2014 (3) TMI 1151 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of mining license - vires of notification dated 29-09-2009 issued by the Central Government-respondent No.2 under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - HELD THAT - It is explicit that the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the state Government vide order dated 26-06-2008 had not been culminated in actual grant of lease and therefore the area mentioned in the said order cannot be termed as the area already held under the mining lease. This fact gets crystallized by the later part of the State Government order which says that all NOCs from the Central Government, State Government and local authorities be obtained by the applicant , meaning thereby that only thereafter the recommendation will be culminated in the grant of mining lease. There being no approval from the Central Government and no Lease Deed executed between the petitioner and the Government of Maharashtra the area contemplated in the notification dated 29-09-2009 was very much available for reservation under Section 17-A(1-A) of the MMDR Act and the notification dated 29-09-2009 therefore cannot be held to be bad-in-law. The challenge raised by the petitioner to the notification dated 29-09-2009 is about the manner of exercise of power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the MMDR Act and not to the availability of such power for reservation with the Central Government. Even otherwise the issue of notification dated 12-10-2006 by the State Government calling upon general public to file applications for grant of mining leases over certain areas and the order passed on 26-06-2008 in favour of the petitioner do not take away the special powers of the Central Government as vested in it under Section 17-A(1-A) of the MMDR Act - the Central Government notification cannot be said to be vitiated. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Revision Application filed by Respondent No.4.
2. Consideration of the Central Government's notification dated 29-09-2009 by the State Government while passing the order dated 26-06-2008.
3. Validity and impact of the Central Government's notification dated 29-09-2009.
4. Alleged ultra vires nature of the Central Government's notification dated 29-09-2009.
5. Whether the Central Government's notification dated 29-09-2009 was issued in consultation with the State Government.
6. Suitability of Respondent No.4 (MOIL) over the petitioner under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Revision Application filed by Respondent No.4:
The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the Revision Application filed by Respondent No.4 before the Central Government Tribunal, arguing that the recommendation made by the State Government was subject to the Central Government's approval and could not be challenged before such consideration. However, the court found that Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules allows any person aggrieved by an order of the State Government to apply for revision to the Central Government. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in *State of Assam v Om Prakash Mehta* which clarified that only the grant, not the rejection, of a mining lease requires Central Government approval. Therefore, the revision application by Respondent No.4 was maintainable.

2. Consideration of the Central Government's notification dated 29-09-2009 by the State Government while passing the order dated 26-06-2008:
The petitioner argued that the Central Government's notification dated 29-09-2009 should not have been considered by the State Government while passing the order dated 26-06-2008. The court noted that the Central Government Tribunal had given the State Government ample opportunity to clarify whether the area recommended for the petitioner was the same as that reserved in the notification. Despite this, the State Government did not provide a written response, leading the Tribunal to accept MOIL's submission that the areas were the same.

3. Validity and impact of the Central Government's notification dated 29-09-2009:
The petitioner contended that the notification was invalid as it reserved an area already recommended for a mining lease. The court clarified that the State Government's order dated 26-06-2008 was merely a recommendation and not a grant of lease, which required Central Government approval under Sections 5(1) and 11(5) of the MMDR Act. Since no lease deed was executed, the area was available for reservation under Section 17-A(1-A) of the MMDR Act. Therefore, the notification dated 29-09-2009 was valid.

4. Alleged ultra vires nature of the Central Government's notification dated 29-09-2009:
The petitioner argued that the notification was ultra vires as it ignored the State Government's prior notification inviting applications for the same area. The court found this argument contradictory, as the petitioner also claimed that the areas were different. The court emphasized that the notification was valid as it was issued in accordance with Section 17-A(1-A) of the MMDR Act, and the area was not already held under any lease.

5. Whether the Central Government's notification dated 29-09-2009 was issued in consultation with the State Government:
The petitioner claimed that the notification was issued without consulting the State Government. The court noted that there was no evidence from the State Government denying consultation. The notification itself stated that it was issued after consultation, and the court found no reason to doubt this claim.

6. Suitability of Respondent No.4 (MOIL) over the petitioner under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act:
The Central Government Tribunal had also observed that MOIL was a better deserving applicant under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act. However, the court did not find it necessary to comment on this observation, as the primary reason for setting aside the State Government's order was the reservation of the area under the Central Government's notification.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Central Government Tribunal's order and the notification dated 29-09-2009. The petitioner's request for continuation of the interim order was also rejected.