Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
[Civil Appeal No. 3285 of 2009]
[Civil Appeal No. 3286 of 2009]
[Civil Appeal No. 3287 of 2009]
[Civil Appeal No. 3288 of 2009]
[Civil Appeal No. 3289 of 2009]
[Civil Appeal No. 3290 of 2009]
JUDGMENT
R.M. LODHA, J.
Introduction
1. This group of six appeals occupied considerable judicial time. These matters were heard on ten days between November 2, 2011 and November 29, 2011. Although the facts differ from one another in some respects but since fundamental issues appeared to be common and all these matters arise from a common judgment dated April 4, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, we have heard all these matters together which are being disposed of by this common judgment. Prayers
2. The prayers in the writ petitions filed by thes before the High Court also differ. However, principally the reliefs prayed for by the s in their writ petitions were for quashing (i)the decision of the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand contained in the letter dated September 13, 2005 whereby the State Government sought to withdraw the recommendation for grant of mining lease made in favour of the s in the subject iron ore bearing areas in Mauza Ghatkuri, West Singhbhum District, Jharkhand (ii) the order of the Ministry of Mines, Government of India where under the said Ministry returned the recommendation made by Government of Jharkhand in favour of each of the s (iii) for declaring the Notifications dated December 21, 1962 and February 28, 1969 issued by the Government of Bihar and the Notification dated October 27, 2006 issued by the Government of Jharkhand null and void and (iv) directing the to proceed under Rule 59(2) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short, '1960Rules') for grant of mining lease to each of the s in the iron ore bearing areas in Ghatkuri as applied. Bihar Land Reforms Act
3. Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, '1950 Bihar Act') came to be enacted by the Bihar Legislature to provide for the transference to the State of the interest of proprietors and tenure holders in land of the mortgagees and lessees of such interest including interest in mines and minerals and other matters connected therewith. It came into force on September 25, 1950. Chapter II of the 1950 Bihar Act deals with vesting of an estate or tenure in the State and its consequences. The State Government has been empowered under Section 3 to declare that the estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure holder, as may be specified in the notification/s from time to time, to become vested in the State. Section 4 provides for consequences of vesting of an estate or tenure in the State. Section 4 has under gone amendments on few occasions. To the extent it is relevant, Section 4 of the 1950 Bihar Act reads as follows : "4. Consequences of the vesting of an estate or tenure in the State.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any contract and notwithstanding any non- compliance or irregular compliance of the provisions on the publication of the notification under sub-section (1), of section 3 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 3A, the following consequences shall ensue and shall be deemed always to have ensued, namely; a) Such estate or tenure including the interests of the proprietor or tenure-holder in any building or part of a building comprised in such estate or tenure as also his interest in all sub soil including any rights in mines and minerals whether discovered or undiscovered or whether been worked or not, inclusive of such rights of a lessee of mines and minerals, comprised in such estate are tenure (other than the interests of raiyats or under - raiyats) shall, with effect from the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances and such proprietor or tenure-holder shall cease to have any interest in such estate or other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act".
4. The brief facts relating to each of these appeals may be noticed now. Factual features Civil Appeal No. 3285 of 2009, Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
5. The company, referred to as Monnet, is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Monnet is engaged in the business of mining, production of steel, ferro-alloys and power. Monnet decided to set up an integrated steel plant in Hazaribagh District with a proposed investment of Rs. 1400 crores. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between Monnet and the State Government on February 5, 2003. The main raw material for the integrated steel plant is iron ore. On January 29,2004, Monnet made an application to State of Jharkhand, referred to as State Government, for mining lease of iron ore over an area of 3566.54hectares in Mauza Ghatkuri for the purpose of the proposed steel plant.
5.1. It is the case of Monnet that after consideration of the application and following the necessary procedure contemplated under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (herein after referred to as 'the 1957 Act') and the 1960 Rules, the State Government in August, 2004 recommended Monnet's application to the Government of India for grant of mining lease of iron ore over an area of 705 hectares in Mauza Ghatkuri under Section 5(1) and Section 11(5) of the 1957 Act. The recommendation was made after the State Government was satisfied that the said mining block was suitable for exploitation and met the requirement of Monnet. The recommendation was also made on priority basis as Monnet fulfilled the essential objectives of the industrial policy of the State with commitment for investment and growth of employment and social sector under its aegis.
5.2. The Ministry of Mines, Government of India, on receipt of the recommendation of the State Government, sought for certain clarifications from the State Government vide their communication dated September 6, 2004.The State Government is said to have responded to the said communication and clarified the position in their reply of November 17, 2004. The State Government reiterated the recommendation in favour of Monnet setting out the comparative merit of all such proposals.
5.3. On November 17, 2004, the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa informed the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand that certain portions of Mauza Ghatkuri and the adjoining areas were reserved for public sector exploitation under the two Notifications issued by the Government of Bihar on December 21, 1962 and February 28,1969. He further suggested that approval of the Central Government under Rule 59(2) of the 1960 Rules should be obtained by the State Government for grant of leases in this area to avoid complications.
5.4. The Central Government vide its letter dated June 15, 2005informed that a joint meeting of officers of Ministry of Mines, Government of India and concerned officers of the State Government be held to clarify certain issues in connection with the Ghatkuri Reserve Forest.
5.5. On June 29, 2005, a joint meeting of the officials of the Central Government and State Government on the issues relating to proposals for grant of mining leases in Ghatkuri was held wherein the Secretary of the State Government is stated to have requested the Central Government to hold on the processing of the pending applications.
