9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opment and Regulation) Act, 1957 ( MMDR Act ) - 58 applications were received, seeking grant of the mining leases over an area of 3566.54 hectares in Ghatkhuri reserved forest - letter also stated that priority was being given to Monnet in terms of Section 11 (3) of the Act on the basis of its technical mineral based industry and financial capacity - Government of India, summarily rejected the same. ORDER - R.M. Lodha - HELD THAT:- We may record that the Government of Jharkhand had issued one more notification subsequently, dated 27.10.2006, by which it was decided that the areas described in the 1962 and 1969 notifications will not be given to anyone, except to the public sector undertakings or joint venture projects of the State. No fundamental right in mining - The Appellants have applied for mining leases in a land belonging to Government of Jharkhand (erstwhile Bihar) and it is for iron-ore which is a mineral included in the First Schedule to the 1957 Act in respect of which no mining lease can be granted without the prior approval of the Central Government. It goes without saying that no person can claim any right in any land belonging to Government or in any min ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposal with certain pre-conditions. For withdrawal of such proposal by the State Government, in my view, no notice was legally required to be given. Moreover, no prejudice has been caused to it by not giving any notice before recalling the recommendation as it had no legal or vested right to the grant of mining lease. The area is not available for grant of mining lease in the private sector. For all these reasons, I do not find that the case of Monnet stands differently from the other Appellants. Therefore, there is no merit in these appeals and they are dismissed. H.L. Gokhale, J. - HELD THAT:- In M.A. Tulloch and Company [ 1963 (8) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT] , the Constitution Bench was concerned with legality of certain demands of fee under the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952, and the same question arose as to whether the provisions of the Orissa Act were hit by the MMDR Act, 1957 in view of Entry No. 54 of the Union List. The validity of the state act was canvassed under Entry No. 23 of the State List and was accepted as not hit by the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957. The Court held the Orissa Act and the demand of fee to be valid. In Baijnath Kadio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur Coal Company, M.A. Tulloch and Company and Baijnath Kadio (supra), but is a binding precedent. The notifications impugned by the Appellants in the present group of appeals were fully protected under the provisions of MMDR Act, and also as explained in Amritlal (supra). Desueutde - The submissions with respect to the two notifications suffering on account of Desuetude has also no merit, as the law requires that there must be a considerable period of neglect, and it is necessary to show that there is a contrary practice of a considerable time. The Appellants have not been able to show anything to that effect. The authorities of the State of Jharkhand have acted the moment the notifications were brought to their notice, and they have acted in accordance therewith. This certainly cannot amount to deusteude. Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectations - In the instant case it was only a proposal, and it was very much made clear that it was to be approved by the Central Government, prior whereto it could not be construed as containing a promise. Besides, equity cannot be used against a statutory provision or notification. What the Appellants are seeking is in a way s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v Mehta, Ajit Kr. Sinha, P.S. Narasimha, T.S. Doabia, Ashok Bhan, J.K. Das, Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Advs., Sanjiv Sen, Gaurav Goel, Sunil Mittal, Pulkit Sharma, E.C. Agrawala, Omar Ahmad, Prashant Mehta, Sunita Bankoti, Advs. for Suresh A. Shroff and Co., Jaya Bharukha, Guru Partap, Devashish Bharukha, Sanjee K. Kapoor, Zafar Inayat, Gaurav Juneja, Yogesh V. Kotemath, Rohini Misra, Rahul Chandra, Advs. for Khaitan and Co., K.B. Rohtagi, Mahesh Kasana, Aparana Rohatgi Jain, B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Rohit Chuodhary, Preeti Khiwani, Ram Krishnan, Garvesh Kabra, Gaurav Pratap, Advs. for Devashish Bharuka, Ratan Kumar Choudhari, Brahmajeet Mishra, N.N. Singh, S. Chandrashekhar, Ashwarya Sinha, Sunil Kumar Jain, Aneesh Mittal, Sachin Sharma, Sridhar Potaraju, Gaichang Gaamei, Sriram Parakkat, D. Siri Rao, Annapurna, Sandeep Gover, Siddhartha, Advs. for Luthra and Luthra, Madhurima Tatia, Sadhana Sandhu, Sunita Sharma, Gargi Khanna, S.S. Rawat, Advs. for D.S. Mahra, Adv., Avijeet Bhujabal, P.P. Nayak, Advs. for Parmanand Gaur, Adv. for S.L. Aneja, Subramonium Prasad, Mumtaz Bhalla, Sidhartha, Arijit Mazumdar, Ajay Aggarwal, Rajan Narain, Partha Sil, Devashish Bharuka, Anil K. Jha, S.K. Div ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the State and its consequences. The State Government has been empowered Under Section 3 to declare that the estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure holder, as may be specified in the notification/s from time to time, to become vested in the State. Section 4 provides for consequences of vesting of an estate or tenure in the State. Section 4 has undergone amendments on few occasions. To the extent it is relevant, Section 4 of the 1950 Bihar Act reads as follows: 4. Consequences of the vesting of an estate or tenure in the State. -Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any contract and notwithstanding any non-compliance or irregular compliance of the provisions...on the publication of the notification under Sub-section (1), of Section 3 or Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 3A, the following consequences shall ensue and shall be deemed always to have ensued, namely; (a) Suchestate or tenure including the interests of the proprietor or tenure-holder in any building or part of a building comprised in such estate or tenure ... as also his interest in all sub soil including any rights in mines a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment of India, on receipt of the recommendation of the State Government, sought for certain clarifications from the State Government vide their communication dated September 6, 2004. The State Government is said to have responded to the said communication and clarified the position in their reply of November 17, 2004. The State Government reiterated the recommendation in favour of Monnet setting out the comparative merit of all such proposals. 5.3. On November 17, 2004, the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa informed the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand that certain portions of Mauza Ghatkuri and the adjoining areas were reserved for public sector exploitation under the two Notifications issued by the Government of Bihar on December 21, 1962 and February 28, 1969. He further suggested that approval of the Central Government under Rule 59(2) of the 1960 Rules should be obtained by the State Government for grant of leases in this area to avoid complications. 5.4. The Central Government vide its letter dated June 15, 2005 informed that a joint meeting of officers of Ministry of Mines, Government of India and concerned off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carries on business of iron and steel. Adhunik intended to set up 2.2 MTPA integrated steel plant at Kandra in the State of Jharkhand. The first phase of this integrated steel plant is said to have been completed and commissioned in June, 2005. The work for completion of phase-II has been going on. On September 1, 2003, Adhunik made an application to the State Government for grant of mining lease over an area of 8809.37 acres (3566.54 hectares) in Mauza Ghatkuri for iron ore for captive consumption of its proposed integrated steel plant at Kandra, Jharkhand. 