M/S. Harsha Ores And Minerals ( A ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 2276 Raj

[2023/RJJD/006664]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19278/2018

M/s. Harsha Ores And Minerals ( A Partnership Firm), Through Its Partner Shri Gauri Shanker Joshi S/o Hemraj Ji Joshi, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village And Post Thana, Tehsil And District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Mines Gr.2 Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director Of Mines And Geology, State Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

3. Assistant Mining Engineer, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Mehta (petitioner present in person) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, Addl. G.C.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Judgment

Reserved on 14/03/2023

Pronounced on 20/03/2023

1. The lawyers are abstaining from the work, due to strike.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

" (1) By an appropriate writ, order or directions the impugned order dated 11.02.2014 (Annex.-03) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(2) By an appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents may be directed consider the application for renewal of mining lease and grant renewal expeditiously. (3) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

[2023/RJJD/006664] (2 of 6) [CW-19278/2018]

(4) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."

3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, originally, lease

was granted by the State of Rajasthan for Mineral Soapstone, near

Village Ghughra, Tehsil and District Dungarpur, vide State of Mines

Rajasthan, Mines Gr. 2 Department, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur vide

order No. 2(177)/Khan/gr.2/84 dated 04.01.1985 for an area of 72.52

hectares for a period of 20 years from the date of registration.

3.1 Subsequently the petitioner applied for the renewal of the lease

on 9.12.2002 with all the requisite documents. However, the Assistant

Mining Engineer, Durgarpur gave a notice dated 19.10.2012 to the

petitioner pointing out certain deficiencies. As per the petitioner, all the

deficiencies that were pointed out in the notice dated 19.10.2012 were

removed and he was waiting for renewal of his lease. Thereafter, the

respondents vide order dated 11.02.2014 rejected the renewal

application moved by the petitioner on the following three grounds:

a) The requisite consent certificate, required to be obtained from the

State Pollution Control Board, in relation to air and water, has not been

submitted;

b) No plantation, owing to the environment needs, has been done in the

mining area and;

c) In relation to the protected area measuring 24.80 hectares, the

requisite approved mining scheme alongwith progressive mining closure

plan were not submitted.

3.2 The petitioner made a representation on 24.03.2014, but the

same was not considered, and on 20.05.2014, the respondents refused

to consider the application of the petitioner, on count of rejection of the

renewal application vide order dated 11.02.2014.

[2023/RJJD/006664] (3 of 6) [CW-19278/2018]

3.3 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision application

on 20.10.2014 before the Joint Secretary to the Government of India,

Ministry of Mines & Metals, Department of Mines, Revision Section, New

Delhi. Upon the submissions made by the counsel for the revisionist,

that on count, amongst others, due to change of jurisdiction, the

Central Government is not the appropriate authority thereafter, to

decide the cases relating to minor minerals, the Joint Secretary, vide

order dated 21/29.07.2016, transferred the revision application to the

State Government for disposal, as per the law.

3.4 In pursuance of the aforementioned order, the revision application

was forwarded to the Government of Rajasthan, and the petitioner also

submitted an application on 04.10.2016 in this regard. However, for

more than two years, the revision application remained pending before

the Joint Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat,

Jaipur; whereupon the petitioner on 22.03.2018 submitted an

application to pass final or appropriate orders on the revision

application.

3.5 On 08.05.2018, the Joint Principal Secretary, after a long duration

of pendency of the revision application, denied to entertain the same,

asserting that the impugned order was passed by the State

Government, and therefore, the State Government cannot hear and

decide the revision application.

4. The petitioner present in person submitted that the conditions laid

down by the respondent authority were already fulfilled by the

petitioner, thereby curing the deficiencies pointed out by the

respondents, in the following manner:

a) The petitioner was having the consent to operate (Order no.2010-

2011/Udaipur/768/570) issued on 28.05.2010.

b) The petitioner has planted too many trees.

[2023/RJJD/006664] (4 of 6) [CW-19278/2018]

c) The petitioner had already submitted the progressive plan which was

proved by the authority on 19.01.2010.