5.6. On September 13, 2005, the State Government requested the Central Government to return the proposals of mining lease of nine out often applicants, including Monnet.
5.7. On September 14, 2005, a joint meeting of the officials of the State Government and the Central Government took place. In that meeting also the officials of the State Government informed the Central Government that it has decided to withdraw nine pending mining lease proposals, including that of Monnet.
5.8. Monnet has averred that compartment no. 5 which was recommended for allocation to it was not at all affected by reservation. Block No. D (500 acres) which is overlapping with compartment no. 5(recommended in favour of Monnet) was earlier lease area of M/s. Rungta Sons Pvt. Ltd. (for short, 'Rungta'). The said lease was granted to Rungta for twenty years upto September 3, 1995. Monnet claims that application for renewal was not submitted by Rungta one year prior to expiry of their lease and their lease automatically expired on September3, 1995. Moreover, only 102.25 hectares area has been overlapping with compartment no. 5 (out of the 705 hectares recommended by the State Government for Monnet). Monnet has thus, set up the case that the area recommended by the State Government for grant of mining lease to it was not under any previous reservation for any public sector undertaking.
5.9. On March 6, 2006, the Government of India passed an order accepting the request of the State Government dated September 13, 2005 for withdrawal of the mining proposals made in favour of applicants, including Monnet. Civil Appeal No. 3286 of 2009, Adhunik Alloys & Power Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
6. The M/s. Adhunik Alloys & Power Limited, referred to as Adhunik, is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It carries on business of iron and steel. Adhunik intended to set up 2.2 MTPA integrated steel plant at Kandra in the State of Jharkhand. The first phase of this integrated steel plant is said to have been completed and commissioned in June, 2005. The work for completion of phase-II has been going on. On September 1, 2003, Adhunik made an application to the State Government for grant of mining lease over an area of 8809.37 acres (3566.54 hectares) in Mauza Ghatkuri for iron ore for captive consumption of its proposed integrated steel plant at Kandra, Jharkhand.
6.1. On September 16, 2003, the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa forwarded Adhunik's application along with few others to the Director of Mines, Jharkhand.
6.2. As the applications were overlapping, the Director of Mines called Adhunik and other applicants for a meeting on December 26, 2003. The Director of Mines gave hearing to the applicants, including Adhunik.
6.3. On February 26, 2004, an MOU was entered into between the State Government and Adhunik in connection with an integrated steel plant at Village Kandra in the District of Seraikela - Kharswan setting out the details of the project; capacity per annum, project cost and implementationperiod.
6.4. On August 4, 2004, the State Government recommended Adhunik's case to the Central Government for grant of mining lease for iron ore for captive consumption over an area of 426.875 hectares. In its letter dated August 4, 2004 seeking prior approval of the Central Government for grant of mining lease for iron ore in favour of Adhunik, the State Government gave various reasons justifying grant of mining lease to Adhunik.
6.5. Adhunik claims that substantial progress has been made in construction of its Rs. 790 crores integrated steel plant and the plant has been seriously affected due to shortage of iron ore. Civil Appeal No. 3287 of 2009, Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
7. The M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited, referred to as Abhijeet, was earlier known as Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt. Limited. Abhijeet has been in the business of iron and steel for last many years. On November 21, 2003, Abhijeet submitted the application to the State Government for mining lease over an area of 1633.03 hectares inMauza Ghatkuri for iron ore and manganese for captive consumption of its proposed Sponge Iron Plant and Ferro-Alloys Plant in Village Rewali, Block Katkamsandi, District Hazaribagh. On February 26, 2004, an MOU was entered into between Abhijeet and the State Government for setting up a Sponge Iron Plant and Ferro-Alloys Plant at suitable location in the State ofJharkhand.
7.1. On August 5, 2004, the State Government took a decision to grant a mining lease to Abhijeet for iron ore for captive consumption over an area of 429 hectares not overlapping with the area of any other applicant in Mauza Ghatkuri. The State Government sought prior approval of the Central Government vide its letter dated August 5, 2004 for grant ofmining lease to Abhijeet.
7.2. Abhijeet has averred that based on firm and definite commitment of the State Government in the form of MOU dated February 26,2004 it has taken all required steps including the steps for getting acquisition of land in village Kud, Rewali and Damodih. Civil Appeal No. 3288 of 2009, Ispat Industries Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors.
8. The, Ispat Industries Limited, referred to as Ispat, is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. According to Ispat, it is one of the largest steel producers in the private sector and has got vast resources and technical experience. Ispat intended to set up an integrated steel plant in the State of Jharkhand and accordingly made an application to the State Government for grant of mining lease over an area of 725.32 hectares in Village Rajabeda in West Singhbhum District for iron ore.
8.1. The State Government took a decision on August 5, 2004 to granta mining lease over an area of 470.06 hectares for captive consumption of iron ore in respect of the area not overlapping with the area of any other major mineral. The State Government on August 5, 2004 also wrote to the Central Government seeking their prior approval in the matter. Civil Appeal No. 3289 of 2009, Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors.
9. Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited, to be referred as Jharkhand Ispat, is a registered company having their registered office in Ramgarh, District Hazaribagh, State of Jharkhand. Jharkhand Ispat runs a Sponge Iron and Steel Plant in Ramgarh.
