Jharkhand High Court

Rang Nath Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 September, 2024

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            W.P.(C) No.4950 of 2024
                       -----

Rang Nath Singh, aged about 66 years, Son of Triloki Nath Singh, Resident of Village-Masnodih, P.O.-Masnodih, P.S.- Markachcho, District-Koderma. ... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, P.O. and P.S.- Koderma, District-Koderma.

3. The District Mining Officer, Koderma, P.O. and P.S.- Koderma, District-Koderma.

                                    ... ...    Respondents
                            -------
CORAM:        HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
                            -------
For the Petitioner     : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate
                       : Mr. Sahja Nand Saraswati, Advocate
For the Respondent     : Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II
                       ------

Order No. 03/Dated 10th September, 2024

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.

Prayer

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking a direction upon the

respondents to extend the period of mining lease granted to

the petitioner in terms of the order contained in Memo No.

569 dated 19.05.2016 issued under signature of the

Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma, in respect to the land

being Plot No. 242 (Part) and 243 (Part), measuring an area

2.35 acres of land situated under Mauza- Purnadih within

District-Koderma, by giving the benefits of the period

elapsed with effect from 20.02.2013 to 26.05.2016 during

W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 which the matter concerning to renewal of the aforesaid

lease of the petitioner remain pending.

Brief facts of the case

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made

in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated,

read as under:-

It is the case of the petitioner that initially in respect

to Plot No 242 (Part) and 243 (Part), comprising for an area

of 2.35 acres of land situated under Mauza-Purnadih, P.S.-

Markachcho, District-Koderma, a mining lease for stone

was granted to the petitioner for the term of 10 years with

effect from 07.04.2003 to 06.04.2013.

3. Before expiry of the term of the aforesaid lease, the

application for further renewal of lease in question was

submitted by the petitioner and after completion of all the

legal formalities the lease was renewed further for the term

of 10 years with effect from 07.04.2013 to 06.04.2023.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the order

sanctioning the mining lease was issued on 19.05.2016

under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma

and the order was communicated to the petitioner vide

Memo No. 569/M dated 19.05.2016 issued under signature

of the Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma.

5. The petitioner completed all the formalities and,

thereafter, the lease was executed on 26.05.2016 and in the

W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 said deed the period of the lease was mentioned with effect

from 07.04.2013 to 06.04.2023.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that renewal

application was filed on 21.12.2012 which was within time

but the matter could not be disposed of and due to efflux of

time under the deeming provisions, the application of the

petitioner stood deem rejected against which the petitioner

moved before the Revisional Authority and the matter was

remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma for

passing reasoned order, but even then no any order was

passed.

7. Subsequently, the petitioner again moved before the

Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, in Rev. Case No. 173 of 2014

and the said case remain pending for about two years and

finally on 10.02.2016 the aforesaid revision was disposed of

directing the Deputy Commissioner to pass speaking order

and also directed to ensure that no mining is done in the

occupied area during the pendency of the renewal

application.

8. The case of the petitioner is that before expiry of the

earlier term lease in question on 06.04.2013, the petitioner

had applied for further renewal on 21.12.2012, but the

order sanctioning mining lease was passed on 19.05.2016

and the lease deed was executed on 26.05.2016

whereunder the period has been shown with effect from

W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 07.04.2013 to 06.04.2023 and at the same time in the

order sanctioning mining lease it was also mentioned that

the lease is being renewed with effect from the date of

expiry of the earlier term as 07.04.2013 to further 10 years

i.e. upto 06.04.2023, whereas after expiry of the earlier

term of lease in question on 07.04.2013, till 19.05.2016 the

mining activities of the petitioner remain non-operational

and even the direction was made by the revisional authority

for ensuring no mining activities for the area occupied by

the petitioner during pendency of the renewal application.

9. The petitioner had already paid the amount of dead

rent for the period from 07.04.2013 to 06.04.2023

irrespective of the mining activities of the petitioner remain

non- operational.

10. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing

the instant writ petition with a prayer to give the benefits of

the period elapsed with effect from 20.02.2013 to

26.05.2016 during which the matter concerning to renewal

of the aforesaid lease of the petitioner remain pending.

