9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the premature termination of mining leases without notice. 2. Compliance with the requirements of Section 4-A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1951. 3. Relief to be granted to the petitioner for wrongful termination of leases. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the premature termination of mining leases without notice: The petitioner company argued that the State Government terminated its mining leases prematurely without issuing any notice, thereby denying natural justice. The Supreme Court referenced the decision in *State of Haryana v. Ram Kishan & Ors.*, which held that affected parties must be given an opportunity to be heard before a decision to terminate leases prematurely is made. The Court concluded that the order dated 7.12.1972 was null and void as it violated the principles of natural justice, affirming that the lessees were entitled to be heard before any termination decision. 2. Compliance with the requirements of Section 4-A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1951: The petitioner contended that the order did not meet the requirements specified in Section 4-A for justifying premature termination. The Court noted that the section, as amended in 1972 and further in 1986, required consultation between the Central and State Governments and stipulated various grounds for termination. The Court held that the section implied a right to a hearing for the lessees, and the absence of such a hearing rendered the termination order invalid. The Court emphasized that the statutory intention, especially post-1986 amendment, was to ensure an opportunity of hearing before termination, reflecting the need to protect lessees' rights. 3. Relief to be granted to the petitioner for wrongful termination of leases: The petitioner sought compensation for the wrongful termination of leases. The Court decided against directing the petitioner to file a suit for compensation due to the long pendency of the case. Instead, it referred the matter to arbitration to determine the damages suffered by the petitioner. The Court appointed Justice S. Natarajan, a retired Supreme Court Judge, as the arbitrator to decide on the compensation/damages, restricting the compensation period to five years from the date of termination or until the original lease expiry, whichever was less. The arbitrator was to be assisted by a mining engineer/expert nominated by the Union of India. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed the premature termination order dated 7.12.1972 for violating natural justice principles and referred the issue of compensation to arbitration. The arbitration was to determine the damages suffered by the petitioner due to the wrongful termination, with the process to be completed within a specified timeframe. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