9.1. Jharkhand Ispat applied to the State Government for grant of iron ore mining lease over an area of 950.50 hectares at Mauza Ghatkuri. It also entered into an MOU dated February 26, 2004 with the StateGovernment for establishment of sponge iron and steel plant in the Hazaribagh District. As per para 4 of the MOU, State Government would assist Jharkhand Ispat in selecting the area for iron and other minerals as per requirement depending upon quality and quantity. The State Government agreed to grant mineral concession as per existing law.
9.2. On August 4, 2004, the State Government prepared a report containing its decision and proposal in favour of Jharkhand Ispat for grant of mining lease over an area of 346.647 hectares at Mauza Ghatkuri and forwarded the same to the Ministry of Mines, Government of India. Civil Appeal No. 3290 of 2009, Prakash Ispat Limited Vs. Union of India andOrs.
10. The Prakash Ispat Limited, referred to as Prakash, is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Prakash carries on business in steel and claims to have annual turnover of Rs.2200 crores. Prakash applied to the State Government for mining lease of iron ore over an area of 1000 hectares in Mauza Ghatkuri on January 20, 2004 for captiveconsumption of the proposed Steel Plant at Amadia Gaon in West SinghbhumDistrict.
11. On March 26, 2004, the State Government entered into an MOU with Prakash for setting up Mini Blast Furnace etc., at the proposed investment of Rs. 71.40 crores. On August 4, 2004, the State Government took a decision to grant mining lease for iron ore to Prakash for captive consumption over an area of 294.06 hectares and recommended to the Central Government for their prior approval.
12. It may be mentioned here that the facts concerning various meetings between the officials of the State Government and Central Government; the communications exchanged between the two, including the communication of the State Government dated September 13, 2005; the communication of the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa dated November 17,2004 to the Department of Mines and Geology, State of Jharkhand and the rejection of the proposal have not been repeated while narrating the facts of the s -Adhunik, Abhijeet, Ispat, Jharkhand Ispat and Prakash as these facts have already been noted while narrating the facts in the matter of Monnet. The main issue
13. The foremost point that arises for consideration is whether the Notifications dated December 21, 1962 (to be referred as 1962Notification) and February 28, 1969 (to be referred as 1969 Notification)issued by the State of Bihar and the Notification dated October 27, 2006(referred to as 2006 Notification) issued by the State of Jharkhand are legal and valid. It is a little complex point, because it involves threading one's way through statutory provisions contained in 1957 Act and1960 Rules. I shall set them out to the extent these are relevant after noticing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties.
14. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for Monnet , did initially raise the plea that 1962 and 1969 Notifications were never published in the official gazette but on production of gazette copies of these Notifications by learned senior counsel for the State of Jharkhand, the plea with regard to the non-publication of these Notifications was not carried further.1962 Notification
15. The 1962 Notification issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar reads as under:
"NOTIFICATION
The 21st December, 1962
No. A/MM-40510/62-6209/M - It is hereby notified for the information of public that the following iron ore bearing areas in this State are reserved for exploitation of the mineral in the public sector:-
Name of the district - Shinghbhum
Description of the areas reserved.
1. Sasangda Main Block - BOUNDARY
South - The southern boundary is the same as the northern boundary. It starts from the Bihar, Orissa boundary opposite the gorge of the southern tributary of Megnahatu nala and runs west-north-west along the gorge till the foot of the hill.
East - The boundary between the States of Bihar and Orissa. East & South - East Bihar-Orissa boundary from 2680 upto a point 2-3/4 miles north-east of it, meeting the southern boundary of Sasangda Main Block.
North - The northern boundary is the same as the southern boundary of Sasangda Main Block and follows the gorge at just over one mile northwards of .2935.
5. Dirisumburu Block - BOUNDARY
South and South-West Starting from the Churu Ikir Nala at about 5 furlongs east - north-east of Kiriburu Kolaiburu village (220 11'30" : 85 14'), in east-south-east direction for one mile.
South-East - From the above end towards north-east for 2-1/2 miles to reach a point 1/2 miles north west of Bahada village (22 11'30": 85 17'30").
North-East - From the above end north - westwards upto the gorge at coordinate location 20 13' : 85 18".
North-West - From the above location south-westwards along the fact of the hill Dirishumburu and the foot of the adjoining Hakatlataburu to meet the starting point of the Churu Ikir Nala east-north-east of Kolaiburu village.
6. Banalata Block - BOUNDARY
South-East - A line running west-north-west-east-south- east passing through 2.20 feet contour at the south-western and of the Banlata ridge south-east - From 2 -1/2 furlongs east of 2187 north east wards upto 1/2 mile north-west of Pechahalu village (22 16' : 85 20') and from here north-north - east upto 3 furlongs east-south-east of 2567 Painsira Buru).
North - From the above and in west-north-west direction across the hill for five furlongs to reach the north-west slope of the hill.
West - From above end in general south-south-west directing along the flank of the hill to reach the south-west boundary at three furlongs north-west 2187.
By order of the Governor of Bihar
Sd/- (B.N. Sinha)
Secretary to Government"
1969 Notification
16. Then, on February 28, 1969 the following Notification was issued:
"GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
NOTIFICATION
Patna, the 28th February, 1969
Phalgun, 1890 -
S No.B/M6-1019/68-1564/M
It is hereby notified for information of public that Iron Ore bearing areas of 416 acres (168.349 Hectares) situated in Ghatkuri Reserved Forest Block No. 10 in the district of Singhbhum are reserved for exploitation of mineral in the public sector. For full details in this regard District Mining Officer, Chaibasa should be contacted.
