On 07.08.1985, West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Limited had filed an application for grant of long term mining lease for Dolomite, Limestone and Quartzite at the plots in Mouza – Khariduara, Kumari and Boch. The Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal, vide order dated 13.03.2003, rejected the application of Respondent No 1 – M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih had filed Writ Petition No 7505 (W) of 2003 in the High Court of Calcutta challenging the orders passed by the Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal, dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih will be granted the whole of the mining area of 76 acres, and the lease for the rest of the area will be granted in favour of WBMDTCL. However, the order dated 13.10.2006 was cancelled or revoked vide order dated 03.12.2010 by the Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, Mines Branch, West Bengal, inter alia, recording that this order was passed without ascertaining the exact position of the land and in ignorance of the fact that the rejection orders dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003 had already been challenged before the High Court in Writ Petition No 7505 (W) of 2003. This order also refers to the factum that the Grant Order dated 07.04.1986 to WBMDTCL for Iron Ore, Manganese and Fireclay in the plots in question had been revoked and the application for Long-Term Mining Lease filed by WBMDTCL for Dolomite and Limestone was rejected by a common order dated 24.09.2009.
This is reflected from the reason given in the order dated 09.07.2014, which states that since the recall order dated 13.10.2006 was cancelled or revoked vide order dated 03.12.2010, the rejection orders dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003 were still valid and the application for mining lease dated 07.08.1985 for Dolomite and Limestone by WBMDTCL still subsists. Thereupon, reference in the order dated 09.07.2014 is made to sub-section (2) to Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which states that in cases where the State Government has not notified in the Official Gazette an area for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence for mining lease, and two or more persons had applied for the permit, licence or mining lease, the person whose application received earlier in point of time shall have preferential right for grant of permit, licence or lease over the person whose application was received later. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih by observing that the respondent had a Rayati status and that the remaining land can be given to WBMDTCL. It is during the period between the order dated 13.10.2006 and the order dated 13.12.2010 that the request/application of WBMDTCL was rejected and the mining lease cancelled vide order dated 24.09.2009. It is also stipulated that the Grant Order and the subsequent execution of the lease deed are subject to the No Objection Certificate to be obtained from the Central Government since Dolomite was a major mineral at the time of the order dated 10.09.2014 passed by the High Court. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih was required to fulfil the conditions, including furnishing of the Conversion Certificate under Section 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955 and No Objection Certificate from the Government of India. In the meanwhile, a clarification was sought by the Deputy Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal and vide clarification dated 26.08.2016 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Mines, it was clarified that even prior to 10.02.2015, Dolomite was a Non-Scheduled major mineral, for which prior approval of the Central Government was not required under sub-section (1) to Section 5 of the MMDR Act, 1957.
On the question of requirements under Section 14-Y and 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955, it is observed that the land in question is recorded as ‘ Dungri’ as per information provided by the Deputy District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Purulia vide Memo No V/RTI/775/15 dated 06.03.2017 and that the land classified as ‘ Dungri ’ is only used for the purpose of mining lease and thus, there is no need for a conversion certificate under Section 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih had procured a No Objection Certificate in respect of the major portion of Raiyati land from different owners and that the State Government itself was the owner of 20.87 acres of land, thus Section 14-Y of the WBLR Act, 1955 would not be applicable as the Respondent No 1 – M/s. We begin our discussion by first referring to Rule 61 of the Concession Rules, 2016, which reads as under: “ 61.Decleration of ineligibility of the pending minor mineral applications for mining lease including the applications of reclassified major minerals.- All applications for mining lease of minor minerals including the reclassified minor minerals vide SO No-423 (E) dated 12 February,2015 received prior to the giving-effect to this rules irrespective of its duration of pendency shall become ineligible.
(2) Without prejudice to sub-section (1), the following shall remain eligible on and from the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015— (a) applications received under Section 11-A of this Act; (b) where before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land for any mineral, the permit holder or the licensee shall have a right for obtaining a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease, or a mining lease, as the case may be, in respect of that mineral in that land, if the State Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee, as the case may be,— (i) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations, as the case may be, to establish the existence of mineral contents in such land in accordance with such parameters as may be prescribed by the Central Government; (ii) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the reconnaissance permit or the prospecting licence; (iii) has not become ineligible under the provisions of this Act; and (iv) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case Rule 61 of the Concession Rules, 2016 states that all applications for mining lease of minor minerals including reclassified minor minerals vide S.O. ….Neither such recent policy nor can the provisions of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 can apply to the application of the writ petitioners made in March, 1998 and more so as the order of the Joint Secretary to grant lease is dated 13 October, 2006 and that of this Court directing grant of long term lease is dated 10 September, 2014 are prior to such policy and prior to the said Rules came into operation.
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih is that the application dated 06.03.1998 should be considered in accordance with law. Bhushan Power and Steel Limited was challenged in a Writ Petition in the High Court, which was dismissed, but the appeal preferred before this Court was allowed vide judgment dated 14.03.2012 in Bhushan Power and Steel Limited and Others v. We, accordingly, direct the State of Orissa to take appropriate steps to act in terms of the MoU dated 15-5-2002, as also its earlier commitments to recommend the case of the appellants to the Central Government for grant of adequate iron ore reserves to meet the requirements of the appellants in their steel plant at Lapanga.” 9. This stand did not find favour with this Court and the officers of the State Government were found to be in contempt of the judgment dated 14.03.2012 vide judgment dated 22.04.2014 in Bhushan Power and Steel Limited v.