6.1. On September 16, 2003, the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa forwarded Adhunik's application along with few others to the Director of Mines, Jharkhand. 6.2. As the applications were overlapping, the Director of Mines called Adhunik and other applicants for a meeting on December 26, 2003. The Director of Mines gave hearing to the applicants, including Adhunik. 6.3. On February 26, 2004, an MOU was entered into between the State Government and Adhunik in connection with an integrated steel plant at Village Kandra in the District of Seraikela - Kharswan setting out the details of the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. According to Ispat, it is one of the largest steel producers in the private sector and has got vast resources and technical experience. Ispat intended to set up an integrated steel plant in the State of Jharkhand and accordingly made an application to the State Government for grant of mining lease over an area of 725.32 hectares in Village Rajabeda in West Singhbhum District for iron ore. 8.1. The State Government took a decision on August 5, 2004 to grant a mining lease over an area of 470.06 hectares for captive consumption of iron ore in respect of the area not overlapping with the area of any other major mineral. The State Government on August 5, 2004 also wrote to the Central Government seeking their prior approval in the matter. Civil Appeal No. 3289 of 2009, Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors. 9. Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited, to be referred as Jharkhand Ispat, is a registered company having their registered office in Ramgarh, District Hazaribagh, State of Jharkhand. Jharkhand Ispat runs a Sponge Iron and Steel Plant in Ramgarh. 9.1. Jharkhan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted while narrating the facts in the matter of Monnet. The main issue 13. The foremost point that arises for consideration is whether the Notifications dated December 21, 1962 (to be referred as 1962 Notification) and February 28, 1969 (to be referred as 1969 Notification) issued by the State of Bihar and the Notification dated October 27, 2006 (referred to as 2006 Notification) issued by the State of Jharkhand are legal and valid. It is a little complex point, because it involves threading one's way through statutory provisions contained in 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. I shall set them out to the extent these are relevant after noticing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. 14. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior Counsel for Monnet, did initially raise the plea that 1962 and 1969 Notifications were never published in the official gazette but on production of gazette copies of these Notifications by learned senior Counsel for the State of Jharkhand, the plea with regard to the non-publication of these Notifications was not carried further. 1962 Notification 15. The 1962 Notification issued by the erstwh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BOUNDARY South-East - A line running west-north-west-east-south-east passing through 2.20 feet contour at the south-western and of the Banlata ridge south-east - From 2 -1/2 furlongs east of 2187 north east wards upto 1/2 mile north-west of Pechahalu village (22 16': 85 20') and from here north-north - east upto 3 furlongs east-south-east of 2567 Painsira Buru). North - From the above and in west-north-west direction across the hill for five furlongs to reach the north-west slope of the hill. West - From above end in general south-south-west directing along the flank of the hill to reach the south-west boundary at three furlongs north-west 2187. By order of the Governor of Bihar Sd/- (B.N. Sinha) Secretary to Government 1969 Notification 16. Then, on February 28, 1969 the following Notification was issued: GOVERNMENT of BIHAR DEPARTMENT of MINES GEOLOGY NOTIFICATION ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elow: xxx Sd/- Vijoy Kumar Director I/c Geology Directorate Contentions 18. Learned senior Counsel for the Appellants highlighted different aspects while setting up challenge to the 1962, 1969 and 2006 Notifications. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior Counsel for Monnet focussed more on factual aspects peculiar to Monnet. I shall refer to the factual aspects highlighted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar in the later part of the judgment. While assailing validity of 1962, 1969 and 2006 Notifications, he referred to the provisions of 1957 Act and submitted that reservation was part of a regulatory regime. According to him, 'Regulation of mines' means regulatory regime which has been taken over by the Central Government and that would include 'reservation'. He would submit that a proprietary right should not be mixed up with inherent right insofar as mining is concerned. 19. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior Counsel for Ispat argued that the 2006 Notification was bad in law for (1) 1962 and 1969 Notifications were not valid and as such could not be relied upon to give sanctity to the 2006 Notification; (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 976 (4) SCC 108; India Cement Limited and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 1990 (1) SCC 12; Orissa Cement Limited v. State of Orissa and Ors. 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 430 and Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2010 (4) SCC 498 were cited. Mr. C.A. Sundaram sought to distinguish Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd and submitted that in any case Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd was not a good law. 22. Mr. L. Nageswara Rao and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior Counsel, appeared for Adhunik and argued that 1962 and 1969 Notifications were issued in contravention of law without the statutory prior approval of the Central Government under the 1957 Act. The 2006 Notification was only a reiteration of what was contained in the 1962 and 1969 Notifications. 2006 Notification is bad in law and ultra vires of Section 17A of the 1957 Act. It was submitted that the State Government never adopted the 1962 and 1969 Notifications and, therefore, these Notifications had lapsed even if passed with due authority of law. In this regard, the judgment in Pratik Sarkar, M.B. Suresh and Jitendra Laxman Thorve v. State of Jharkhand 2008 (56) 1 BLJR 660 was relied upon. 23. Mr. G.C. Bharuk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gate of the Parliament, can frame rules with respect to regulating the grant of mining lease . By placing reliance upon Baijnath Kadio 1969 (3) SCC 838 and Bharat Coking Coal 1990 (4) SCC 557, it was submitted that whether the rules are made or not, the topic is covered by Parliamentary Legislation and to that extent the power of State Legislature ceased to exist. With reference to Rule 58, it was submitted that by amendment brought in 1960 Rules in 1980, the State Governments became competent to reserve areas for exploitation by Government or a Corporation established by any Central, State or Provincial Act or a government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act. The Central Government could frame the above rule under its rule-making power in Section 13 of 1957 Act only because the topic of reservation was covered within the declaration Under Section 2 of the 1957 Act and was well within the scope of to the extent hereinafter provided . 