By order of the Governor of Bihar
Sd/- (C.P. Singh)
Dy. Secretary to Government"2006 Notification
17. The State of Jharkhand issued a Notification on October 27,2006 which reads as follows:
"DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, RANCHI
NOTIFICATION
The 27th October, 2006
No. 3277 - It is hereby notified for the information of the general public that optimum utilization and exploitation of the mineral resources in the State and for establishment of mineral based industry with value addition thereon, it has been decided by the State Govt. that the iron ore deposits at Ghatkuri would not be thrown open for grant of prospective licence, mining lease or otherwise for the private parties. The deposit was at all material times kept reserved vide gazette notification No. A/MM-40510/62- 6209/M dated the 21st December, 1962 and No. B/M-6-1019/68-1564/M dated the 28th February, 1969 of the State of Bihar. The mineral reserved in the said area has now been decided to be utilized for exploitation by Public Sector undertaking or Joint Venture project of the State Govt. which will usher in maximum benefits to the State and which generate substantial amount of employment in the State. The aforesaid notification is being issued in public interest and in the larger interest of the State. The defining co-ordinates of the reserved area enclosed here with for reference.
By order of the Governor
S.K. Satapathy
Secretary to Government
Description of the area reserved in Ghatkuri is given below:-
District: Singhbhum
Main Block: Ghatukuri Limiting co-ordinate points of the reserved area of Ghatkuri as per the notification dated 21st December 1962 and 28th February 1969 published in the Bihar Gazette are given below:
xxx xxx xxx
Sd/- Vijoy Kumar Director
I/c Geology Directorate"Contentions
18. Learned senior counsel for the s highlighted different aspects while setting up challenge to the 1962, 1969 and 2006Notifications. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for Monnet focused more on factual aspects peculiar to Monnet. I shall refer to the factual aspects highlighted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar in the later part of the judgment. While assailing validity of 1962, 1969 and 2006 Notifications, he referred to the provisions of 1957 Act and submitted that reservation was part of a regulatory regime. According to him, 'regulation of mines' means regulatory regime which has been taken over by the Central Government and that would include 'reservation'. He would submit that a proprietary right should not be mixed up with inherent right insofar as mining is concerned.
19. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for Ispat argued that the 2006 Notification was bad in law for (1) 1962 and 1969Notifications were not valid and as such could not be relied upon to give sanctity to the 2006 Notification; (2) 2006 Notification attempted to reserve the area for exploitation by public sector undertaking or joint ventures when Section 17A of the 1957 Act only allows the State Government to reserve area for public sector undertakings and non-joint ventures; Section 17A does not envisage a private participation and (3) under Section17A of the 1957 Act, the prior approval of the Central Government was needed before the State could reserve any area for public sector undertakings and no such prior approval was taken.
20. Mr. C.A. Sundaram would submit that 1962 and 1969 Notifications were invalid since Section 18 of the 1957 Act vests power of conservation and systematic development of minerals with Central Government; there was statutory prohibition on the State Government to make law with regard to conservation and development of minerals in India. Rule 59 as it stood in1962 and 1969 envisaged a situation where reservation could be made only for a temporary purpose or for an emergency and it did not empower the State to reserve the area for public sector undertaking. Learned senior counsel submitted that power of reservation by the State Government for public sector undertakings was introduced for the first time by way of amendment to Rule 58 of the 1960 Rules in 1980 and as such no power existed prior to 1980 for the State Government to reserve areas for public sector undertakings.
Alternatively, he submitted that even if 1962 and 1969Notifications were held to be validly issued with proper authority of law at that point of time, the fact that Rule 58 was omitted in 1988 without any saving clause necessarily meant that 1962 and 1969 Notifications were no longer valid and could not be relied upon. He argued that current power of reservation contained in Section 17A of the 1957 Act is consistent with the erstwhile Rules 58/59 since Section 17A expressly requires the prior approval of the Central Government before State Government issues any notification for reservation of mining area for public sector undertakings.
21. The decisions of this Court in Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors.[1]; State of Orissa & Anr. v. M/s M.A.Tulloch & Co.[2]; Baijnath Kadio v. State of Bihar and Others[3]; Amritlal Nathubhai Shah and Ors. v. Union Government of India and Another[4]; India Cement Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others[5]; Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa & Others[6] and Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala and Ors.[7] were cited. Mr. C.A. Sundaram sought to distinguish Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd and submitted that in any case Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd was not a good law.
22. Mr. L. Nageswara Rao and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel, appeared for Adhunik and argued that 1962 and 1969Notifications were issued in contravention of law without the statutory prior approval of the Central Government under the 1957 Act. The 2006Notification was only a reiteration of what was contained in the 1962 and1969 Notifications. 2006 Notification is bad in law and ultra vires of Section 17A of the 1957 Act. It was submitted that the State Government never adopted the 1962 and 1969 Notifications and, therefore, these Notifications had lapsed even if passed with due authority of law. In this regard, the judgment in Pratik Sarkar, M.B. Suresh and Jitendra Laxman Thorve v. State of Jharkhand[8] was relied upon.
23. Mr. G.C. Bharuka, learned senior counsel appeared for Abhijeet and submitted that till July 1963, the State Government had no power to reserve any mineral bearing land for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease to any given class of persons, including the public sector undertakings. It was submitted that on declaration under Section 2 of the1957 Act, the State Legislature was completely denuded of its power to legislate in respect of mines and minerals and consequently, the State Government had ceased to have any Executive power in respect of mines and minerals though it remained to be owner of the land and the minerals.
