Common Cause and another Vs. Union of India and others
|
Head Note
Civil Law - Mines and Minerals
Mineral Concession Rules - Rule 28 - Lapsing of leases - Unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document. In situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years. A leaseholder having suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.
Civil Law - Mines and Minerals
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 8, 24 - Grant and renewal of mining lease - Revocation of the order of suspension restraining 102 mining leaseholders from carrying on any mining operations - Applications filed for - The learned amicus curiae submitted that before determining the legitimacy of the claim raised by the applicants, this Court should first examine, whether the applicants have a subsisting right to carry on mining operation, under a valid lease - It is essential to record, that unless an application of renewal of mining lease had been made at least twelve months before the date of expiry of an existing mining lease under Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules, the same could not have been entertained. The term of the mining lease held by the leaseholder would be deemed to have come to an end, on the expiry of the period depicted in the lease document, if such an application had not been preferred - The proviso to new Rule 24A(6) amended on 18.7.2014, consciously provided, that the lease period where applications had been filed seeking "first renewal", would be deemed to have been extended for a further period of two years, from the date of coming into force of the amended sub-rule (6) - The Supreme Court concluded that in cases of second and subsequent renewals, the amended Rule 24A(6) would not extend the lease period for a further period of two years, from the date of amendment unless of course, the Government had passed an express order in writing, as mandated under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act, extending the subsisting mining lease by a second or subsequent renewal. A leaseholder who does not satisfy any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated clearances/approvals/consent, would not be entitled to the benefits extended under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act - Ordered accordingly.
Topic(s)-