25. In respect of validity of Notification dated October 27, 2006 issued by the State Government, it was submitted that 2006 Notification seeks to reserve the area for joint venture but that is not permissibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pens to be the owner of the land including mines, it does not give it power to mine or reserve outside the regime of 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. He submitted that Amritlal Nathubhai Shah's cased must be confined to its own facts. The decision in Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd was founded on the specific finding that the State's action was consistent with Rule 59; it does not test the proposition of a conflict between the State's power over land and the Union's take over of the field of mines and minerals. Moreover, learned senior Counsel would submit that Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd failed to take note of earlier Constitution Bench decisions of this Court. Learned senior Counsel also submitted that the decision of this Court in Kesoraml has no application as the said decision deals with the State's power to tax. 30. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior Counsel for Prakash submitted that prior to November 16, 1980, there was no power with the State Governments to reserve any area for exploitation by the Government or a Corporation established by Central or State Act or a government company. It was only by way of amendment to Rule 58 on November 16, 1980 that for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regulation and development' is occupied and the Central Government was the sole regulator. Mr. Ashok Bhan submitted that under the scheme of law, the State Government was denuded of its power other than what flows from the 1957 Act. In matters of Regulation of mines and development of minerals, according to Mr. Ashok Bhan, public interest is paramount. Reply on behalf of the State Government 33. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior Counsel for the State of Jharkhand, in reply, strongly contested the contentions of learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants. He vehemently contended that the State Government had the inherent power to reserve any area for exploitation as the owner of the land and minerals vested in it. He submitted that the Bihar Legislature enacted 1950 Bihar Act which received the assent of the President and came into force on September 25, 1950. Section 4(a) thereof vested all pre-existing estates or tenures including rights in mines and minerals absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances. 1950 Bihar Act has been held to be constitutionally valid by a decision of this Court in The State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Counsel referred to the provisions of the 1957 Act, particularly Sections 2, 4(3), 4A, 10(1), 13(2) (e), 16(1)(b), 17(1), 17A(1)(A), 18A(6), 21(5), 28 and 30 to show that Parliament itself contemplated state legislation for vesting of lands containing mineral deposits in the State Government and Parliament did not intend to trench upon powers of State legislatures under Entry 18 of List II. He relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Chanan Mal and Ors. 1977 (1) SCC 340, Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Limited and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 1980 (4) SCC 136 and Kesoram 2004 (10) SCC 201. He heavily relied upon the expression employed in Entry 54, 'to the extent to which such Regulation and development under the control of Union is declared by Parliament by law' and the expression 'to the extent hereinafter provided' in Section 2 of 1957 Act and submitted that what follows from this is that only when there is a bar or a prohibition in the law declared by the Parliament in the 1957 Act and/or the Rules made thereunder and if the State encroaches on the field covered/occupied then to that extent, the act or action of the St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh submitted that reservation of minerals is inherent right vested in the State. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior Counsel heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd and submitted that the said decision was binding and not per incuriam as contended on behalf of the Appellants. He submitted that many provisions in 1957 Act and 1960 Rules acknowledge that all minerals vest in the State and that power to reservation is contemplated by Rule 59 of 1960 Rules. 40. After this group of appeals was fully argued before us and the appeals were reserved for judgment, a Special Leave Petition, Geo-Minerals and Marketing (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors., arising out of the judgment of Orissa High Court in W.A. (c) No. 6288/2006 came up for final disposal wherein one of the issues concerning reservation of mining area by the Government of Orissa for exploitation in public sector was found to be involved. We thought fit that learned senior Counsel and Counsel appearing in that matter were also heard so that we can have benefit of their view-point as well. Accordingly, we heard M/s. Harish Salve, K.K. Venugopal and R.K. Dwivedi, learned seni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the Regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent hereinafter provided. 48. Section 3(a),(c),(d),(e),(f), (g) and (h) defines 'minerals', 'mining lease', 'mining operations', 'minor minerals', 'prescribed' 'prospecting licence' and 'prospecting operations' in the 1957 Act as under: (a) minerals includes all minerals except mineral oils; (c) mining lease means a lease granted for the purpose of undertaking mining operations, and includes a sub-lease granted for such purpose; (d) mining operations means any operations undertaken for the purpose of winning any mineral; (e) minor minerals means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral; (f) prescribed means prescribed by rules made under this Act; (g) prospecting licence means a licence granted fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny State Government (by whatever name called), and the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956:] Ins. by Act 16 of 1987, Section 14 (w.r.e.f. 1-10-1963) [Provided also that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to any mining lease (whether called mining lease, mining concession or by any other name) in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu.] Ins. by Act 38 of 1999, Section 5 (w.e.f. 18-12-1999) [(1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.] (2) Subs. by Act 38 of 1999, Section 5, for No prospecting licence or mining lease (w.e.f. 18-12-1999) [No reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] shall be grated otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. Ins. by Act 37 of 1986, Section 2 (w.e.f. 10-2-1987) [(3) Any State Government may, after prior consultation with the Central Government and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d conditions of the prospecting licence and is otherwise a fit person for being granted the mining lease. (2) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1), where two or more persons have applied for a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of the same land, the applicant whose application was received earlier shall have a preferential right for the grant of the licence or lease, as the case may be, over an applicant whose application was received later: Provided that where any such applications are received on the same day, the State Government, after taking into consideration the mattes specified in Sub-section (3), may grant the prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit. (3) The matters referred to in Sub-section (2) are the following: (a) any special knowledge of, or experience in, prospecting operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant; (b) the