In view of such categorical and unambiguous directions given in the judgment which has attained finality, merely because another judgment has been delivered by this Court in Sandur Manganese case, cannot be a ground to undo the directions contained in the judgment dated 14-3- 2012. However, we are giving one final opportunity to them to purge the contempt by transmitting requisite recommendations to the Central Government. In case the recommendation is sent within one month from the date of copy of receipt of this order, we propose not to take any further action and the respondents/contemnors shall stand discharged from this contempt petition. The Central Government, however, took the stand that having regard to the amendments in the MMDR Act, 1957, vide the Amendment Act, 2015 introducing Section 10-A, the request made by M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited stands invalidated.
This Court in M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Limited (supra), specifically examined the contention whether in the facts of the said case, clause (c) to sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 could be invoked in view of the contention raised by M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Limited that the Letter of Intent was issued by the State Government for grant of mining lease and, therefore, their application stands protected. The aforesaid arguments did not find favour of this Court in the case of M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Limited (supra) in spite of the earlier judgment of this Court dated 14.03.2012 and the order passed in the contempt petition dated 22.04.2014 with the observations therein that there was failure of the State Government to comply with the directions. Thus, “ previous approval ” from the Central Government was essential for grant of lease, without which the State Government could not enter into any such lease agreement with the applicant. It was observed that with auctioning of mineral concessions, transparency in allocation will improve; the Government will get an increased share of the value of mineral resources; and that it will alleviate the procedural delay, which in turn would check slowdown which adversely affected the growth of mining sector.
The Amendment Act, 2015, as is evident from the objects, aims at: ( i ) eliminating discretion; ( ii ) improving transparency in the allocation of mineral resources; ( iii ) simplifying procedures; ( iv ) eliminating delay on administration, so as to enable expeditious and optimum development of the mineral resources of the country; ( v ) obtaining for the Government an enhanced share of the value of the mineral resources; and ( vi ) attracting private investment and the latest technology. The second category is where a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence has been granted the permit holder or the licensee has the right to obtain a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease and the State Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee has complied with the requirements specified in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957. The third category is where the Central Government had already communicated their previous approval or the State Government had issue Letter of Intent for grant of mining lease before coming into force of the Amendment Act 2015. Unless such approval came, the State Government could not communicate to the prospecting licensee/lessee its intention to enter into any contract as the prerequisite prior approval would be lacking.
It is a different thing if the Central Government refuses to give its approval on any extraneous reasons or mala fides or does not take into consideration relevant factors/material while rejecting the application, which may form a different cause of action and may become a reason to challenge the action of the Central Government rejecting the application on the grounds that are available in law to seek judicial review of such an action. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioner herein had originally succeeded in the appeal inasmuch as judgment dated 14-3-2012 was rendered giving direction to the State Government to recommend the case of the petitioner, in terms of the MoU entered into between the parties, to the Central Government. 423(E) dated 10.02.2015, Dolomite was notified as a minor mineral and hence, the approval of the Central Government was not required for the reason that the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was hedged with pre-conditions, including the requirement to submit consent letters of the owners of the land in question ( Raiyats ) before the execution of the lease deed, or there was to be a stipulation that a condition to this effect would be incorporated in the draft lease.
This is clear from the terms of the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015, which are reproduced below: “ xx xx xx (a) You have to furnish a Draft Mining Lease Deed in the model form K us prescribed in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, as amended upto date (1 rule 31 of MC Rules, 1960), (b) The Draft Mining Lease Deed should be prepared in durable papers neatly and sufficient space should be kept in between two lines in order to permit, if necessary, correction therein, (c) The Deed of Lease, after execution, shall be registered by you at your own cost and no mining operation should be started before registration of the Deed, (d) You shall have to furnish the approved Mining Plan, if not submitted rules 22(4) and 22A of MC Rules, 1960, (e) You shall have to furnish the Environment Clearance (EC), if not submitted from the M1EF Environment of Protection Act, 1986, (f) You shall have to furnish Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from the WBPCB before execution of Deed of Lease [Section 25 and 26 of Water Act,1974 and Section 21 of Air Act, 1981], (g) You shall have to raise annually 10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand ) only as Security for due observance of the terms and conditions of the lease, under appropriate Head of Account which shall be refundable to you after expiry of the period of Lease, unless the whole or a part of it is withheld or forfeited by the Government for any default on you part including default in payment of amount due to the Government [rule 32 of MC Rules, 1960], (i) You shall have to submit consent letter(s) of the owner(s) of the land under consideration before execution of the Lease Deed (Consent of the Raiyats) or a condition to that effect should be incorporated in the Draft Deed (rule 22(3)(i)(1t)), (j) You shall have to furnish the N.O.C., of the Forest Authority in proper format in case the applied area falls in the forest area as notified by the Appropriate Authority, alongwith the Draft Lease Deed or a condition to that effect should be incorporated in the Draft Deed [Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980], (k)