In this regard, learned senior counsel referred to decisions of this Court in M.A. Tulloch & Co.b; Baijnath Kadioc and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Stateof Bihar & Ors.[9]. Mr. Bharuka also distinguished the decision of this Court in Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd and submitted that though there was no specific statutory provision of vesting power with the State Government for reservation, but in that case the Court inferred such power from Rule 59of the 1960 Rules. Rule 59, as originally framed in 1960, permitted reservation only for "any purpose other than prospecting or mining for minerals". Vide Notification dated July 9, 1963, the words "other than prospecting or mining for minerals" were deleted and, therefore, on December 21, 1962 when the Notification was issued by the State of Bihar reserving the lands in dispute for exploitation by public sector, it had no power to do so. Learned senior counsel submitted that Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd dealt with situation post 1963 amendment in Rule 59 and not pre-amendment.
24. Learned senior counsel submitted that the "reservation of mineral bearing areas for exploitation by public sector" is covered under the declaration made by Parliament under Section 2 of the 1957 Act in view of List I, Entry 54 of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The topic relating to "reservation" is covered within the field of "regulating the grant of mining lease" and that would include the power to grant or not to grant mining lease to a particular person. The "reservation" would come within the scope of "regulating the grant of mining lease" for which the Central Government is given the power to make rules.
The Central Government, as a delegate of the Parliament, can frame rules with respect to "regulating the grant of mining lease". By placing reliance upon Baijnath Kadioc and Bharat Coking Coali, it was submitted that whether the rules are made or not, the topic is covered by Parliamentary Legislation and to that extent the power of State Legislature ceased to exist. With reference to Rule 58, it was submitted that by amendment brought in 1960Rules in 1980, the State Governments became competent to reserve areas for exploitation by Government or a Corporation established by any Central, State or Provincial Act or a government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act. The Central Government could frame the above rule under its rule-making power in Section 13 of 1957Act only because the topic of reservation was covered within the declaration under Section 2 of the 1957 Act and was well within the scop of "to the extent hereinafter provided".
25. In respect of validity of Notification dated October 27, 2006issued by the State Government, it was submitted that 2006 Notification seeks to reserve the area for "joint venture" but that is not permissible under Section 17A of the 1957 Act. Section 17A(2) mandates that the area should be reserved "with the approval of the Central Government" and there was no approval granted to the 2006 Notification. Moreover, 2006Notification by its own words, is nothing but merely an informatory Notification having no legal significance or consequence.
26. Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, learned senior counsel made his submissions on behalf of Jharkhand Ispat. He vehemently contended that the 1962Notification was wholly illegal and invalid as it was totally contrary to Rule 59 of 1960 Rules as it then stood which specifically allowed reservation for any purpose other than prospecting or mining for minerals. In this connection, he relied upon a decision of this Court in Janak Lal v. State of Maharashtra and Others[10].
27. Learned senior counsel referred to changes that occurred in1957 Act and 1960 Rules with effect from February 10, 1987. He submitted that by virtue of Section 17A(3) which was brought in 1987 the State Governments acquired power of reservation for specific areas with the approval of the Central Government. From April 13, 1988 under Rule 59(2)of the 1960 Rules, the Central Government could relax the provisions of sub-rule (1) in any special case. According to learned senior counsel, reservation under 1969 Notification was technically permissible because Rule 59 was amended in 1963 by removing 'no mining restriction' but reservations after 1980 and especially 1988 could be made only under a new statutory regime.
28. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan also based his argument on the doctrine of federalism and submitted that the State of Bihar had no legal power to reserve the area de hors the 1957 Act. He submitted that 1957 Act was wholly occupied field on the subject of mines and minerals and that ousts the state legislative and congruent executive power wholly and squarely. In support of his submissions, he referred to the decisions of this Court in Hingir-Rampur Coal Co.a , Baijnath Kadioc , State of Assam and others v. Om Prakash Mehta and others[11], State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and others[12] and Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited v. State of Karnataka and Others[13].
29. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan submitted that merely because State happens to be the owner of the land including mines, it does not give it power to mine or reserve outside the regime of 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. He submitted that Amritlal Nathubhai Shah's cased must be confined to its own facts. The decision in Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd was founded on the specific finding that the State's action was consistent with Rule 59; it does not test the proposition of a conflict between the State's power over land and the Union's take over of the field of mines and minerals. Moreover, learned senior counsel would submit that Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd failed to take note of earlier Constitution Bench decisions of this Court. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the decision of this Court in Kesoraml has no application as the said decision deals with the State's power to tax.
30. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel for Prakash submitted that prior to November 16, 1980, there was no power with the State Governments to reserve any area for exploitation by the Government or a Corporation established by Central or State Act or a government company. It was only by way of amendment to Rule 58 on November 16, 1980 that for the first time the State Governments were conferred power to reserve any area for exploitation by the Government or a Corporation established by the Central, State or Provincial Act or a government company. According to him, the question for consideration in the present context should be whether prior to 1980, the State had power either to 'prohibit mining' or to' reserve mining for public sector undertaking'. In this regard, he referred to decisions of this Court in Baijnath Kadioc, D.K. Trivedi and Sons and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others[14], State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone and Others[15] and Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors[16]. He submitted that in view of the above, 1962Notification reserving iron ore area in the State of Bihar for exploitation of mineral in public sector was clearly beyond the power of the State. He submitted that the State did not have any inherent power to reserve any area for mining in view of the declaration made by Parliament under Section2 of the 1957 Act and in any case Rule 59 of the 1960 Rules, as it originally stood, specifically excluded reservation with regard to prospecting or mining of mineral prior to June 9, 1963.