financial resources of the applicant; (c) the nature and quality of the technical staff employed or to be employed by the applicant; (d) s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rea is available for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, and the State Government has invited applications by notification in the Official Gazette for grant of such permit, licence or lease, all the applications received during the period specified in such notification and the applications which had been received prior to the publication of such notification in respect of the lands within such area and had not been disposed of, shall be deemed to have been received on the same day for the purposes of assigning priority under this Sub-section: Provided further that where any such applications are received on the same day, the State Government, after taking into consideration the matter specified in Sub-section (3), may grant the reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit. (3) The matters referred to in Sub-section (2) are the following: (a) any special knowledge of, or experience in, reconnaissance operations, prospecting operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that all mining leases granted before October 25, 1949 shall be brought into conformity with the provisions of 1957 Act and the Rules made Under Sections 13 and 18 after the commencement of 1957 Act. Then it provided that if the Central Government was of the opinion that in the interest of mineral development it was expedient so to do, it might permit any person to hold one or more such mining leases covering in any one State a total area in excess of that specified in Clause (b) of Section 6 or for a period exceeding that specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 8. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 has been amended in 1972 and 1994. 60. By virtue of Section 17, the Central Government has been given special powers to undertake prospecting or mining operations in certain cases. Section 17(1) was amended in 1972. After amendment, Section 17(1) reads as under: S. 17.-Special powers of Central Government to undertake prospecting or mining operations in certain lands.-( 1) The provisions of this Section shall apply in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government of a State or any other person. 61. Section 17A was inserted in the 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of environment by preventing or controlling any pollution which may be caused by prospecting or mining operations and for such purposes the Central Government may make rules. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 empowers the Central Government to make rules and provide for the matters stated in Clause (a) to Clause (q). 63. Section 18A was inserted in 1957 Act to enable the Central Government to authorize Geological Survey of India to carry out necessary investigation for the purpose of obtaining information with regard to availability of any mineral in or under any land in relation to which any prospecting licence or mining lease has been granted by a State Government or by any other person. Proviso that follows Sub-section (1) of Section 18A provides that in cases of prospecting licences or mining leases granted by a State Government, no such authorization shall be made except after consultation with the State Government. To the extent Section 18A is relevant, it is reproduced as under: S. 18A. Power to authorize Geological Survey of India, etc., to make investigation. -(1) Where the Central Government is of opinion that for the conservation and develop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Section 13 of the 1957 Act. These Rules were published on November 11, 1960. As noticed above, until these Rules came into effect, the Rules framed under 1948 Act remained operative. 67. By virtue of Rule 8, the provisions of Chapters II, III and IV have been made applicable to the grant of reconnaissance permits as well as grant and renewal of prospecting licences and mining leases in respect of the land in which the minerals vest in the State Government. 68. Rule 9 provides that an application for a prospecting licence and its renewal in respect of land in which the minerals vest in Government shall be made to the State Government in Form B and Form D respectively. The State Government is empowered to relax the provisions of Clause (d) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9. 69. Chapter-IV deals with grant of mining leases in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 provides that an application for the grant of a mining lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government shall be made to the State Government in Form I. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 provides that on receipt of the application f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not complete in all material particulars or is not accompanied by the required documents, the State Government shall, by notice, require the applicant to supply the omission or, as the case may be, furnish the documents, without delay and in any case not later than thirty days from the date of receipt of the said notice by the applicant. 72. Rule 31 provides for the time period within which lease is to be executed. It also provides for the date of commencement of the period. 73. Rule 58, as it originally stood, read as under: 58. Availability of areas for regrant to be notified. (1) No area which was previously held or which is being held under a prospecting licence or a mining lease as the case may be, or in respect of which the order granting licence or lease has been revoked under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 or Sub-rule (1) of Rule 31, shall be available for grant unless- (a) an entry to the effect made in the register referred to in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 or Sub-rule (2) of Rule 40, as the case may be in ink; and (b) the date from which the area shall be available for grant is notified in the Official Gazett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order had been made for the grant of a prospecting licence or mining lease, but the applicant has died before the grant of the licence or the execution of lease, as the case may be; or (c) in respect of which the order granting a licence or lease has been revoked under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 or Sub-rule (1) of Rule 31; or (d) in respect of which a notification has been issued under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (4) of Section 17; or (e) which has been reserved by Government under Rule 58, shall be available for grant unless (i) an entry to the effect that the area is available for grant is made in the register referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 or Sub-rule (2) of Rule 40, as the case may be, in ink; and (ii) the availability of the area for grant is notified in the Official Gazette and specifying a date (being a date not earlier than thirty days from the date of the publication of such notification in the Official Gazette) from which such area shall be available for grant: Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to the renewal of a lease in favour of the original lessee or his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75. Rule 60 of the 1960 Rules has been amended twice, first vide Notification dated January 16, 1980 and thereafter by the Notification dated January 17, 2000. After amendment, Rule 60 reads as under: 60. Premature applications .-Applications for the grant of a reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of areas whose availability for grant is required to be notified under Rule 59 shall, if (a) no notification has been issued, under that rule; or (b) where any such notification has been issued, the period specified in the notification has not expired, shall be deemed to be premature and shall not be entertained. 