Delhi High Court
Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd vs Sarda Energy And Minerals Ltd & Ors on 4 January, 2016
Author: G. Rohini
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Pronounced on: 04.01.2016
+ Rev. Pet. 361/2015 & 373/2015 in LPA 202/2011 and CM Nos.
13844/2015 & 14176/2015 (stay)
JAYASWAL NECO INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Ms. Anu Tyagi, Ms.
M. Vijay Kumar, Advocates
Versus
SARDA ENERGY AND MINERALS LTD & ORS..... Respondent
Through: Mr.P. Chidambaram, Sr.Adv. along
with J.K. Chaudhary, Mr. Jai Pratap, Advs. for R-
1.
Mr.Abhay Prakash Sahay, Mr. Deepak Gupta,
Advs. for R-2.
Mr. Atul Jha & Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advs. for State
of Chhattisgarh.
AND
+ Rev. Pet. 374/2015 in LPA 205/2011
JAYASWAL NECO INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Ms. Anu Tyagi, Ms.
M. Vijay Kumar, Advocates
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC
with Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advs. for UOI.
R.P. No.361/2015 in LPA No.202/2011, R.P. No.373/2015 in
LPA No.202/2011 & R.P. No.374/2015 in LPA No.205/2011 Page 1 of 9
Mr.P. Chidambaram, Sr.Adv. along with Mr. J.K.
Chaudhary, Mr. Jai Pratap, Advs. for R-3
Mr. Atul Jha & Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advs. for State
of Chhattisgarh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
G. ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE:
1. LPA Nos.202/2011 & 205/2011 were dismissed by this court by
common judgment dated 24.02.2015. The said judgment is sought to be
reviewed in these Review Petitions.
2. The State of Chhattisgarh/respondent No.3 in LPA No.202/2011
preferred Review Petition No.361/2015 whereas M/s Jayaswal Neco
Industries Ltd./appellant in LPA Nos.202/2011 & 205/2011 preferred
Review Petition Nos.373/2015 & 374/2015 in LPA Nos.202/2011 &
205/2011 respectively.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
4. The dispute between M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. and M/s
Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd. regarding grant of Prospecting Licence (PL)
under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation)
Act, 1957 for the purpose of exploring iron ore deposits in Boria Tibbu area
of Rajnandgaon District situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh, which has
become part of State of Chhattisgarh w.e.f. 01.11.2000 by virtue of Madhya
R.P. No.361/2015 in LPA No.202/2011, R.P. No.373/2015 in
Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 was the subject matter of LPA
Nos.202/2011 & 205/2011.
5. The said appeals arose out of the orders of the learned Single Judge
dated 28.01.2011 and 18.02.2011 in W.P.(C) No.2757/2008 and W.P.(C)
No.1038/2011 respectively.
6. W.P.(C) No.2757/2008 filed by M/s Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd.
was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 28.01.2011
upholding its claim for grant of Prospecting Licence on the basis of its
application dated 25.04.1995 and directing State of Chhattisgarh and Central
Government to issue consequential orders whereas W.P.(C) No.1038/2011
filed by M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge by order dated 18.02.2011 thereby confirming the rejection of
its application dated 22.05.1990 for grant of PL by the State of Madhya
Pradesh. LPA Nos.202/2011 & 205/2011 preferred by M/s Jayaswal Neco
Industries Ltd. against the said orders of the learned Single Judge were heard
and reserved for judgment on 02.12.2014 and the judgment came to be
pronounced on 24.02.2015.
7. The instant Review Petitions seeking review of the said judgment
dated 24.02.2015 came to be filed primarily on the ground that Section 10A
of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act,
1957, which has been inserted by Amendment dated 27.03.2015 w.e.f.
