also not pressed the said aspect.

10. The counsel for the petitioner has also not controverted the

reasoning given by the State Government as well as the Central

Government that under the Act and the Rules there is no power in the State

Government to entertain an application for renewal preferred after the

expiry of the mining lease. The only contention of the counsel for the

petitioner is that under Section 31 of the Act, the Central Government is

empowered inter alia to authorize renewal of mining lease on terms and

conditions different from those laid down in the Rules. It is thus contended

that the Central Government was empowered to condone the delay in

applying for renewal of the mining lease.

11. The fact of the matter however is that the petitioner did not apply to

the Central Government under Section 31 for condoning the delay in

applying for renewal. The petitioner himself approached the State

Government only for renewal. Upon the same being put to the counsel for

the petitioner, he states that the petitioner could have applied to the State

Government only for renewal and had in reply to the show cause notice

aforesaid called upon the State Government to forward the application for

renewal for consideration by the Central Government under Section 31of

the Act. He contends that the State Government erred in not forwarding his

application for renewal to the Central Government.

12. The counsel for the petitioner is however unable to show any Rule

under which the State Government was so required to forward the

application for renewal of the petitioner to the Central Government or

which prohibited the petitioner from directly approaching the Central

Government for granting renewal in exercise of powers under Section 31

of the Act.

13. Reliance in this regard is placed on

(i) M/s. Harkaran Das Mangilal v. Union of India

(1981) 3 SCC 124 - however all that this judgment

recognizes is the power of the Central Government to

condone the delay in applying for renewal of lease (and

which is amply clear from a bare reading of Section 31)

and remands the matter to the Central Government for

recording reasons as to why the delay could not be

condoned in that case;

(ii) Shri Nand Lal Jain v. State of Bihar (1980) 3 SCC

317 - this is also a case where the matter was remanded

to the Central Government to consider whether delay

ought to be condoned or not;

(iii) Judgment dated 23rd January, 2009 of the High Court of

Karnataka in Writ Petition No.365/2009 titled M/s.

Mysore Stone Ware Pipes & Potteries Ltd. v. M/s.

Deepchand Kishanlal - also on the proposition that

though the State Government has no power to condone

the delay, such power vests in Central Government;

Thus neither of the aforesaid supports the contention of the

petitioner that the petitioner could have applied for renewal to the State

Government only and the State Government was obliged to forward the

same to the Central Government.

14. Moreover in the present case, even though the petitioner did not

invoke the powers of the Central Government under Section 31 of the Act;

the petitioner nevertheless approached the Central Government by way of

revision against the order of the State Government. The petitioner in the

said Revision Petition also referred to Section 31 of the Act and to various

other cases where according to the petitioner the delay had been condoned

by the Central Government. It is thus not as if the Central Government,

while passing the order dated 30th June, 2011 impugned in this petition,

was not conscious of Section 31 of the Act; notwithstanding the same, the

Central Government in the impugned order has confirmed the order of the

State Government. It is thus safe to conclude that the Central Government,

in the facts of the case, was not of the opinion that it is necessary to

condone the long delay of 35 years in applying for renewal of the lease or

that such renewal was in the interest of mining development.

15. I may also notice that neither in the Revision Petition before the

Central Government nor in the petition before this Court there is any

pleading as to how the renewal sought by the petitioner is in the interest of

mining development. The only pleading is that re-granting of mining lease

would be a cumbersome procedure and in the matter of such re-granting

also, the petitioner would be a preferred claimant. There is no averment

even that any mining operations were commenced at any time. Rather, in

the petition before this Court, it is stated that the respondent no.3 Director

Department of Mines & Geology, Bangalore had no jurisdiction to reject

the renewal application since the area is a forest area and powers with

respect thereto had not been delegated by the State Government to the

Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Bangalore, Karnataka. Per

contra, it appears that the petitioner/his predecessors have interfered with

the mining development by their conduct aforesaid.

16. Since in the order of the Central Government there is no express

language indicating that no grounds for condonation of delay were found, I

have pondered over the viability of the course of remanding the matter to

the Central Government for considering the said aspect, as also sought by

the counsel for the petitioner.

17. However I am of the opinion that the entirety of the facts having

already been before the Central Government while making the order dated

30th June, 2011 impugned in this petition, mere non-reference to Section 31

of the Act in the order does not call for such remand. The Supreme Court

has recently in State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Vaish

MANU/SC/0941/2011 has held that Courts ought not to remand the

matters for further/afresh consideration when the dispute is otherwise ripe

for adjudication by Courts and that duty is cast on the Judges to give

finality to the litigation so that the parties would know where they stand.

In the circumstances, no purpose would be served in remanding the matter

to the Central Government.

18. The counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the Central

Government erred in proceeding with the matter without the State

Government responding to the Revision Petition. However the same is not

found to constitute a ground for challenging the order of the Central

Government. The counsel has been unable to show as to how the petitioner

has been prejudiced owing to the State Government having chosen not to

appear before the Revisional Authority.

19. The counsel for the petitioner has lastly invited attention to the

prayer (d) in the writ petition seeking a mandamus to the State

Government to consider a fresh application dated 6 th November, 2009

stated to have been filed by the petitioner for renewal and with a further

direction to the State Government to forward the same to the Central

Government for consideration under Section 31 of the Act.

20. The petitioner is not found entitled to the said relief also. The

territorial jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked owing to the

Revisional Authority whose decision is being impugned within the

jurisdiction of this Court. Else, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to

issue any direction to the respondent Government of Karnataka.

21. I am further of the view that there is absolutely no explanation for

the long delay of 35 years in applying for renewal. No case of the renewal

being in the interest of mining development is also made out. For this

reason also the petitioner is not found entitled to any relief in the equity

jurisdiction of this Court.

22. There is thus no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. I refrain

from imposing any costs on the petitioner.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 14 , 2011 pp..