76. Rule 63 of the 1960 Rules provides that where previous approval of the Central Government is required under the 1957 Act or the 1960 Rules, the application for such approval shall be made to the Central Government through the State Government. 77. The above provisions give us complete view of the statutory framework and legal regime with regard to Regulation of mines and mineral development and the role and powers of the State Governments in that regard. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tence of the State Legislature itself. This position is not in dispute. 24. ... If it is held that this Act contains the declaration referred to in Entry 23 there would be no difficulty in holding that the declaration covers the field of conservation and development of minerals, and the said field is indistinguishable from the field covered by the impugned Act. What Entry 23 provides is that the legislative competence of the State Legislature is subject to the provisions of List I with respect to Regulation and development under the control of the Union, and Entry 54 in List I requires a declaration by Parliament by law that Regulation and development of mines should be under the control of the Union in public interest. Therefore, if a Central Act has been passed for the purpose of providing for the conservation and development of minerals, and if it contains the requisite declaration, then it would not be competent to the State Legislature to pass an Act in respect of the subject-matter covered by the said declaration. In order that the declaration should be effective it is not necessary that rules should be made or enforced; all that this required is a declaration by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct 27 of 1952 Act'. The High Court had held that fee imposed by the Orissa Act was rendered ineffective in view of the 1957 Act. The State of Orissa was in appeal from that judgment. The Court in para 5 and para 6 of the Report noted as follows: 5. Before proceeding further it is necessary to specify briefly the legislative power on the relevant topic, for it is on the precise wording of the entries in the 7th Schedule to the Constitution and the scope, purpose and effect of the State and the Central legislations which we have referred to earlier that the decision of the point turns. Article 246(1) reads: Notwithstanding anything in Clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the Union List) and we are concerned in the present case with the State power in the State field. The relevant clause in that context is clause (3) of the Article which runs: Subject to Clauses (1) and (2), the legislature of any State... has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce only to the extent to which Regulation and development under the control of the Union has been declared by Parliament to be expedient in the public interest . The crucial enquiry has therefore to be directed to ascertain this extent for beyond it the legislative power of the State remains unimpaired. As the legislation by the State is in the case before us the earlier one in point of time, it would be logical first to examine and analyse the State Act and determine its purpose, width and scope and the area of its operation and then consider to what extent the Central Act cuts into it or trenches on it. In para 9, the question under consideration was whether 'the extent of control and Regulation' provided by 1957 Act took within its fold the area or the subject covered by the Orissa Act. This Court in para 11 observed that the matter was concluded by earlier decision in Hingir-Rampur Coal Company Ltd. AIR 1961 SC 459. While following Hingir-Rampur Coal Company Ltd. AIR 1961 SC 459, it was observed in para 12 of the Report that Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 18 of 1957 Act were wider in scope and amplitude and conferred larger powers on the Central G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etence of the State Legislature but have to work it out from the terms of that Act. In this connection we may notice what was decided in the two cases of this Court. In the Hingir Rampur case a question had arisen whether the Act of 1948 so completely covered the field of conservation and development of minerals as to leave no room for State legislation. It. was held that the declaration was effective even if the rules contemplated under the Act of 1948 had not been made. However, considering further whether a declaration made by a Dominion Law could be regarded as a declaration made by Parliament for the purpose of Entry 54, it was held that it could not and there was thus a lacuna which the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950 could not remove. Therefore, it was held that there was room for legislation by the State Legislature. 15. In the M.A. Tulloch case the firm was working a mining lease granted under the Act of 1948. The State Legislature of Orissa then passed the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 and levied a fee for the development of mining areas within the State. After the provisions came into force a demand was made for payment of fees due from July ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court and the certificate granted by it, the matter reached this Court. The Court considered Entry 54 of List I, declaration made by Parliament in Section 2 of 1957 Act and State Legislature's power under Entry 23 of List II, and observed that in pursuance of its exclusive power to make laws with respect to the matters enumerated in Entry 54 of List I, Parliament specifically declared in Section 2 of the 1957 Act that it was expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the Regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent provided in the Act. The State Legislature's power under Entry 23 of List II was, thus, taken away and the Regulation of mines and development of minerals had to be in accordance with 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. While saying so, this Court held as follows: 3. ...The mines and the minerals in question (bauxite) were, however, in the territory of the State of Gujarat and, as was stated in the orders which were passed by the Central Government on the revision applications of the Appellants, the State Government is the owner of minerals within its territory, and the minerals vest in it. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been stated, the authority to order reservation flows from the fact that the State is the owner of the mines and the minerals within its territory, which vest in it. But quite apart from that, we find that Rule 59 of the Rules, which have been made Under Section 13 of the Act, clearly contemplates such reservation by an order of the State Government.... 