Allowed

M/S. Phulad Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC27 Apr 2015SAW/150/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil special appeal, the High Court set aside a cancellation of a mining lease. The court held that the lease could not be cancelled within the 60-day notice period mandated by the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, especially since the appellant deposited the dues before the deadline expired.

What did the court decide?

The cancellation order dated 01.7.2008 declared illegal and the mining lease restored.

M/S. Phulad Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Vs State… — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.150/2014

¶3

M/s. Phulad Mines & Minerals Pvt. Ltd.

¶4

Vs.

¶5

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶6

DATE OF ORDER : 27.4.2015

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶8

Mr. S.P. Arora, for the appellant Mrs. Suman Porwal, Government Counsel

¶9

The Department of Mines (Group-II), Government of Rajasthan by order dated 7.12.2000 renewed mining lease pertaining to mineral Quartz, Feldspar and Magnesite for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 31.12.2001. The Deputy Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Department of Mines (Group-II) under a communication dated 29.4.2008 called upon the petitioner as to why his lease be not cancelled, being failed to deposit required dead-rent with penalty and interest thereon. The notice aforesaid as per the petitioner was received in the office of Mining Engineer, Sojat on 8.5.2008 and then was served upon it subsequent thereto. The petitioner acting upon the notice, deposited a sum of Rs.2,94,000/- with the Mining Engineer, Sojat on 05.7.2008 but prior to that on 01.7.2008 the State Government cancelled the mining lease granted and also forfeited the security amount.

¶10

Being aggrieved by the decision of the Government of Rajasthan, the petitioner preferred a revision petition as per provisions of Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 55 of the Mineral

¶11

¶12

Concession Rules, 1960, but that came to be dismissed under an order dated 16.11.2010.

¶13

To challenge the order aforesaid passed by the revisional authority and the State Government, the petitioner preferred a petition for writ, that came to be dismissed by learned Single Bench under the judgment impugned.

¶14

The learned Single Bench held that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2,94,000/- on 05.7.2008 i.e. after cancellation of the mining lease, hence, no interference in the matter is required. The learned Single Bench also arrived at the conclusion that the notice was given to the petitioner on 29.4.2008 and he deposited a sum of Rs.2,94,000/- on 5.7.2008 i.e. after a lapse of a period of more than 60 days, thus, the respondents rightly cancelled the lease.

¶15

In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the notice dated 29.4.2008 was served upon the petitioner after 8.5.2008 and within a period of 60 days subsequent thereto the due amount was deposited before the competent authority, therefore, no occasion was their to cancel the mining lease. It is also urged that the notice being served on 8.5.2008, no occasion was their for the State Government to cancel the lease prior to 8.7.2008.

¶16

While defending the judgment passed by learned Single Bench, it is submitted by Ms. Suman Porwal, learned counsel

¶17

¶18

appearing on behalf of the respondent Mining Department that the petitioner failed to deposit the dead-rent, penalty and interest thereupon within the period prescribed, therefore, the mining lease was rightly cancelled and the learned Single Judge rightly refused to interfere with the same.

¶19

Heard learned counsels.

¶20

As per the averments contained in para-15 of reply to the writ petition, the notice dated 29.4.2008 was received in the office of Mining Engineer, Sojat on 8.5.2008 and that was served upon the petitioner subsequent thereto. As per Rule 27 (5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 the term of notice is 60 days. The State Government, as such, had no authority to cancel the mining lease before expiry of the term of 60 days from the date of receipt of notice by the petitioner. The term aforesaid was expiring on 8.7.2008 but the lease was cancelled prior to that i.e. on 01.7.2008. We are of the considered opinion that on 01.7.2008 the State had no authority to cancel the mining lease in-question. The appellant-petitioner before expiry of 60 days deposited the entire amount due, hence, no coercive action could have been taken against him as per Section 26(1) read with Section 27 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

¶21

In view of whatever stated above, this appeal deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The judment passed by learned Single Judge, the order passed by the revisional authority and the order dated 01.7.2008 passed on behalf of the

¶22

¶23

State Government cancelling mining lease of the petitioner are declared illegal. The mining lease cancelled unde the order dated 01.7.2008 is restored. No order as to costs.

¶24

[JAISHREE THAKUR], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J.

¶25

Sanjay

M/S. Phulad Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Phulad Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahaveer Hospital Vs State and Ors.

Rajendra Singh Bhati Vs State and Ors.

Sewa Sadan Vs Muncipal Council, Bhilwara and Anr.

Suman Sharma Vs State and Ors.

Kuya Ram Vs State and Ors.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Unique Buildtech Eng.