Shri Modi Mineral Grinding Mills vs Union Of India And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 6024 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:22628]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4835/2011

Shri Modi Mineral Grinding Mills Private Limited through its
Director Shri Suresh Agarwal, son of Shri Mohan Lal Modi,
Opposite      Railway     Station,       Neem-ka-Thana               (District    Sikar),
Rajasthan.
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Mines,
Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Mines & Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur.
                                                                     ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Rachit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG with Mr. J.S. Shekhawat Mr. S.K. Singodiya Mr. Harsh Sharma for Mr. Anurag Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

Reserved on 05/05/2023 Pronounced on 16/10/2023

1. The instant petition is filed against the order impugned

dated 07.01.2011 passed by the Central Government whereby the

revision application filed by the petitioner under Rule 54 of the

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 against the order dated

09.12.2007, as passed by the State Government, was dismissed.

2. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.K. Sharma, appearing on

behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the order impugned is

wholly contrary to and/or inconsistent with the applicable facts,

[2023:RJ-JP:22628] (2 of 7) [CW-4835/2011]

law and material on record, thereby is liable to be quashed and

set aside. In order to substantiate upon the said claim, it was

submitted that the petitioner's renewal application was dismissed

on account of merely procedural shortcomings, which cannot be

considered to be valid grounds of rejection, as the same can be

rectified subsequent to the grant of renewal, having made the said

renewal contingent upon the fulfilment of the noted deficiencies.

In this regard, reliance was placed upon Rule 22 of the Miner

Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter, Rules of 1960). In support

of the submissions made herein-above, learned counsel relied

upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in

Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji

reported in AIR 1952 SC 16.

3. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr.

R.P. Singh, appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that

the Central Government, while dismissing the revision application

of the petitioner, has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and

after consideration of material aspects, arrived at a logical

conclusion. In support of the said claim, it was submitted that as

per Rule 24A of the Rules of 1960, the application for renewal has

to be filed in a specific format, within a stipulated time. Moreover,

the said application for renewal inherently carries with it the

furnishing of several approvals and/or documents, such as the

mining plan, financial assurance and forest clearance, which were

not procured and thereby, not produced/submitted by the

petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that renewal of a

mining lease cannot be claimed as a right, as the renewal rests

within the discretion of the Central as well State Government,

[2023:RJ-JP:22628] (3 of 7) [CW-4835/2011]

subject to the fulfilment of the requisite and mandatory terms and

conditions by the party seeking the said renewal. Hence, relying

upon the submissions made herein-above, learned Additional

Advocate General averred that the order impugned is wholly

justified and as a result, does not call for any interference of this

Court.

4. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for

both the sides, scanned the record of the petition and perused the

judgments cited at Bar.

5. Preceding to the discussion on merits, this Court deems

it fit to concisely note the germane factual considerations,

instrumental for the efficacious disposal of the instant petition.

They are noted as under:-

5.1 That the petitioner-Shri Modi Mineral Grinding Mills Pvt. Ltd.

was granted mining lease for the mineral 'dolomite' by the State

Government of Rajasthan for an area encompassing 259 hectares

in Neem Ka Thana, Sikar. The duration of the said lease was 20

years commencing from 27.10.1977.

5.2 That being desirous of renewal of the mining lease in toto, the

petitioner applied for the grant of first renewal on 06.08.1996.

However, in lieu of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court

as well this Court, vide orders dated 12.12.1996 and 16.05.2004,

the petitioner vide letter dated 08.05.2006, reduced the area for

renewal of mining lease to an area encompassing 23.89 hectares

only.

5.3 That the State Government issued a notice dated 09.04.2007

qua the petitioner, requiring compliance of certain twin deficiencies

within a period of 30 days, failing which, the renewal application

[2023:RJ-JP:22628] (4 of 7) [CW-4835/2011]

so preferred by the petitioner would be rejected and/or dismissed.

The said twin deficiencies enumerated therein are noted herein-

under:

(i) Forest clearance could not be obtained because of non-

submission of revenue record and conduct of joint demarcation

desired by the Mining Engineer, Sikar vide his letter dated

19.07.2006.

(ii) Approved Mining Plan and Financial Guarantee.

5.4 That subsequently, vide order dated 19.12.2007, the State

Government rejected the renewal application filed by the

petitioner, citing non-compliance/curing of the twin deficiencies

enumerated in the notice so issued.