4.1 The petitioner present in person brought the Court's attention

towards the aforementioned revision application preferred on

20.10.2014, which later on was transferred vide the aforementioned

order dated 21/29.07.2016 by the Central Government to State

Government for lack of jurisdiction. It was further submitted that the

Joint Principal Secretary, Mining, Rajasthan, Jaipur kept the revision

appliation pending for more than two years, and was also the one who

passed the impugned order dated 11.02.2014.

4.2 The petitioner present in person further submitted that vide the

order dated 08.05.2018, the petitioner is now left remediless, as no

authority is willing and ready to hear the revision application, and due

to delay in renewal of mining lease, the petitioner is suffering day-to-

day financial loss.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Counsel

appearing for the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid

submissions made by the petitioner present in person, submitted that

the present writ petition has become infructuous, in view of coming into

force of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017.

5.1 It was further submitted that the application for renewal of the

mining lease of the petitioner was rejected way back in the year 2014,

and since then, no ad-interim order has been operating in favour of the

petitioner, and meanwhile, the Rules of 2017 came into force. Sub rule

(2) of Rule 6 of the Rules 2017 is extracted as under, for ready

reference:

"6. Rights of grantee of mining lease sanctioned before commencement of these rules:-

(2) All cases covered under sub rule (1) shall be protected subject to condition that mining lease shall be executed and

[2023/RJJD/006664] (5 of 6) [CW-19278/2018]

registered within a period of one year from the date of commencement of these rules, failing which the right of such grantee shall be forfeited and in such cases, it would not be mandatory for the government to issue any order in this regard."

5.2 Learned Additional Government Counsel also submitted that as

per the above quoted Rule, the mining lease was required to be

executed and registered within a period of one year, failing which, right

of grantee shall be forfeited, and in such cases, it would not be

mandatory for the government to pass any order in this regard.

6. Heard the petitioner present in person as well as learned

Additional Government Counsel representing the respondents, and

perused the record of the case.

7. This Court finds that the lease in question was initially

granted in the year 1985, and renewal application was filed in the

year 2002. Thereafter, the Assistant Mining Engineer, Dungarpur

vide notice dated 19.10.2012 pointed out certain deficiencies,

which, as per the submission of the petitioner in person, stood

cured. However, the respondents vide order dated 11.02.2014

rejected renewal application of the petitioner; whereupon the

petitioner moved a representation on 24.03.2014 and

communication on 20.05.2014, but the same was not considered

by the respondents.

8. This Court further finds that the petitioner has been a lease-

holder, and application for renewal of such lease was rejected by

the respondents, due to certain deficiencies, which, as observed

hereinabove, were already stood cured by the petitioner. This

Court also finds that the State Government framed the Rajasthan

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, thereby changing the entire

[2023/RJJD/006664] (6 of 6) [CW-19278/2018]

scenario of the relevant Rules and Regulations governing the

issue.

9. Though at this stage, this Court cannot determine the issue,

as to whether the petitioner has a right to renewal of the mining

lease in question, or not, but the equity demands that the

petitioner cannot be rendered remediless.

10. This Court also finds that the petitioner filed an application

for renewal of mining lease in the year 2002 and rejection order

was passed in the year 2014, whereafter, for about 12 years, the

respondents did not take any action thereon, and suddenly passed

the impugned order dated 11.02.2014, rejecting the renewal

application moved by the petitioner, which ought to be revisited in

the given facts and circumstances. The material on record reflects

that the respondent authorities should re-apply their mind while

taking into account the complete factual matrix with an open mind

in the interest of justice.

11. As an upshot of the above discussion, the present petition is

allowed, and while quashing and setting aside the impugned order

dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure-3) as well as order dated

08.05.2018 (Annexure-12), the respondents are directed to decide

the application preferred by the petitioner for renewal of mining

lease, afresh, on merits, within a period of three months from

today, strictly in accordance with law. All pending applications

stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)