31. As regards 2006 Notification, Mr. Mehta submitted that the said Notification firstly, was not a fresh exercise of reservation as it refers to reservation already made by 1962 and 1969 Notifications. Secondly, even if it is assumed that 2006 Notification is a fresh order for reservation in exercise of the power under Section 17A(2) of the 1957 Act, yet the said Notification suffers from diverse infirmities, namely, (a)there is no approval by the Central Government and (b) being an exercise of subordinate legislation, it cannot be given retrospective effect. Reliance was placed by the learned senior counsel on Hukam Chand etc. v. Union of India & Ors[17].Central Government's Stand
32. Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel for the Union of India referred to Entry 54 of the Union List, Entry 23 of the State List, Article246 of the Constitution, various Sections of 1957 Act and Rules of 1960Rules and submitted that Central Government having taken power on to itself by enacting 1957 Act, the legislative field relating to 'minerals -regulation and development' is occupied and the Central Government was the sole regulator. Mr. Ashok Bhan submitted that under the scheme of law, the State Government was denuded of its power other than what flows from the 1957 Act. In matters of regulation of mines and development of minerals, according to Mr. Ashok Bhan, public interest is paramount. Reply on behalf of the State Government
33. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the State of Jharkhand, in reply, strongly contested the contentions of learned senior counsel appearing for the s. He vehemently contended that the State Government had the inherent power to reserve any area for exploitation as the owner of the land and minerals vested in it. He submitted that the Bihar Legislature enacted 1950 Bihar Act which received the assent of the President and came into force on September 25, 1950.Section 4(a) thereof vested all pre-existing estates or tenures including rights in mines and minerals absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances. 1950 Bihar Act has been held to be constitutionally valid by a decision of this Court in The State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga and Ors.[18]. In any event, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel submitted that 1950 Bihar Act has been put in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution and was, therefore, beyond the pale of challenge. Moreover, the sovereign executive power of the State Government under Article 298 of the Constitution to carry on any trade or business and to acquire, hold and dispose of property for any purpose comprehends and includes the power to reserve land for exploitation of its minerals in the public sector. He heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd, Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. pand Bhupatrai Maganlal Joshi and Others v. Union of India and another[19] .
34. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, leaned senior counsel submitted that the source of power for issuance of 1962, 1969 and 2006 Notifications is clearly traceable to the relevant statutory provisions. Learned senior counsel would submit that source of 1962 and 1969 Notifications issued by the then State of Bihar was traceable to Rule 59 of 1960 Rules as it then stood followed by amendment in that rule on July 9, 1963, while 2006Notification is traceable to Section 17A(2) of 1957 Act read with Rule59(1)(e) as inserted with effect from April 13, 1988.
35. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel submitted that even otherwise there was no conflict or encroachment by the State of any occupied field. The State has neither been divested nor barred nor prohibited by 1957 Act or 1960 Rules. Instead, the unfettered power of reservation vested with the State alone under Rule 59 of 1960 Rules from1962 to 1987 and thereafter under Section 17A(2). According to him, after1987 there is a concurrent power of reservation both with State Governments as well as Central Government as provided in Section 17A of the 1957 Act and Rule 59(1)(e) of the 1960 Rules. He relied upon decisions of this Court in Lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workmen[20], Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Limited and others[21], Municipal Corporation for City of Pune & Ors. v. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. & Ors.[22]and High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh and Another[23].
36. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel referred to the provisions of the 1957 Act, particularly Sections 2, 4(3), 4A, 10(1),13(2)(e), 16(1)(b), 17(1), 17A(1)(A), 18A(6), 21(5), 28 and 30 to show that Parliament itself contemplated state legislation for vesting of lands containing mineral deposits in the State Government and Parliament did not intend to trench upon powers of State legislatures under Entry 18 of List II. He relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Haryana and Another v. Chanan Mal and Others[24], Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P)Limited & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others[25] and Kesoraml.
He heavily relied upon the expression employed in Entry 54, 'to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of Union is declared by Parliament by law' and the expression 'to the extent herein after provided' in Section 2 of 1957 Act and submitted that what follows from this is that only when there is a bar or a prohibition in the law declared by the Parliament in the 1957 Act and/or the Rules made there under and if the State encroaches on the field covered/occupied then to that extent, the act or action of the State would be ultra vires. Thus, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha would submit that the power or competence of the State legislatures to enact laws or of the State Government to issue notification remains unaffected if the field is neither occupied nor disclosed nor prohibited. In this regard, he referred to few decisions of this Court, namely, Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. a, M.A. Tulloch & Cob., Baijnath Kadioc, India Cement Limited e, Bharat Coking Coali, Orissa Cement Limited f and Kesoraml
37. Learned senior counsel would submit that the Central Government also upon examination of the applications made by the s rejected the proposals on the ground of reservation made by the then State of Bihar under 1962 and 1969 Notifications and, thus, it can be inferred that these Notifications received post facto approval from the Central Government. In this regard, learned senior counsel relied upon M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. V. State of U.P. & Ors.[26], Amrit Banaspati Ltd. and Another v. State of Punjab and Another[27] , State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd. and Another[28], M.P. Mathur and Others v. DTC and Others[29] and Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited m .
38. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel submitted that1962 and 1969 Notifications issued by the then State of Bihar have been reiterated by the State Government on its formation by 2006 Notification. He referred to Section 85 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 that provides that the appropriate government may, before the expiration of two years adapt and/or modify the law and every such law shall have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made until altered, repealed or amended by a competent legislature. He, thus, submitted that by virtue of Section 85 of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 read with Sections84 and 86 thereof, it is clear that the existing law shall have effect till it is altered, repealed and/or amended. Interveners' view
39. Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. Krishnan Venugopal and Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel, appeared for interveners. While adopting the arguments advanced on behalf of State of Jharkhand, Mr. Vikas Singh submitted that reservation of minerals is inherent right vested in the State. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior counsel heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd and submitted that the said decision was binding and not per in curiam as contended on behalf of the s. He submitted that many provisions in 1957 Act and 1960Rules acknowledge that all minerals vest in the State and that power to reservation is contemplated by Rule 59 of 1960 Rules.
40. After this group of appeals was fully argued before us and the appeals were reserved for judgment, a Special Leave Petition, Geo-Minerals and Marketing (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa & Ors., arising out of the judgment of Orissa High Court in W.A. @ No. 6288/2006 came up for final disposal wherein one of the issues concerning reservation of mining area by the Government of Orissa for exploitation in public sector was found to be involved. We thought fit that learned senior counsel and counsel appearing in that matter were also heard so that we can have benefit of their view-point as well. Accordingly, we heard M/s. Harish Salve, K.K. Venugopal and R.K. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, on the common legal aspect.
41. I would have preferred not to burden this judgment with the text of Entry 54 of List I, Entry 23 of List II and the relevant provisions contained in 1957 Act and 1960 Rules but reproduction of some of the provisions is necessary for having the point under consideration in proper perspective. Relevant Entries
42. Entry 54, List I, is as follows : "54. Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.
43. "43. Entry 23, List II, is as under : "23. Regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union."Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948
44. The Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948(for short, '1948 Act') was enacted to provide for the regulation of mines and oilfields and for the development of the minerals under Entry 36 of the Government of India Act, 1935. It received the assent of the Governor General on September 8, 1948 and came into effect from that date. Under1948 Act, the Central Government framed Mineral Concession Rules, 1949.
45. 1948 Act was repealed by 1957 Act. The introduction of 1957Act reads as follows : "In the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution in Union List entry 54 provides for regulation of mines and minerals development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest. On account of this provision it became imperative to have a separate legislation. In order to provide for the regulation of mines and the development of minerals, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Bill was introduced in the Parliament."Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Amendments
46. 1957 Act came into effect on June 1, 1958. It has been amended from time to time.
47. Section 2 of the 1957 Act reads as follows : "S. 2. Declaration as to the expediency of Union control.-- It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent hereinafter provided.
48. "Section 3(a),(c),(d),(e),(f), (g) and (h) defines 'minerals', 'mining lease', 'mining operations', 'minor minerals', 'prescribed' 'prospecting licence' and 'prospecting operations' in the 1957 Act asunder: "3(a) "minerals" includes all minerals except mineral oils; (c) "mining lease" means a lease granted for the purpose of undertaking mining operations, and includes a sub-lease granted for such purpose; (d) "mining operations" means any operations undertaken for the purpose of winning any mineral; (e) "minor minerals" means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral; (f) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act; (g) "prospecting licence" means a licence granted for the purpose of undertaking prospecting operations; (h) "prospecting operations" means any operations undertaken for the purpose of exploring, locating or proving mineral deposits;
49. "49. The original Section 4 in 1957 Act read as follows : "S.4. (1) No person shall undertake any prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made there under: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement. (2) No prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under.
50. "50. In 1986, 1987 and 1999, Section 4 of the 1957 Act came to be amended. After these amendments, Section 4 reads as under : "S.4.- Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease.-(1) [30][No person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made there under]: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement:
[31][Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines, [32][the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research] of the Department of Atomic Energy of the Central Government, the Directorates of Mining and Geology of any State Government (by whatever name called), and the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956:] [33][Provided also that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any mining lease (whether called mining lease, mining concession or by any other name) in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu.]
[34][(1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under.] (2) [35][No reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] shall be grated otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under. [36][(3) Any State Government may, after prior consultation with the Central Government and in accordance with the rules made under section 18, [37][undertake reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations with respect to any mineral specified in the First Schedule in any area within that State which is not already held under any reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease].
51. "51. Section 5 of the 1957 Act, as originally enacted, provided that no prospecting licence or mining lease should be granted by a State Government to any person unless the conditions prescribed therein were satisfied. It mandated previous approval of the Central Government before grant of prospecting licence or mining lease by the State Government.
52. The original Section 5 came to be amended in 1986, 1994 and1999. After these amendments, Section 5 now provides that a State Government shall not grant a reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease to any person unless he satisfies the requisite conditions. The provision mandates that in respect of any mineral specified in the First Schedule, no reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted except with the previous approval of the Central Government.
53. Section 6 of 1957 Act provides for maximum area for which a prospecting licence or mining lease may be granted. Section 7 makes provision for the periods for which prospecting licence may be granted or renewed and Section 8 provides for periods for which mining lease may begranted or renewed.
54. Section 10 of the 1957 Act provides that application for reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of any land in which the minerals vest in the Government shall be made to the State Government concerned. Inter alia, it empowers the concerned State Government to grant or refuse to grant the permit, licence or lease having regard to the provisions of 1957 Act or 1960 Rules.
