9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1362 - SC - Indian LawsRestraint on mining leaseholders from carrying on any mining operations - restraint placed on the ground that none of these leaseholders were in possession of clearances/approvals/consent required for carrying on the mining operations - interpretation of Sections 8A(3) 8A(5) and 8A(6) of the MMDR Act. HELD THAT - A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired would still have a subsisting lease if the original lease having been renewed the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire prior to 12.1.2015) at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended MMDR Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder - A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire and on consideration such an application has been rejected will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder. The provisions of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder because of the express exclusion contemplated for the above exigency Under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act. Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act the regime introduced through Sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal - Out of the above three contingencies provided Under Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. Unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring that a mining lease has lapsed the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document - in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations for a continuous period of two years the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period for a further period of two years A leaseholder having suffered a lapse is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act because of the express exclusion contemplated Under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of mining operations without requisite clearances/approvals/consent. 2. Determination of subsisting mining leases. 3. Interpretation of Section 8 and Section 8A of the MMDR Act. 4. Applicability of Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. 5. Impact of the Goa Foundation judgment on mining leases. 6. Amendments introduced by the MMDR Act, 2015. 7. Conditions under which mining leases lapse or are extended. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of Mining Operations without Requisite Clearances/Approvals/Consent: This Court, by its order dated 16.5.2014, restrained 102 mining leaseholders from carrying on any mining operations due to the absence of necessary clearances/approvals/consent. The order allowed leaseholders to move the Court for revocation of the suspension after obtaining the requisite clearances/approvals/consent. 2. Determination of Subsisting Mining Leases: The Court emphasized that the legitimacy of the leaseholders' claims to recommence mining operations depends on whether they have a subsisting mining lease. The Court required leaseholders to substantiate their possession of a subsisting mining lease before considering the revocation of the suspension order. 3. Interpretation of Section 8 and Section 8A of the MMDR Act: - Section 8: The provision regulates the grant and renewal of mining leases. The maximum period for an original lease is 30 years, with a first renewal not exceeding 20 years. Subsequent renewals require the State Government's satisfaction and the Central Government's approval. - Section 8A (Amended): Introduced uniformity in the lease period, extending all mining leases to 50 years. It also addressed the issue of pending renewals and introduced provisions for deemed extensions up to 31.3.2030 for captive mines and 31.3.2020 for non-captive mines. 4. Applicability of Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules: - Unamended Rule 24A: Allowed for an indefinite extension of mining leases if renewal applications were pending. - Amended Rule 24A (Effective 18.7.2014): Limited the deemed extension period to two years from the date of the amendment or until the State Government passed an order on the renewal application. 5. Impact of the Goa Foundation Judgment on Mining Leases: The Goa Foundation judgment clarified that deemed extensions under Rule 24A(6) do not apply to second or subsequent renewals. The judgment mandated that second and subsequent renewals require express orders from the State Government, recording reasons for renewal in the interest of mineral development. 6. Amendments Introduced by the MMDR Act, 2015: - Section 8A: The amendment extended the lease period for all mining leases to 50 years. It provided for deemed extensions up to 31.3.2030 for captive mines and 31.3.2020 for non-captive mines, subject to compliance with lease terms and conditions. - Section 8A(9): Excluded the applicability of Section 8A to leases where renewal had been rejected, determined, or lapsed. 7. Conditions under which Mining Leases Lapse or are Extended: - Section 4A(4): A mining lease lapses if mining operations are not commenced or are discontinued for a continuous period of two years. However, the leaseholder can apply for an extension, and the lease will not lapse until the State Government passes an order. - Rule 28: The State Government must pass an order declaring a lease as lapsed. If an application for extension is filed, the lease is deemed extended until an order is passed or for two years beyond the original lease period. Summary of Conclusions: 1. A leaseholder has a subsisting mining lease if the original or renewal period was in currency on 12.1.2015. 2. Leaseholders who did not apply for renewal at least twelve months before the lease expiry are not valid leaseholders. 3. Leaseholders whose renewal applications were rejected are not valid leaseholders. 4. Leaseholders who applied for first renewal at least twelve months before expiry and whose applications were not rejected are valid leaseholders up to 17.7.2016. 5. Leaseholders who applied for second or subsequent renewals and whose applications were pending on 12.1.2015 are entitled to the benefits of Section 8A. 6. The benefit of Section 8A extends to leaseholders whose renewal applications were pending and not rejected, with deemed extensions up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020. 7. A mining lease does not lapse automatically; it requires an order from the State Government. Leaseholders who applied for extensions are deemed to have their leases extended until an order is passed or for two years beyond the original lease period.
|