5.5 That being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision

application before the Central Government under Rule 54 of the

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter Rules of 1960).

5.6 That after hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the

Central Government vide order impugned dated 07.01.2011,

dismissed the revision application and upheld the order passed by

the State Government. As a result, being aggrieved of the

rejection and/or dismissal of the renewal application of the mining

lease, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

6. Having taken note of the factual matrix of the instant

petition along with the order impugned co-jointly read with the

arguments advanced herein, this Court deems it fit to dismiss the

instant petition, for the following reasons, namely:-

6.1 That pursuant to the petitioner having surrendered and/or

reduced the area for renewal of the mining lease, vide

letter/notice dated 19.07.2006, the petitioner was directed to

[2023:RJ-JP:22628] (5 of 7) [CW-4835/2011]

submit the revenue record within a period of 15 days for the

advance joint demarcation of the area for which the renewal was

sought. However, despite the pre-intimation, the petitioner failed

to comply with the express stipulation enumerated in the said

notice, and admittedly failed to submit the requisites.

6.2 That as a consequence to the non-compliance of the initial

notice dated 19.07.2006, the State forwarded to the Directorate a

proposal for the cancellation of the petitioner's renewal

application, which was subsequently affirmed vide letter dated

20.02.2007. As a result, the State Government issued a 30 days'

notice dated 09.04.2007, under Section 26(1) of the Rules of 1960

to the petitioner, for compliance of the deficiencies in the

petitioner's renewal application, as noted above, failing which the

renewal application would stand cancelled.

6.3 That in only minimal and partial compliance of the notice

dated 09.04.2007, qua deficiency no.1, the petitioner got the

advance joint demarcation of the applied renewal area done on

08.05.2007. However, despite the same, the said deficiency was

not cured in toto as the confirmation with regard to the non-forest

land of the applied area remained awaited. Therefore, as such, the

compliance of deficiency no.1 was only partially cured. Whereas,

qua deficiency no.2, the mining plan as well as the financial

assurance were admittedly not submitted by the petitioner,

thereby, failing to comply with the second deficiency in toto.

6.4 That having admittedly defaulted in complying with the

deficiencies timely, as pointed out by the State, on two separate

occasions i.e. qua the notice dated 19.07.2006 as well as the

notice dated 09.04.2007, the petitioner being a defaulter, cannot

[2023:RJ-JP:22628] (6 of 7) [CW-4835/2011]

claim renewal without adequately having fulfilled the requisites for

the grant of renewal. Moreover, upon a perusal of the order

impugned, it becomes abundantly clear that even till the passing

of the order impugned dated 07.01.2011 i.e. four years after the

issuance of the notice dated 09.04.2007, no mining plan for the

area sought to be renewed was submitted before the State

authorities, despite several communicated and/or reminders to

that effect.

6.5 That the delay caused on part of the petitioner in complying

with the notices qua the deficiencies in the petitioner's renewal

application could not have been condoned by the State

authorities, especially in light of the fact that the petitioner had

been issued a number of notices/reminders by the respondent-

State. However, in blatant ignorance of the notices/reminders, no

active steps were taken by the petitioner to adequately respond to

the same and cure the defects. The inaction on part of the

petitioner in effectuating compliance is crystallized by the factum

of the petitioner not having submitted the requisite mining plan

even until the Year 2011 i.e. after four years of issuance of the

notice dated 09.04.2007 and rejection/dismissal of the renewal

application.

6.6 That the reliance placed upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner in the case of Gordhandas Bhanji (Supra) is

misplaced, especially in light of the distinguishable facts and

circumstances of the case as well as the non-compliance on part

of the petitioner in fulfilling the requisites, despite having been

served multiple reminders and given adequate opportunity to do

so.

[2023:RJ-JP:22628] (7 of 7) [CW-4835/2011]

6.7 That considering the fact that the petitioner admittedly failed

to make compliance of the deficiencies pointed out by way of the

noticed dated 09.04.2007 among others, the rejection of the

renewal application was a natural consequence of the said failure.

7. In the opinion of this Court, the order impugned is a

well-reasoned speaking order, whereby after a consideration of

material aspects, a logical conclusion has been realized. Therefore,

relying upon the observations made herein-above, this Court is

inclined to dismiss the instant petition.

8. As a result, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending

applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

JKP/103

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)