86. In Amritlal Nathubhai Shah 1976 (4) SCC 108, the Court also considered Rules 58, 59 and 60 of the 1960 Rules and it was observed that it was not permissible for any person to apply for a licence or a lease in respect of a reserved area until after it becomes available for such grant. It was held on the facts of the case that the areas under consideration had been reserved by the State Government for the purpose stated in its notifications and as those lands did not become available for the grant of prospecting licence or a mining lease, the State Government was well within its rights in rejecting the applications of the Appellants under Rule 60 as premature and the Central Government was also justified in rejecting the revision applications which were filed against the orders of rejection passed by the State Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved but with reference to the declaration made in Section 2 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (for short, 'IDR Act') vis-`-vis the State Act under challenge, the majority judgment relying upon the earlier decisions of this Court in Baijnath Kadio 1969 (3) SCC 838 and Chanan Mal 1977 (1) SCC 340, held that to the extent the Union acquired control by virtue of declaration in Section 2 of the IDR Act, as amended from time to time, the power of the State Legislature under Entry 24 of List II to enact any legislation in respect of declared industry so as to encroach upon the field of control occupied by IDR Act would be taken away. It was held that 1957 Act only required that rights to mining granted in such land should be regulated by the provisions contained therein. M/s. Hind Stone 89. In M/s. Hind Stone 1981 (2) SCC 205, the question under consideration was about the validity of Rule 8-C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 which provided for lease for quarries in respect of black granite to the government corporation or by the government itself and that from December 7, 1977 no lease for quarrying bla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the provisions of the Act. It is the conservation and the prudent and discriminating exploitation of minerals, with a view to secure maximum benefit to the community. There are clear signposts to lead and guide the subordinate legislating authority in the matter of the making of rules. Viewed in the light shed by the other provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 4-A, 17 and 18, it cannot be said that the rule-making authority Under Section 15 has exceeded its powers in banning leases for quarrying black granite in favour of private parties and in stipulating that the State Government themselves may engage in quarrying black granite or grant leases for quarrying black granite in favour of any corporation wholly owned by the State Government. To view such a rule made by the subordinate legislating body as a rule made to benefit itself merely because the State Government happens to be the subordinate legislating body, is, but, to take too narrow a view of the functions of that body.... 90. The Court then considered Rule 8-C in light of the statement made in the counter affidavit filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and it was held that Rule 8-C was made in bona fide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (Development and Regulation) Act, is aimed, as we have already said more than once, at the conservation and the prudent and discriminating exploitation of minerals. Surely, in the case of a scarce mineral, to permit exploitation by the State or its agency and to prohibit exploitation by private agencies is the most effective method of conservation and prudent exploitation. If you want to conserve for the future, you must prohibit in the present. We have no doubt that the prohibiting of leases in certain cases is part of the Regulation contemplated by Section 15 of the Act. D.K. Trivedi and Sons 91. In D.K. Trivedi and Sons 1986 (Suppl.) SCC 20, this Court was concerned with the constitutional validity of Section 15(1) of 1957 Act; the power of the State Governments to make rules under that Section to enable them to charge dead rent and royalty in respect of leases of minor minerals granted by them and enhance the rates of dead rent and royalty during the subsistence of such lease, the validity of Rule 21-B of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 and certain notifications issued by the Government of Gujarat Under Section 15 amending the said Rules so a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The court also held that by giving the power to the State Governments to make rules, the control of the Union was not negatived but, on the contrary, it established that the Union was exercising the control. One of the contentions raised in that case was that Section 15 was unconstitutional as the delegation of legislative power made by it to the rule-making authority was excessive. This contention was, however, not decided by the court as the appeals in that case were allowed on other points. While dealing with the meaning of the word 'Regulation', particularly the expression, 'the act of regulating, or the state of being regulated' and Entry 54 in the Union List, this Court stated in paragraph 31 of the Report (Pgs. 48-49) as follows: 31. Entry 54 in the Union List uses the word Regulation . Regulation is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edn., as meaning the act of regulating, or the state of being regulated . Entry 54 reproduces the language of Entry 36 in the Federal Legislative List in the Government of India Act, 1935, with the omission of the words and oilfields . When the Constitution came to be enacted, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es it clear that the topics set out in that Sub-section are already included in the general power conferred by Sub-section (1) but are being listed to particularize them and to focus attention on them. The particular matters in respect of which the Central Government can make rules under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 are, therefore, also matters with respect to which under Sub-section (1) of Section 15 the State Governments can make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith . When Section 14 directs that The provisions of Sections 4 to 13 (inclusive) shall not apply to quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals , what is intended is that the matters contained in those Sections, so far as they concern minor minerals, will not be controlled by the Central Government but by the concerned State Government by exercising its rule-making power as a delegate of the Central Government. Sections 4 to 12 form a group of Sections under the heading General restrictions on undertaking prospecting and mining operations . The exclusion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder: 6. Earlier the expression reserved for any purpose was followed by the words other than prospecting or mining for minerals , which were omitted by an amendment in 1963. Mr. Dholakia, Learned Counsel for the Respondents, appearing in support of the impugned judgment, has contended that as a result of this amendment the expression must now be confined to cases of prospecting or mining for minerals and all other cases where the earlier reservation was for agricultural, industrial or any other purpose must be excluded from the scope of the rule. We are not persuaded to accept the suggested interpretation. Earlier the only category which was excluded from the application of Rule 59 was prospecting or mining leases and the effect of the amendment is that by omitting this exception, prospecting and mining leases are also placed in the same position as the other cases. We do not see any reason as to why by including in the rule prospecting and mining leases, the other cases to which it applied earlier would get excluded. The result of the amendment is to extend the rule and not to curtail its area of operation. The words any purpose is of wide connotation and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of Entry 54 of List I and the Parliamentary declaration made Under Section 2 of the Act. Since State legislature's power to make law with respect to the matter enumerated in Entry 23 of List II has been taken away by the Parliamentary declaration, the State Government ceased to have any executive power in the matter relating to Regulation of mines and mineral development. Moreover, the proviso to Article 162 itself contains limitation on the exercise of the executive power of the State. It lays down that in any matter with respect to which the legislature of a State and Parliament have power to make laws, the executive power of State shall be subject to limitation of the executive power expressly conferred by the Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon the Union or authority thereof... Orissa Cement Ltd. 94. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Orissa Cement Limited 1991 Suppl. (1)SCC 430 was concerned with the validity of the levy of a cess based on the royalty derived from mining lands by States of Bihar, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. The case of the Petitioners therein was that similar levy had been struck down by a seven-Judge Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the State List and did not encroach on the field of the Central enactment except by way of incidental impact. The Central Act, considered in Chanan Mal, seemed to envisage and indeed permit State legislation of the nature in question. 50. To turn to the respective spheres of the two legislations we are here concerned with, the Central Act (M.M.R.D. Act, 1957) demarcates the sphere of Union control in the matter of mines and mineral development. While concerning itself generally with the requirements regarding grants of licences and leases for prospecting and exploitation of minerals, it contains certain provisions which are of direct relevance to the issue before us. Section 9, which deals with the topic of royalties and specifies not only the quantum but also the limitations on the enhancement thereof, has already been noticed. Section 9A enacts a like provision in respect of dead rent.... 51. If one looks at the above provisions and bears in mind that, in Assessing the field covered by the Act of Parliament in question, one should be guided (as laid down in Hingir-Rampur and Tulloch) not merely by the actual provisions of the Central Act or the rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Court was concerned with the principal question as to whether the Petitioners therein were entitled to obtain leases for the mining of chrome. While dealing with the principal question and other incidental questions, the Court considered Entry 54 of List I, Entry 23 of List II, the 1957 Act, particularly, Sections 2, 4, 10, 11, 17A and 19 thereof and the 1960 Rules including Rules 58, 59 and 60 thereof. While dealing with the reservation policy of the State Government in having the area reserved for exploitation in the public sectors, the Court observed in paragraphs 39 and 40 (Pg. 133) as follows: 39. The principal obstacle in the way of ORIND as well as the other private parties getting any leases was put up by the S.G., OMC and IDCOL. They claimed that none of the private applications could at all be considered because the entire area in all the districts under consideration is reserved for exploitation in the public sector by the notification dated August 3, 1977 earlier referred to. All the private parties have therefore joined hands to fight the case of reservation claimed by the S.G., OMC and IDCOL. We have indicated earlier that the S.G. expressed its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IDCOL. This reservation is of two types. Under Section 17A (1), inserted in 1986, the C.G. may after consulting the S.G. just reserve any area-not covered by a PL or a ML-with a view to conserving any mineral. Apparently, the idea of such reservation is that the minerals in this area will not be exploited at all, neither by private parties nor in the public sector. It is not necessary to consider whether any area so reserved can be exploited in the public sector as we are not here concerned with the scope of such reservation, there having been no notification Under Section 17A(1) after 1986 and after consultation with the S.G. The second type of reservation was provided for in Rule 58 of the rules which have already been extracted earlier in this judgment. This reservation could have been made by the S.G. (without any necessity for approval by the C.G.) and was intended to reserve areas for exploitation, broadly speaking, in the public sector. The notification itself might specify the Government, Corporation or Company that was to exploit the areas or may be just general, on the lines of the rule itself. Under Rule 59(1), once a notification under Rule 58 is made, the area so rese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he C.G. inter se or between the instrumentalities of the S.G. inter se, a question may well arise how far an unsuccessful instrumentality can challenge the choice made by the S.G. But we need not enter into these controversies here. The question we are concerned with here is whether OMC or IDCOL can object to the grant to any of the private parties on the ground that a reservation has been made in favour of the public sector. We think the answer must be in the negative in view of the statutory provisions. For the S.G. could always denotify the reservation and make the area available for grant to private parties. Or, short of actually dereserving a notified area, persuade the C.G. to relax the restrictions of Rule 59(1) in any particular case. It is. therefore, open to the S.G. to grant private leases even in respect of areas covered by a notification of the S.G. and this cannot be challenged by any instrumentality in the public sector. The legal position post amendment in 1957 Act by Central Act 37 of 1987 was explained (para 46; Pgs. 138-139) in the following manner: 46. Before leaving this point, we may only refer to the position after 1986. Central Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh v. Union of India and Ors. 1996 (6) SCC 702, a three-Judge Bench of this Court while considering Section 10(3) and 11(2) of the 1957 Act, observed that in grant of mining lease of a property of the State, the State Government has a discretion to grant or refuse to grant any prospective licence or licence to any applicant. No applicant has a right, much less vested right, to the grant of mining lease for mining operations in any place within the State. But, the State Government is required to exercise its discretion subject to the requirement of the law. Bhupatrai Maganlal Joshi 97. In Bhupatrai Maganlal Joshi : 2001 (10) SCC 476, a Constitution Bench of this Court was concerned with the correctness of the High Court's decision on the question whether the reservation of land for exploitation of mineral resources in the public sector was permissible under the 1957 Act read with 1960 Rules. The High Court had answered the question in the affirmative from which the matter reached this Court. In a very brief order this Court agreed with the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court. M.P. Ram Mohan Raja 98. In the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 11(4) which would apply to a Notification issued under Rule 59(1). Rule 59(1) provides that the categories of areas listed in it including, inter alia, areas that were previously held or being under a mining lease or which have been reserved for exploitation by the State Government or Under Section 17A of the Act, shall not be available for grant unless (i) an entry is made in the register and (ii) its availability for grant is notified in the Official Gazette specifying a date not earlier than 30 days from the date of notification. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 59 empowers the Central Government to relax the conditions set out in Rule 59(1) in respect of an area whose availability is required to be notified under Rule 59 if no application is issued or where notification is issued, the 30-days black-out period specified in the notification pursuant to Rules 59(1)(i) and (ii) has not expired, shall be deemed to be premature and shall not be entertained. 