55. The original Section 11 of the 1957 Act read as follows : "S.11.(1) Where a prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land, the licensee shall have a preferential right for obtaining a mining lease in respect of that land over any other person: Provided that the State Government is satisfied that the licensee has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the prospecting licence and is otherwise a fit person for being granted the mining lease. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), where two or more persons have applied for a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of the same land, the applicant whose application was received earlier shall have a preferential right for the grant of the licence or lease, as the case may be, over an applicant whose application was received later: Provided that where any such applications are received on the same day, the State Government, after taking into consideration the mattes specified in sub-section (3), may grant the prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit.
(3) The matters referred to in sub-section (2) are the following :- (a) any special knowledge of, or experience in, prospecting operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant; (b) the financial resources of the applicant; (c) the nature and quality of the technical staff employed or to be employed by the applicant; (d) such other matters as may be prescribed. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) but subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the State Government may for any special reasons to be recorded and with the previous approval of the Central Government, grant a prospecting licence or a mining lease to an applicant whose application was received later in preference to an applicant whose application was received earlier.
56. "56. The above provision was substituted by Act 38 of 1999 with effect from December 18, 1999. After substitution, Section 11 now reads asunder : "S.11. Preferential right of certain persons.-(1) Where a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land, the permit holder or the licensee shall have a preferential right for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, in respect of that land over any other person: Provided that the State Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee, as the case may be,- (a) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations, as the case may be, to establish mineral resources in such land; (b) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the reconnaissance permit or the prospecting licence; (c) has not become ineligible under the provisions of this Act; and (d) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, within three months after the expiry of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence, as the case may be, or within such further period, as may be extended by the said Government.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), where the State Government has not notified in the Official Gazette the area for grant of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, and two or more persons have applied for a reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of any land in such area, the applicant whose application was received earlier, shall have the preferential right to be considered for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, over the applicant whose application was received later: Provided that where an area is available for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, and the State Government has invited applications by notification in the Official Gazette for grant of such permit, licence or lease, all the applications received during the period specified in such notification and the applications which had been received prior to the publication of such notification in respect of the lands within such area and had not been disposed of, shall be deemed to have been received on the same day for the purposes of assigning priority under this sub-section: Provided further that where any such applications are received on the same day, the State Government, after taking into consideration the matter specified in sub-section (3), may grant the reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit.
(3) The matters referred to in sub-section (2) are the following :-- (a) any special knowledge of, or experience in, reconnaissance operations, prospecting operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant. (b) the financial resources of the applicant; (c) the nature and quality of the technical staff employed or to be employed by the applicant; (d) the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on the minerals; (e) such other matters as may be prescribed. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), where the Sate Government notifies in the Official Gazette an area for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting license or mining lease, as the case may be, all the applications received during the period as specified in such notification, which shall not be less than thirty days, shall be considered simultaneously as if all such applications have been received on the same day and the State Government, after taking into consideration the matter specified in sub-section (3), may grant the reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), but subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the State Government may, for any special reasons to be recorded, grant a reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to an applicant whose application was received later in preference to an applicant whose application was received earlier: Provided that in respect of minerals specified in the First Schedule, prior approval of the Central Government shall be obtained before passing any order under this sub-section.
57. "57. Section 13 of the 1957 Act empowers Central Government to make rules in respect of minerals. By virtue of the power conferred upon the Central Government under Section 13(2)(e), 1960 Rules have been framed for regulating the grant of, inter alia, mining leases in respect of minerals and for purposes connected therewith.
58. Section 14 states that the provisions of Sections 5 to 13 (both inclusive) shall not apply to quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals. Section 15 empowers State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals.
59. Section 16 provides for power to modify mining leases granted before 25th October, 1949. The original sub-section (1) of Section 16mandated that all mining leases granted before October 25, 1949 shall be brought into conformity with the provisions of 1957 Act and the Rules made under Sections 13 and 18 after the commencement of 1957 Act. Then it provided that if the Central Government was of the opinion that in the interest of mineral development it was expedient so to do, it might permit any person to hold one or more such mining leases covering in any one State a total area in excess of that specified in clause (b) of Section 6 or for a period exceeding that specified in sub-section (1) of Section 8. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 has been amended in 1972 and 1994.60 By virtue of Section 17, the Central Government has been given special powers to undertake prospecting or mining operations in certain cases. Section 17(1) was amended in 1972. After amendment, Section 17(1)reads as under :
"S. 17.- Special powers of Central Government to undertake prospecting or mining operations in certain lands.-(1) The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government of a State or any other person."61. Section 17A was inserted in the 1957 Act by Act 37 of 1987.Thereafter, sub-section (1A) was added in Section 17A by Act 25 of 1994.Section 17A, after its amendment in 1994, reads as follows : "S. 17A. Reservation of area for purposes of conservation.-(1) The Central Government, with a view to conserving any mineral and after consultation with the State Government, may reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease and, where it proposes to do so, it shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such area will be reserved.
(1A) The Central Government may in consultation with the State Government, reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease, for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through a Government company or corporation owned or controlled by it, and where it proposes to do so, it shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such area will be reserved. (2) The State Government may, with the approval of the Central Government, reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease, for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through a Government company or corporation owned or controlled by it and where it proposes to do so, it shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such areas will be reserved.
(3) Where in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1A) or sub-section (2) the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, undertakes prospecting or mining operations in any area in which the minerals vest in a private person, it shall be liable, to pay prospecting fee, royalty, surface rent or dead rent, as the case may be, from time to time at the same rate at which it would have been payable under this Act if such prospecting or mining operations had been undertaken by a private person under prospecti
