Allowed

Ms the Rameshwara Jute Mills Ltd. through K K Dubey v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC6 Sept 2023WPC/3014/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition, quashing an order that denied a lessee permission to remove iron ore excavated during a lease term. The court held that Rules allow such removal, the geological report requirement was irrelevant as the site was auctioned, and the General Manager was a valid applicant. Permission for removal was granted.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 4 directed to allow removal of iron ore lying in lease hold area within 15 days, subject to mining challans and proof of statutory dues payment.

Ms the Rameshwara Jute Mills Ltd. through K K Dubey Vs… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 3014 of 2020

¶3

M/s The Rameshwara Jute Mills Ltd., having its registered office at “Birla Building, Kolkata, through K.K. Dubey, the authorised signatory, New Pundag, Jagannathpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Secretary, Industry, Mines and Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶7

The Director, Mines, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶8

The District Mining Officer, Chaibasa…

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner(s): M/s Indrajit Sinha, Ajay Kumar Sah and Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocates. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG

¶14

15/06.09.2023 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per, Ananda Sen, J.)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate order in the nature of certiorari to quash Memo No. 1223 dated 17/18.9.2020, whereby the representation dated 2.4.2020 of the petitioner has been dismissed. Further a mandamus has been prayed for directing the respondents authority to grant permission to the petitioner to remove the Iron and Manganese ore excavated during the period of subsistence the lease i.e. upto 31.3.2020 from BaraiburuTatiba Iron and Manganese mines.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner was a lessee for mineral iron ore and manganese in village Baraiburu and Tatiba over an area of 640 acres within the district- Singhbhum West in the State of Jharkhand. The lease expired on 31.3.2020. He further submitted that during the subsistence of the lease, the petitioner had excavated iron and manganese ore and the stock of the ore is lying in the lease hold area. He submitted that as the petitioner had excavated the ore during the subsistence of the lease, the same belongs to the petitioner, thus the respondents are duty bound to facilitate removal of the said ores from the lease hold area, but the respondents have rejected the prayer of the petitioner on non est grounds. As per the petitioner, there is a provision under the Mineral (Other than Atomic and

¶18

-2-

¶19

Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, which provides that after expiry of the lease, the lessee is allowed to remove the minerals, which was excavated during the subsistence of the lease, but the respondents, by not allowing the petitioner to remove the said ores, have acted beyond the provision of law. As per the petitioner, merely citing wrong provision of law in a petition, cannot be a ground to reject the prayer of the petitioner to remove the ores, when the law provides for such removal. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that non-submission of the geological report also cannot be a ground to deny the removal of the minerals as non-submission of the said report, will not prejudice any of the parties including the State as the said area has now been auctioned, and a new lessee has already been allotted the said lease. The fresh allotment of lease to new lessee clearly suggests that there are appropriate evidence to determine existence of ore, therefore non-submission of the report at the time of closure is of no material importance. On the objection raised by the State that no manganese ore was found on physical verification, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client will not claim any manganese ore. He further submitted that the respondents are taking plea that the General Manager is not the appropriate person to make any prayer to allow lifting of the mineral ore, rather the same can be made by the Mining Lessee or the nominated agent. According to the petitioner, it is in fact the authorized person who had made an application and the said authorized person was before the Secretary, Mines during hearing and a power of attorney and the authorization was also produced. Thus this ground taken by the respondentState is also frivolous. Lastly it is submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.389 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No.390 of 2022 has granted the similar relief to one of the lessees, and the case of the petitioner is similar in nature.

¶20

Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioner had to submit a geological report pursuant to Notification dated 27.3.2018 , which the petitioner failed to do, but it is admitted that after expiry of the lease of the petitioner, the area was auctioned and now has been allotted to a new lessee. He further submitted that the petitioner has prayed to remove manganese ore, but after inspection of the site, no manganese ore was found lying in the mines. It is not in dispute that the mineral which the petitioner intends to remove, was mined during subsistence of the lease and there is a provision of law to allow such removal.

¶21

-3-

¶22

After hearing the parties, we find that initially on 28.5.1966, the lease of the mines was granted to M/s Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd., which was subsequently transferred in favour of the petitioner on 30.12.1978 upon amalgamation of both these companies. On 22.5.2017, the lease was extended in terms of Section 8(A)(6) of the Mines and Mineral Development and Regulation Act (hereinafter to be referred as MMDR Act) and a supplementary lease deed was executed, by virtue of which the lease stood extended upto 31.3.2020. It is pertinent to mention herein that the mining activities was stopped for a considerable period of time, but after execution of the supplementary lease deed, the petitioner re-started mining operation. The petitioner before expiry of the lease, submitted Form-D, which is a notice of intention of abandonment of mines. The notice was submitted before the Regional Controller, Indian Bureau of Mines Ranchi. A joint inspect was conducted by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, Mining Inspector, Mines Manager and the Senior Manager of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter filed an application seeking for permission to remove iron and manganese ore lying at the lease hold area. As nothing was done from the end of the respondents, the petitioner approached before this Court in WP(C) No. 1420 of 2020, wherein a prayer has been made to allow the petitioner to remove the stock i.e. the ore. The said writ petition of the petitioner was disposed of directing the District Mining Officer to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner, then approached the Mines Commissioner with a prayer to allow them to remove the ores, but the said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 17.9.2020 on the four grounds, which led to filing of this writ petition.