11. It is evident that admittedly the lease to carry out

the mining operation has been granted by order as

contained in Memo No. 569/M dated 19.05.2016 issued

under signature of the Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma.

12. The petitioner has accepted the aforesaid decision

as contained in Memo No.569/M dated 19.05.2016 and has

W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 started carrying out the mining operation without any

demur.

13. But, after end of the period of lease by virtue of the

order of renewal dated 19.05.2016, has come to this Court

seeking a direction by way of issuance of mandamus to

extend the period of mining lease.

Submission made on behalf of the Petitioner

14. Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner has contended that the grievance of the

writ petitioner is that the permission was to be granted

from 20.02.2013 by way of renewal but it was renewed with

effect from 26.05.2016 and, as such, for the period from

20.02.2013 to 25.05.2016, even though there is no laches

on the part of the writ petitioner, he has been made to

suffer and, as such, the aforesaid period is to be added to

the lease period as per the decision taken by the authority

in Memo No. 569/M dated 19.05.2016 by extending the

said period by further three years.

15. The reference of some of the orders has been made

wherein while disposing of the writ petition, the authorities

have been directed to consider the case of the parties

concerned as per the judgment passed in the case of M/s.

R.P.Singh Stone Works v. The State of Jharkhand and

Others [W.P.(C) No.5362 of 2022].

W.P.(C) No.4950_2024

16. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid

ground, has submitted that direction may be passed upon

the respondents to extend the period of mining lease

granted to the petitioner in terms of the order contained in

Memo No. 569 dated 19.05.2016.

Submission made on behalf of the Respondent

17. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned Additional Advocate

General-II, appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has

submitted that the present writ petition is of the year 2024

seeking therein a direction which pertains to the year 2013.

18. It has been contended that the argument which has

been advanced that the delay in not renewing the lease

from 20.02.2013 to 25.05.2016 is attributed to the State

but the same cannot be said to be proper for its

consideration, reason being that if that be so, then why the

writ petitioner waited upto the year 2024, i.e., after lapse of

the period of lease, rather, the petitioner ought to have

approached this Court immediately after renewal of the

lease as was granted vide order dated 19.05.2016 as

contained in Memo No.569/M. But, he has accepted the

said renewal and when the said period has lapsed,

thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed.

19. It has further been submitted that the reason for

filing the present writ petition is that there is embargo in

renewal by virtue of amendment having been incorporated

W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 in Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004

(amended in the year 2017) as per the provision as

contained under Section 9 thereof.

Consideration

20. Heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across

the pleading made in the writ petition as also the order

passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

21. The undisputed fact in this case is that the lease

was granted in favour of the petitioner to carry out the

mining operation. Before expiry of the period of lease, the

application was filed by the petitioner for its renewal from

20.02.2013. The aforesaid application has been decided by

the authority by virtue of memo No.569/M dated

19.05.2016 by which the lease was renewed for a period of

10 years from the date of expiry of the earlier period of

lease.

22. The petitioner has accepted the aforesaid decision

as contained in Memo No.569/M dated 19.05.2016 and has

started carrying out the mining operation without any

demur.

23. But, after end of the period of lease by virtue of the

order of renewal dated 19.05.2016, has come to this Court

seeking a direction by way of issuance of mandamus to

extend the period of mining lease.

W.P.(C) No.4950_2024

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

the judgment passed by this Court in M/s. R.P.Singh

Stone Works v. The State of Jharkhand and Others

(Supra).

25. Before proceeding to examine the factual aspect as

available in the present case, this Court needs to go

through the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in

the aforesaid case.

26. The factual aspect which has been discussed, needs

to be referred herein which is available at paragraph-3 of

the aforesaid judgment, for ready reference, paragraph-3 is

being referred here in :-

"3. Briefly states the facts reveal that initially in respect to Plot No.448 (Part), 450 to 453 measuring an area of 7.60 acres of land situated under Mouza- Banskol within the District Sahebganj, a mining lease for stone was granted to the petitioner in the year 2002 for a period of 10 years which was effective from 07.09.2002. The petitioner consequent to the execution of the lease deed had started mining activities and prior to expiry of the lease deed had made an application within time on 27.04.2012. According to the petitioner all the necessary documents were submitted save and except the consent letter of Ministry of Environment and Forest and the Royalty Clearance Certificate. However, since there was a deemed rejection of the said application, the petitioner had preferred a revision application being Revision Case No.257 of 2012 and it was disposed of on 23.07.2015 by setting aside the deemed rejection and directing the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj to examine the issue and

W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 pass a necessary order on merit. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj after perusing the documents submitted by the petitioner and in terms of the order dated 23.07.2015 passed in Revision Case No.257/12 had ordered for renewal of the lease which was valid upto 06.09.2022."

