9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of withdrawal of permission for sub-leases. 2. Compliance with Section 4A of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 and Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. 3. Entitlement to compensation for loss of mining period due to illegal cancellation of sub-leases. 4. Extension of sub-lease period post-expiry. 5. Claim for damages. Summary: 1. Validity of Withdrawal of Permission for Sub-Leases: The appellants challenged the withdrawal of permission for sub-leases by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court's Full Bench found that the Government had not followed the due procedure u/s 4A of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 and u/r 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The Full Bench held that neither Clause 15 nor Clause 16 of the sub-lease deed was applicable, and the State Government could not exercise the power reserved for the Central Government. 2. Compliance with Section 4A of the Act and Rule 37 of the Rules: The Full Bench examined whether the premature termination of sub-leases without complying with Section 4A(3) of the Act or withdrawing consent without notice was invalid. It concluded that barytes being a major mineral, the power u/s 4A was reserved for the Central Government. Rule 37 did not provide for withdrawal of consent once given, and the State Government's executive power was limited to its legislative power. The Full Bench dismissed the writ appeals, directing the parties to maintain status-quo for three months. 3. Entitlement to Compensation for Loss of Mining Period: The High Court addressed whether sub-lessees were entitled to compensation for the period lost due to illegal cancellation of sub-leases. It held that the sub-leases granted before the amendment to Rule 37 on 20.2.1991 were valid. The High Court directed the Government and the Corporation to compensate the sub-lessees by allowing them to continue mining operations for the lost period. 4. Extension of Sub-Lease Period Post-Expiry: The Supreme Court found that extending the sub-lease period after the original lease had expired was inappropriate. It cited three reasons: logistical challenges, the Government's policy against granting leases to private parties, and public interest concerns due to malpractices pointed out by the House Committee. The Court set aside the High Court's order extending the sub-lease period. 5. Claim for Damages: The Supreme Court left the issue of damages open for the parties to pursue through civil suits. It noted that the question of breach of contract and entitlement to damages should be decided in civil court, uninfluenced by the High Court's observations. The cause of action for such suits would be reckoned from the date of the Supreme Court's order. Conclusion: The Supreme Court disposed of the first set of appeals as infructuous, except for one case, and partly allowed the second set of appeals by setting aside the High Court's order on the extension of sub-lease periods. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
