Jaykaycem (Central ) Ltd. vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 2779 MP

                                    1                               WP-10192-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   WP-10192-2021
              (JAYKAYCEM (CENTRAL ) LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS)

3
Jabalpur, Dated : 28-06-2021
       Heard through Video Conferencing.
       Shri Kishore Shrivastava and Shri Gopal Jain, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Shri Akshay Sapre, and Ms. Vansha Sethi Suneja, counsel for the
petitioner.
       Shri J.K. Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General and Shri Vikram

Singh, Standing Counsel for the respondent-Union of India.

Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent No.3/State.

Shri J.K. Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General and Shri Vikram Singh, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India both pray for three weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

Shri Kishore Shrivastava and Shri Gopal Jain, learned Senior Counsel opposed the prayer contending that this matter has been getting adjourned for last two occasions on the request of the learned counsel for the respondents-

Union of India for time to file counter affidavit. Therefore, if now the matter is again adjourned for that purpose, the petitioner should be protected by way of appropriate interim order considering that not only the Prospecting License was issued in its favour on 28.06.2010, the mining plan was also approved by the respondent No.2 on 03.08.2015. Further, the lease deed was executed in its favour by the State Government on 09.09.2020 and environment clearance was also obtained on 31.08.2020. It is argued that the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of Section 10A(2)(b) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "MMDR Amendment Act"), which the respondents are illegally trying to cover by Section 10A(2)(c) of the Act. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of their arguments, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 2 WP-10192-2021 Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. vs. State of Odisha 2017(2) SCC 125 and of this Court Savita Rawat vs. State of M.P. 2016 SCC Online MP 542.

Learned counsel for the respondents-Union of India opposed the aforementioned arguments contending that the case of the petitioner would fall under Rule 10(A)(2)(c) of the MMDR Amendment Act and the respondent No.2- Regional Controller of Mines has rightly revoked the

approved plan of mining vide impugned order dated 08.06.2021 Annexure P/1 by invoking Rule 8(4) of the Minerals Concession Rule, 1960. The petitioner has got an efficacious alternative remedy to prefer revision there- against before the Chief Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines under Rule 16(5).

Having regard to facts of the case, we are inclined to grant the time to the respondent to file reply to the petition.

Matter to come up on 26.07.2021.

Till then, status quo with regard to area concerned having the mining lease in question shall be maintained by both the parties.

     (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)                              (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
      CHIEF JUSTICE                                           JUDGE


PK

      Digitally signed
      by PARITOSH
      KUMAR
      Date: 2021.06.30
      16:05:40 +05'30'