27. It is evident from the factual aspect that the

revisional authority, while disposing of the revision being

Revision Case No.257 of 2012 vide order dated 23.07.2015

has set aside the deemed rejection order with a direction

upon the Deputy Commissioner Sahebganj to examine the

issue and pass necessary order on merit.

28. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, after

perusing the documents submitted by the petitioner and in

terms of order dated 23.07.2015 passed in Revision Case

No.257 of 2012, had ordered for renewal of the lease which

was valid upto 06.09.2022.

29. Now adverting to the fact of the present case, it is

evident from paragraph 9 of the pleading made in the writ

petition that the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, in Revision

Case No.173 of 2014 has kept the matter pending for two

years and on 10.02.2016, the aforesaid revision was

disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner to pass

speaking order as also to ensure that no mining is done in

the occupied area during the pendency of the renewal

period.

W.P.(C) No.4950_2024

30. It is, thus, evident that the factual aspect which was

the subject matter in the order passed by the Coordinate

Bench that the Mines Commissioner - the Revisional

Authority, has passed the order quashing the order passed

by the Deputy Commissioner and in terms thereof, the

Deputy Commissioner has passed an order for renewal of

the lease.

31. The factual aspect of the present case, therefore, is

quite different to that of the fact governing the case of M/s.

R.P.Singh Stone Works v. The State of Jharkhand and

Others [W.P.(C) No.5362 of 2022].

32. Herein, the factual aspect which is admitted on

behalf of the petitioner that by virtue of the order passed by

the Deputy Commissioner, in terms of the observation

made by the Revisional Authority, the lease was renewed

vide order dated 19.05.2016 as contained in Memo

No.569/M which the writ petitioner has willingly accepted

and has carried out the mining operation in terms of the

said order of renewal.

33. The petitioner, thereafter, has approached this

Court by filing the writ petition after lapse of the period of

lease in a situation where law does not permit for renewal

as per the amendment incorporated by way of insertion

after the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India & Others

W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 reported in 2014(6) SCC 590 as contained in Section 9(ङ)

and 9(च) in the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession

Rules, 2004 amended in the year 2017, for ready reference

the aforesaid provisions are being referred herein :-

"9(ङ) सरकारी क्षेत्र एवं 05.00 हे 0 क्षेत्र से अधिक के रै यती क्षेत्र पर

प्राप्त वैसे आवेदन पत्र धिसमें इस अधिसूचना धनर्गत होने की धतधि से पूवग झारखण्ड लघु खधनि समनुदान धनयमावली, 2004 के धनयम 11 अंतर्गत

Letter of Intent (आशय का पत्र) धनर्गत हो चुका है , उसे इस अधिसूचना के धनर्गत होने की धतधि से 180 धदनों के अंदर पयाग वरण

स्वीकृधत एवं खनन योिन अधनवायग रूप से समधपगत करना होर्ा, अन्यिा उनका आवेदन स्वतः अस्वीकृत हो िाएर्ा।

9(च) सरकारी क्षेत्र एवं 05.00 हे 0 क्षेत्र से अधिक के रै यती क्षेत्र पर प्राप्त खनन पटे को िो करकामेव व एवं पयाग वरणीय स्वीकृधत खनन योिना

प्राप्त नही राहत वैसे खर कालधतरोधहत हो र्ये हो, उनके पट्टे की अवधि

पट्टा स्वीकृधत/नवीनीकरण की धतधि से 31 माचग, 202216 तक के धलए अवधि धवस्ताररत मानी िाएर्ी, बशते धक अधिसूचना की धतधि के पूवग खनन पट्टा की अस्वीकृधत/रद्द/व्ययर्त होने का आदे श, नहीं पाररत धकया र्या है , परन्तु वैसे खानन पट्टे पर कोई खनन तब तक नहीं धकया िा

