ABSTRACT
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the State of West Bengal against the High Court judgment directing execution of a mining lease in favour of Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih [“Respondent No.1”]. It set aside the High Court judgment to the extent of balance area except 20.87 acres, which the State owned and agreed to grant lease to Respondent No.1.
The Court examined the provisions under Rule 61 of West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 and Section 10-A of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 inserted by the 2015 Amendment Act. It held that Respondent No.1 was not entitled to invoke the proviso to Rule 61. Further, the grant order dated 16.07.2015 was conditional and could not be considered as crystallizing any right in favour of Respondent No.1 or requiring it to alter its position.
CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title: State of West Bengal v. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih
ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 8238 of 2022
iii) Judgement Date: 12 September 2023
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Sanjiv Khanna and Aravind Kumar, JJ.
vi) Author: Sanjiv Khanna, J.
vii) Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1149
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Rule 61 of West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016
Section 10-A of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
Section 14-Y of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955
Section 4-C of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT
The State of West Bengal filed the present appeal against the High Court judgment directing it to execute a mining lease of 76 acres land in favour of Respondent No.1. The issue arose from the applications moved in 1985 and 1998 by West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Ltd. [WBMDTCL] and Respondent No.1 respectively, seeking a mining lease over the same land.
After several intermediate orders and litigation, the High Court allowed Respondent No.1’s writ petition in 2016 challenging conditional grant order dated 16.07.2015 issued to it, directing the execution of lease. The intra-court appeal by the State against it resulted in the impugned judgment, which dismissed the appeal.
Hence, the present appeal before the Supreme Court primarily concerning the interpretation and applicability of Rule 61 of West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 and Section 10-A of MMDR Act, 1957.
FACTS OF THE CASE
[1] WBMDTCL applied for mining leases in the concerned land in 1985 and was granted orders in 1986.
[2] In 1998, Respondent No.1 applied for a mining lease over the same 76 acres land. Its application was rejected in 2003 on grounds of prior allotment.
[3] Respondent No.1’s writ petition led to a 2006 order, whereby based on the agreed apportionment between WBMDTCL and Respondent No. 1, 76 acres land was allotted to Respondent No. 1.
[4] However, the 2006 order was recalled in 2010 as it was passed without considering the pending litigation concerning WBMDTCL’s prior allotment.
[5] Meanwhile, the High Court allowed Respondent No. 1’s writ petition in 2014 ex-parte without considering the 2010 recalling order.
[6] In 2015, the State issued a conditional grant order dated 16.07.2015 in favour of Respondent No.1 for 76 acres land.
[7] Respondent No.1’s writ petition challenging the conditional grant order resulted in the 2016 High Court judgment directing execution of lease in its favour. The State’s intra-court appeal against it was dismissed vide the impugned 2018 judgment.
LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether Rule 61 of West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 would apply to Respondent No. 1’s 1998 application?
ii) Whether Respondent No. 1 was entitled to invoke the proviso to Rule 61?
iii) Whether the grant order dated 16.07.2015 amounted to crystallization of any right in favour of Respondent No. 1 so as to require it to alter its position?
iv) What is the extent of land for which mining lease could be directed to be executed in favour of Respondent No.1?
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
i) The State counsel submitted that Rule 61 of West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 would squarely apply to Respondent No.1’s 1998 application, rendering it ineligible for consideration. The proviso could also not be invoked as no right had crystallized in favour of Respondent No.1 under the conditional grant order dated 16.07.2015.
ii) They argued the High Court erred in giving precedence to judicial orders passed prior to 2016 Rules since these Rules were framed under a 2015 Amendment Act to usher in a new regime for allotting mining leases through auctioning to improve transparency. Hence Rule 61 ought to apply.
iii) It was further submitted that the grant order dated 16.07.2015 was conditional upon fulfilment of several stipulations and could not be considered to have crystallized any right in favour of Respondent No.1 so as to require it to alter its position based on the order. Hence proviso to Rule 61 exempting such cases of altered position was inapplicable.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) Respondent No.1 submitted that its 1998 application pre-dated the 2016 Rules. Further, the State had agreed to grant lease to it vide the 2006 order, which was recalled without hearing Respondent No.1.
ii) It was submitted the High Court orders in 2014 and 2016 directing grant of lease would prevail over the 2016 Rules.
iii) Reliance was placed on Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. v. State of Odisha case to submit that the recommendation for grant of lease amounted to a letter of intent by whatever name, hence Respondent No. 1’s right stood crystallized by Government orders entitling it to protection under amended Act.
RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Rule 61 of West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016:
It renders all prior pending applications ineligible subject to the proviso that applications which have already been issued grant orders/letter of intent would remain eligible subject to conditions compliance.
ii) Section 10-A of MMDR Act, 1957:
It contains identical non-obstante clause rendering prior applications ineligible, subject to exceptions where applicants’ position stood altered under previous letters of intent or grant orders. This was inserted to ensure auctioning for transparency in allotment.
JUDGMENT
Ratio Decidendi
i) Rule 61 of West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 would squarely apply to Respondent No.1’s application, subject to the proviso. However, Respondent No.1 had not acquired any crystallized right under the 2006 order in its favour since it was recalled in 2010 without challenge, hence proviso exemption inapplicable.
ii) The grant order dated 16.07.2015 was expressly conditional and contingent upon fulfilment of stipulations. Hence, it could not be considered to have crystallized any right in favour of Respondent No. 1 or requiring it to alter its position based thereon so as to attract proviso to Rule 61.
iii) The only crystallized right accruing to Respondent No.1 was consideration of its application as per applicable law and judicial orders directing the same did not freeze the law. Rule 61 being the applicable law would render its application ineligible.
Obiter Dicta
i) The Court left open questions whether protection under Section 10-A of MMDR Act, 1957 could be claimed by Respondent No.1 and applicability of provisions of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The Court adopted a strict interpretation approach regarding the proviso to Rule 61 and Section 10-A. It maintained the non-obstante rigor of these provisions to ensure auctioning as the way forward for transparent allotment of mining leases overruling previous ad hoc allotments, unless rights had clearly crystallized under proper orders/letters of intent.
It is a strategically balanced verdict, serving the object of law while also preventing arbitrary deprivation of livelihood as evident from the direction to grant lease over 20.87 acres land owned by the State.
REFERENCES
Cases Referred:
Bhushan Power and Steel Limited v. S.L. Seal, (2017) 2 SCC 125
Bhushan Power and Steel Limited v. State of Odisha, (2012) 4 SCC 246.
Thressiamma Jacob v. Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725
Statutes Referred:
The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955
The West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016