12.01.2015 was not taken into consideration while rendering the judgment
dated 24.02.2015 and, therefore, the said judgment suffered from an error
apparent on the face of the record. It is pleaded that by virtue of the Mines
R.P. No.361/2015 in LPA No.202/2011, R.P. No.373/2015 in
and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015
(for short 'the Ordinance') promulgated on 12.01.2015 which has become an
Act i.e. Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act,
2015 (for short 'the Amendment Act') by publication in the Gazette dated
27.03.2015 but has come into force w.e.f. 12.01.2015 thereby inserting
Section 10A into the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act,
1957 (for short 'the Act'), all applications for PL received prior to the date
of commencement of the Amendment Act i.e. 12.01.2015 shall become
ineligible and that the said change in law which was affected after the
judgment was reserved and before the judgment was pronounced could not
be brought to the notice of this court and consequently the judgment was
rendered without taking into consideration the provisions of Section 10A of
the Act as inserted by the Amendment Act.
8. It is pleaded in Review Petition No.361/2015 filed by the State of
Chhattisgarh that in terms of Section 10A(1) of the Act as inserted by the
Amendment Act w.e.f. 12.01.2015, the State of Chhattisgarh has taken a
decision on 24.02.2015 not to grant Mining Lease or Prospecting Licence on
the basis of the applications received prior to 12.01.2015 unless it is covered
by sub-Section (2) of Section 10A. It was also decided by the State of
Chhattisgarh on 17.04.2015 that in view of Section 10A(1), Prospecting
Licence cannot be granted to Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd. since it did not
fulfil the conditions mentioned in sub-Section (2) of Section 10A. In the
meanwhile, Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd. filed Contempt Case
No.318/2015 in which notice was issued by this court. The review
petitioner/State of Chhattisgarh filed Special Leave Petition No.14783/2015
R.P. No.361/2015 in LPA No.202/2011, R.P. No.373/2015 in
contending that the judgment in LPA Nos.202/2011 & 205/2011 cannot be
implemented in view of the change of law. By order dated 13.07.2015, the
Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file
review petition before this court.
9. It is submitted by Shri Raju Ramachandran, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Review Petition Nos.373/2015 &
374/2015 i.e. M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. that the Amendment Act,
2015 which came into force w.e.f. 12.01.2015 has a serious impact upon the
controversy involved in LPA Nos.202/2011 & 205/2011 and since the
judgment dated 24.02.2015 was rendered without taking into consideration
the said amendment, the same suffered from an error apparent on the face of
the record. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the judgment of
this court dated 24.02.2015 is incapable of being implemented in terms of
the Amendment Act, 2015 and therefore on that ground also the same
requires review. In support of the said submission, the learned Senior
Counsel has relied upon United Bank of India, Calcutta v. Abhijit Tea Co.
Pvt. Ltd. and Others; (2000) 7 SCC 357, M.K. Venkatachalam, ITO and
Another v. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd.; AIR 1958 SC 875 and
Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others; (2013) 8 SCC 320.
10. We have also heard Shri Atul Jha, the learned counsel appearing for
the State of Chhattisgarh/the review petitioner in Review Petition
No.361/2015, Shri P. Chidambaram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the respondent No.1/M/s Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd. and the learned
Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for Union of India.
R.P. No.361/2015 in LPA No.202/2011, R.P. No.373/2015 in
11. It may at the outset be pointed out that M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries
Ltd. filed two applications dated 22.05.1990 and 20.09.1993 for grant of PL.
