Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Kjs Cement Ltd. vs Union Of India on 22 September, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 WP-19019-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-19019-2021
(M/S KJS CEMENT LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 22-09-2021
Mr. Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddharth
Singh Chouhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No.2 on
advance copy.
Mr. Ashish Anand Barnard, Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent No.3 on advance copy.
This writ petition has been filed by M/s. KJS Cement Limited, through
its Vice President, namely, Shri Sanjay Singh assailing the notice dated
10.08.2021 (Annexure-P/9) issued by the Regional Controller of Mines
(respondent No.2) calling upon the petitioner to submit final mine closure plan
on the assumption that the mining lease granted to the petitioner is going to
expire on 30.09.2021 and it is mandatory in law for the petitioner to submit
final mine closure plan within two years of its expiry, failing which it
constitutes violation of law punishable as an offence under Rule 62 of
MCDR-2017.
Mr. Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner invited attention of this Court towards Section 8(A)(5) of the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 and
submitted that since the petitioner was granted mining lease for use of
minerals for captive purpose, which would otherwise have expired on
30.09.2021, it shall now by operation of law, be deemed to have been
extended upto a period ending on 31.03.2030 w.e.f. the date of expiry of the
period of renewal last made or till the completion of renewal period. Learned
Senior Counsel has referred to Annexure-P/5, which is an approval of the
mining plan granted by Controller of Mines, environment clearance granted to
the petitioner by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change,
2 WP-19019-2021
Impact Assessment Division vide order dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure-P/6) and
the renewal of the mining plan granted by the Controller of Mines vide dated
31.03.2017/07.04.2017 (Annexure-P/7), in all of which it has been
categorically stated that the mining lease granted to the petitioner is captive
mine for supply of limestone to its cement plant at Village Amilia, adjoining
the lease area. Learned Senior Counsel cited the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer and another
reported in AIR 1961 SC 372 to argue that when it is shown that a show
cause notice is issued by the authority lacking in jurisdiction/competence, a
writ of prohibition can be directly entertained by this Court.
Issue notice.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Shukla, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No.2 and Mr. Ashish Anand Barnard, Deputy Advocate General
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3 and prays for time to file reply.
Issue notice to respondent No.1 by both mode on payment of process
within seven working days.
In the meanwhile, the operation of impugned notice dated 10.08.2021
(Annexure-P/19) shall remain stayed.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
[email protected]
Digitally signed by SACHIN CHAUDHARY
Date: 2021.09.22 18:38:00 +05'30'