सकेर्ा, िब तक खनन हे तु आवश्यक पयाग वरणीय स्वीकृधत/वन एवं पयाग वरण धवभार् की स्वीकृधत/खनन योिना स्वीकृधत प्राप्त नहीं हो िाता है ।

आवेदक को सभी वां धित अनापत्ती 180 धदनों के अंदर समधपगत कना होर्ा।"

34. It is evident that the provision of deemed renewal

has been done away from the statutory provision which was

initially till 31.03.2020 and subsequently by virtue of the

amendment, the said period was extended up to

31.03.2022.

35. The provision as inserted by way of amendment in

the Rule 2004 amended in 2017, has statutorily

W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 commanded the authority that on or after 31.03.2022 the

mining operation will only be allowed to be carried out by

virtue of auction and not renewal.

36. The other fact which is different to the facts of

W.P.(C) No.5362 of 2022 is that the petitioner, has accepted

the order of renewal up to 06.04.2023 vide order dated

19.05.2016 without any protest and, thereafter, on expiry

of the period of renewed lease, he has directly approached

this Court by filing writ petition after lapse of about 11

years since even accepting the prayer of the petitioner as

per the pleading made in the writ petition, the cause of

action in favour of the writ petitioner will be said to be

arisen in the year 2013 or 2016.

37. Fur, there is no pleading or it is not the case of the

writ petitioner that any litigation or any representation was

made before the authority for modifying the order dated

19.05.2016 for renewal of the lease by shifting the period

commencing from 07.04.2016 or for extending the period

for three years.

38. The reference of the settled position of law is

required to be made that a judgment is having no universal

applicability, rather, its applicability is to be tested on the

basis of factual aspect governing each and every case

individually, reference in this regard be made to the

judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr.

W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75 for ready reference the

relevant paragraph is being quoted herein under:-

"47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. "The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed."

39. This Court, is of the view after going through the

order passed by the Coordinate Bench wherein there is no

adjudication of the right of the parties, save and except, the

liberty was granted to the writ petitioner to file

representation.

40. The question of consideration of representation will

only come if there is any legal vested right said to be

available, but herein, as per the insertion in the statutory

provision by way of amendment, when there is no provision

to renew then how can it be said that the writ petitioner is

having vested legal right for consideration of the issue, even

if there is any laches on the part of the State.

41. This Court is exercising the power conferred under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is settled that

the said power can only be exercised either in two

W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 occasions, if there is infringement of fundamental right or if

there is violation of legal vested right.

42. "Vested right" has been defined by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti

Singh [(2014) 13 SCC 583] at paragraph 11, 12 and 13,

which read hereunder as:-

"11.The word "vested" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) at p. 1563, as:

"Vested.--fixed; accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the character or given in the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. Rights are 'vested' when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute 'vested rights'."

12. In Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at p. 1397, "vested" is defined as law held by a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right; vested interest.

13. Thus, vested right is a right independent of any contingency and it cannot be taken away without consent of the person concerned. Vested right can arise from contract, statute or by operation of law. Unless an accrued or vested right has been derived by a party, the policy decision/scheme could be changed.

43. Further, so far as the question of taking away the

vested right is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid

down the proposition in the case of Chairman, Railway

Board and Others v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Others,

W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 reported in (1997) 6 SCC 623 at paragraph-24, which

reads hereunder as :-

"24. In many of these decisions the expressions "vested rights" or "accrued rights" have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc., of the employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We are unable to hold that these decisions are not in consonance with the decisions in Roshan Lal Tandon [AIR 1967 SC 1889], B.S. Vedera [AIR 1969 SC 118] and Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni [(1983) 2 SCC 33]."

44. Since this Court has referred the statutory provision

as inserted by way of amendment where there is no

provision of renewal, hence, even though the liberty will be

granted to the writ petitioner to approach the authority,

then the question will be for what purpose when the result

is known to this Court in view of the insertion of provision -

9(च) as contained in Rules, 2004, amended in the year

2017.

45. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is

of the view that it is not a fit case where any command is to

W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 be issue upon the State for consideration of the case of the

writ petitioner.