¶23

From the facts of this case, as pleaded by the parties, the fact that the petitioner was a lessee of mineral iron and manganese is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the lease of the petitioner had expired on 31.3.2020. It is also not disputed that the huge quantity of the iron ore which was excavated by the petitioner during the subsistence of the lease is lying on the lease area. It is further admitted that a joint inspection was conducted, wherein, the quantity of iron ore lying in the lease hold area is recorded. It is also not disputed by the respondents, rather admitted by the respondents, and is reflected in the impugned order that in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP(C) 114 of 2014 (Common Cause Vs., Union of India and Ors.) , fine amount and other payables on account of illegal mining has already been

¶24

-4-

¶25

recovered by the State of Jharkhand, from the petitioner. The State also admitted that a supplementary agreement was also executed by the State of Jharkhand and this petitioner.

¶26

Now the State has refused to allow the petitioner to lift the ore lying in the lease hold area on the following four grounds:-

¶27

(a) There is no provision in Rule 12(gg) of Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 allowing the lessee to remove the minerals excavated during currency period of the lease for its own benefit.

¶28

(b) Manganese ore of 28.37 MT was not found in the mines, by the Committee which was constituted for verifying the stock lying at the lease hold area.

¶29

(c) Application/representation on behalf of the petitioner company were made by the General Manager, which is not permissible while the same can be made only by mining lessee or nominated mines agent.

¶30

(d) Petitioner/Mining Lessee has not submitted the geological report.

¶31

On consideration of the entire aspect, we find that all these four ground taken by the respondents for not allowing the petitioner to remove the ore are groundless. Merely labeling a wrong provision of law will not deprive a party from getting the benefit, which is permitted under the statute. It is true that there is no provision as 12(gg) under the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, but there is a provision under Rule 12(1)(gg) of the said Rules 2016, which provides as follows:-

¶32

“(gg) the lessee may, after paying the rents, rates and royalties payable under the Act and rules made thereunder or under the lease deed, at the expiry or sooner termination of the lease term or within six calendar months thereafter (unless the lease is terminated for default of the lessee, and in that case at any time not less than three calendar months nor more than six calendar months after such termination) take down and remove for its own benefit, all or any ore mineral excavated during the currency of the lease, engines, machinery, plant, buildings, structures, tramways, railways and other works, erections and conveniences which may have been erected, set up or placed by the lessee in or upon the leased lands and which the lessee is not bound to deliver to the State Government or which the State Government does not desire to purchase.”

¶33

From perusal of the said Rule, it is evident that a lessee is entitled

¶34

to remove the minerals/ore which he has excavated during the subsistence of

¶35

-5-

¶36

the lease. When the law provides that the lessee has right to remove the minerals/ore, the respondents cannot deprive the petitioner of the said rights on the frivolous ground i.e. wrong labelling of the petition.

¶37

Admittedly, there was a joint inspection and in the said inspection, the ores was found to have been excavated and lying in the area which was under the lease. The respondents are disputing that there exists any manganese ore. The counsel for the petitioner during argument, on instruction, has waived their right to remove the manganese ore which they had earlier claimed. Now they are confining their prayer in the writ petition only in respect of the iron ore which has been excavated and is lying there, as per the joint inspection report.

¶38

Since the petitioner is not intending to remove and manganese ore, we are not passing any order for removal of the same.

¶39

The submission of geological report is now of no relevance. As per the gazette notification dated 27^th March, 2018, which is an amendment of Rule 12 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017, wherein SubRule 4(a) has been inserted after Sub-rule (4) of Rule 12, which provides for geological report. As per the said insertion, a geological study report had to be prepared at the time of expiry of the period of lease. This is for the purpose of ascertaining and is an evidence of mineral contents in the area. Be it noted that as per the law, after expiry of lease, the area has to be put in auction so that the same can be granted on lease to a successful bidder. To put the area on auction, it is necessary to ascertain an estimate of the ore available and for this purpose, the report of geological study has to be submitted.

¶40

In the instant case, the petitioner contended that they initiated preparation of the report but they could not carry out the same. To prepare the said report, some bore-wells were supposed to be dug within the lease hold area, which falls in the forest area. As no permission was granted by the Forest Department to undertake non-forest activity i.e. digging of borehole, the report could not be prepared. The defence of the petitioner cannot be brushed aside. Further this defence has not been controverted by the State.

¶41

Further, it is an admitted fact that the area has already been auctioned now and some new lessee has been granted the said lease. The very purpose of conducting geological study has now lost its relevance. 12. We also find that the resistance of the respondents taking a ground that the application was to be filed by a power of attorney holder and not by the

¶42

-6-

¶43

agent of the mines, does not hold good. Be it noted that the application for removal of ore was made by the company itself, who is the lessee and it is not disputed that the petitioner was the lessee.

¶44

From what has been held above, we find that the grounds taken by the respondents in disallowing the claim of the petitioner to lift the minerals/ore, which was excavated by them during subsistence of the lease, is non est, thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶45

Further we find that similar nature of relief has been granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.389 of 2022 to another lessee, in which a direction was given to the respondents to allow that writ petitioner to remove the minerals/ore after issuing mining challans on production of evidence of payment of all statutory dues. The case of this petitioner also stands on similar footing.

¶46

Thus we also allow this writ petition directing the respondent No. 4 to allow the petitioner to lift the mineral iron ore which is lying in the lease hold area, earlier leased out by this petitioner, as per the joint inspection report, which is at Annexure-6 of this writ petition. Appropriate mining challan and permits should be issued within fifteen days from the receipt of a copy of this order, on submission of necessary proof showing payment of all statutory dues, payable if any. The respondents if so wishes will be at liberty to nominate any person in whose presence, the ore can be removed.

¶47

Since the petitioner has abandoned their claim, so far as Manganese ore is concerned, the petitioner will not be allowed to lift any Manganese ore from the lease hold area.

¶48