9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the mining lease dated November 3, 1951, qualifies as an 'existing mining lease' under Rule 2(c) of the 1956 Rules. 2. Whether the rule contravenes Article 31 of the Constitution and whether Article 31A(1)(e) applies. 3. Competency of the Legislature to enact the 1956 Rules before the Constitution VII Amendment Act, 1956. 4. Whether the 1956 Rules were ultra vires the 1948 Act and could continue under the 1957 Act. 5. Whether the Controller was justified in limiting the period of the lease to 25 years from December 2, 1939. Detailed Analysis: 1. Existing Mining Lease: The appellant contended that the mining lease dated November 3, 1951, is not an 'existing mining lease' as defined in Rule 2(c) of the 1956 Rules. The court analyzed that the lease was originally agreed upon on December 2, 1939, and possession was given to the lessee at that time. The formal execution in 1951 was merely a legal formality to enforce the agreement. The court held that the lease was granted in December 1939, making it an 'existing mining lease' under Rule 2(c), which defines such a lease as one granted before October 25, 1949. 2. Constitutionality and Article 31A(1)(e): The appellant argued that the rule contravenes Article 31 and that Article 31A(1)(e) does not apply. The court held that Article 31A(1)(e) provides that no law modifying rights under any lease for minerals shall be void on the grounds of inconsistency with Articles 14, 19, or 31. The court interpreted 'winning' in Article 31A(1)(e) broadly to include 'getting or extracting minerals from the mines and other incidental purposes,' thus covering the lease in question. Therefore, the rules for modifying the lease were not void under Articles 14, 19, or 31. 3. Competency of Legislature Pre-VII Amendment: The appellant contended that the 1956 Rules were void as they were made before the Constitution VII Amendment Act, 1956. The court found that the 1956 Rules were made under the 1948 Act, which was within the legislative competence of the Central Legislature for the regulation of mines and mineral development. The rules did not pertain to the acquisition and requisitioning of property, thus the contention was dismissed. 4. Ultra Vires and Continuation under the 1957 Act: The appellant argued that the 1956 Rules were ultra vires the 1948 Act and could not continue under the 1957 Act. The court held that Section 29 of the 1957 Act deems all rules made under the 1948 Act, in respect of matters covered by the 1957 Act, to have been made under the 1957 Act. Therefore, the 1956 Rules were deemed valid and continued in force under the 1957 Act. 5. Limitation of Lease Period: The court addressed whether the Controller was justified in limiting the lease period to 25 years from December 2, 1939. The court agreed with the appellant that the lease period should be brought in conformity with the 1957 Act for future regulation. Consequently, the lease period should be limited to 20 years commencing from June 1, 1958, the date the 1957 Act came into force, rather than from the original date of the lease. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The court modified the order of the Central Government and the Controller to limit the lease period to 20 years from June 1, 1958. The appeal with respect to other modifications of the lease was dismissed. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.
|