So far as M/s Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd. is concerned, its application for
grant of PL was made on 25.04.1995. The first application of M/s Jayaswal
Neco Industries Ltd. dated 22.05.1990 was deemed to have been rejected,
however, the Revision Petition was allowed by the Mines Tribunal by order
dated 22.12.1994 and the matter was remanded to the State Government for
consideration afresh. The said revived application was dismissed by the
State of M.P. by order dated 12.04.1999 and the Revision Petition preferred
by M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. was also dismissed by the Mines
Tribunal by order dated 31.12.2001. The said order remained unchallenged
for a long time and ultimately on 17.02.2011 M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries
Ltd. filed W.P.(C) No.1038/2011 which was dismissed by the learned Single
Judge by order dated 18.02.2011 on the ground of laches. So far as the
second application of M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. dated 20.09.1993 is
concerned, the same was considered by the State of M.P. along with the
other pending applications for grant of PL and by order dated 31.12.1997 the
said application was dismissed and PL was granted to M/s Sarda Energy and
Minerals Ltd. The Revision Petition preferred by M/s Jayaswal Neco
Industries Ltd. against the order of State of M.P. dated 31.12.1997 was
dismissed by the Mines Tribunal by order dated 04.02.1999. However, after
formation of the State of Chhattisgarh on 01.11.2000, the issue of grant of
PL over the Boria Tibbu area had again been taken up treating the
application of M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. dated 22.05.1990 and the
application of M/s Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd. dated 25.04.1995 as
pending and by order dated 01.02.2002 while deciding to grant PL to M/s
R.P. No.361/2015 in LPA No.202/2011, R.P. No.373/2015 in
Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. the application of M/s Sarda Energy &
Minerals Ltd. dated 25.04.1995 was rejected. Pursuant thereto, PL was
granted to M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. on 28.02.2003. The Revision
Petition filed by M/s Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd. against the decision of
the State of Chhattisgarh was dismissed by the Mines Tribunal by order
dated 05.02.2008. However, W.P.(C) No.2757/2008 filed by M/s Sarda
Energy & Minerals Ltd. was allowed by the learned Single Judge thereby
setting aside the decision of the Mines Tribunal and directing State of
Chhattisgarh and the Central Government to issue consequential orders in
favour of M/s Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd.
12. As is evident from the facts narrated above, the rival claims of M/s
Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. and M/s Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd. for
grant of PL on the basis of their applications dated 22.05.1990 and
25.04.1995 respectively were considered by the State of M.P./State of
Chhattisgarh and ultimately the controversy was decided by the Mines
Tribunal by order dated 05.02.2008. Thus, the rights of the parties were
crystallized on 05.02.2008 i.e. the date on which the Mines Tribunal had
decided the controversy on the basis of the provisions of the Act and the
Rules existing as on that date.
13. As rightly submitted by Shri P. Chidambaram, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for M/s Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd. though there can
be no dispute about the well settled principle of law that failure of the court
to take notice of the change in law would constitute an error apparent on the
face of the record, the said proposition, according to us, has no application
to the case on hand since the change in law by way of insertion of Section
R.P. No.361/2015 in LPA No.202/2011, R.P. No.373/2015 in
10A of the Act has been affected only on the date of the judgment in LPA
Nos.202/2011 & 205/2011 whereas the rights of the parties were crystallized
on the date of the order of the Mines Tribunal on 05.02.2008.
14. The law is well settled that the power of this court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is not an appellate power but it is a power of
judicial review of administrative action. This court, therefore, while
exercising the power of judicial review, is only concerned with ensuring that
the decision taken by the authorities empowered under the statute is arrived
at in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and in accordance
with the principles of natural justice wherever applicable. Since the
jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 is confined merely to correct
errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of
justice or violation of principles of natural justice, the same under no
circumstances can be interpreted as a power akin to adjudication on merit
[Vide State of UP v. Nand Kishore Shukla, (1996) 3 SCC 750 and Tata
Cellular v. UOI, (1994) 6 SCC 651].
15. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contention of the
review petitioners that the change in law that has been brought in after the
letters patent appeals were reserved for judgment is required to be taken into
consideration by this court while deciding the said appeals.
16. No other ground is urged before us either on behalf of the petitioners
in Review Petition No.361/2015 or on behalf of the petitioner in Review
Petition Nos.373/2015 & 374/2015.
R.P. No.361/2015 in LPA No.202/2011, R.P. No.373/2015 in
17. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the change in law by
insertion of Section 10A of the Act w.e.f. 12.01.2015 has in no way affected
the judgment under review. Hence, all the Review Petitions as well as all
pending applications shall stand dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
JANUARY 04, 2016
kks
R.P. No.361/2015 in LPA No.202/2011, R.P. No.373/2015 in