63. As discussed earlier, Section 11(4) is consistent with Rules 59 and 60 when it provides for consideration only of applications made pursuant to a Notification. On the other hand, the consideration of applications mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter of fact, the Respondents have not been able to point out any other provision in the MMDR Act or the MC Rules permitting grant of mining lease based on past commitments. As rightly pointed out, the State Government has no authority under the MMDR Act to make commitments to any person that it will, in future, grant a mining lease in the event that the person makes investment in any project. Assuming that the State Government had made any such commitment, it could not be possible for it to take an inconsistent position and proceed to notify a particular area. Further, having notified the area, the State Government certainly could not thereafter honour an alleged commitment by ousting other applicants even if they are more deserving on the merit criteria as provided in Section 11(3). Whether 1962 and 1969 Notifications are ultra vires? 100. Now, in light of the above, I have to consider whether 1962 and 1969 Notifications issued by the Government of erstwhile State of Bihar notifying for the information of public that iron ore in the subject area was reserved for exploitation in the public sector are ultra vires and de hors 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment had taken under 'its control' 'the Regulation of mines and development of minerals' under 1957 Act, the States had lost their legislative competence. By the presence of expression 'to the extent hereinafter provided' in Section 2, the Union has assumed control to the extent provided in 1957 Act. 1957 Act prescribes the extent of control and specifies it. We must bear in mind that as the declaration made in Section 2 trenches upon the State Legislative power, it has to be construed strictly. Any legislation by the State after such declaration, trespassing the field occupied in the declaration cannot constitutionally stand. To find out what is left within the competence of the State Legislature on the declaration having been made in Section 2 of the 1957 Act, one does not have to look outside the provisions of 1957 Act but as observed in Baijnath Kadio 1969 (3) SCC 838, 'have to work it out from the terms of that Act'. In order that the declaration made by the Parliament should be effective, the making of rules or enforcement of rules so made is not decisive. 102. The declaration made by Parliament in Section 2 of 1957 Act states th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be granted mining lease or prospecting licence or permitted reconnaissance operation in any land belonging to the Government. It is apt to quote the following statement of O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in M/s. Hind Stone 1981 (2) SCC 205, albeit in the context of minor mineral, 'The public interest which induced Parliament to make the declaration contained in Section 2... has naturally to be the paramount consideration in all matters concerning the Regulation of mines and the development of minerals'. He went on to say, 'The statute with which we are concerned, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, is aimed ...at the conservation and the prudent and discriminating exploitation of minerals. Surely, in the case of a scarce mineral, to permit exploitation by the State or its agency and to prohibit exploitation by private agencies is the most effective method of conservation and prudent exploitation. If you want to conserve for the future, you must prohibit in the present.' State Government's ownership in mines and minerals within its territory and the power of reservation 105. It is not in dispute that all rights and interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on made by Parliament in Section 2 and the provisions that follow Section 2 in 1957 Act, which have been extensively referred to above, even remotely do not suggest that the Government of the erstwhile State of Bihar lacked authority or competence to make reservation of subject mining areas within its territory relating to iron ore which vested in it for public sector undertaking by 1962 and 1969 Notifications. Whatever way it is seen, whether 'reservation' topic was covered by 1957 Act when 1962 and 1969 Notifications were issued and published by the State Government or whether the provisions of 1957 Act, as were then existing, enabled the State Government to reserve the subject area for its own use through the agency in public sector, I am of the opinion that since the State Government's paramount right over the iron ore being the owner of the mines did not get affected by 1957 Act, the power existed with the State Government to reserve subject areas of mining for exploitation in public sector undertaking. It was, however, argued that by 1957 Act the State's ownership rights insofar as 'development of minerals' was concerned stood frozen. 'Development& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prehensive. 109. The Regulation of mines and development of minerals has been taken over under its control by the Central Government to the extent it is manifested in 1957 Act which does not contemplate acquisition of mines and minerals. By the presence of keynote expression 'to the extent hereinafter provided' in Section 2, the Union has assumed control to the extent specified in the provisions following Section 2. In my view, although the word `Regulation' must in the context receive wide interpretation, but the extent of control by Union as specified in 1957 Act has to be construed strictly. The decisions of this Court in M.A. Tulloch and Company AIR 1964 SC 1284, Baijnath Kadio 1969 (3) SCC 838, Bharat Coking Coal 1990 (4) SCC 557 and few other decisions where this Court has held with reference to declaration made by Parliament in Section 2 of 1957 Act and the provisions of that Act that the whole of the legislative field was covered were in the context of specific State legislations under consideration. In the context of subject State legislation, the whole legislative field was found to be occupied by the Central law. The same is the position in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were general in nature and traceable to specific entries in the State List and did not encroach on the field of the Central enactment except by way of incidental impact'. 111. Secondly, after enactment of 1957 Act and 1960 Rules made thereunder, the Central Government has all throughout understood that the State Governments as owner of mines and minerals within their territory have inherent right to reserve any particular area for exploitation in the public sector. This position is reflected from the order of the Central Government that was passed by it and which was under challenge in Amritlal Nathubhai Shah 1976 (4) SCC 108. In its order the Central Government had stated, '...The State Government had the inherent right to reserve any particular area for exploitation in the public sector. Mineral vest in them and they are owners of minerals...and Central Government are in agreement with the State Government in so far as the reservation of areas is concerned.... 112. The above position held by the Central Government has been approved by this Court in Amritlal Nathubhai Shah 1976 (4) SCC 108. I have already referred to the facts in the case of Amri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1957 Act and the 1960 Rules on the other. The authority of the State Government to make reservation of a particular mining area within its territory for its own use is the offspring of ownership; and it is inseparable therefrom unless denied to it expressly by an appropriate law. By 1957 Act that has not been done by Parliament. Setting aside by a State of land owned by it for its exclusive use and under its dominance and control, in my view, is an incident of sovereignty and ownership. There is no incongruity or inconsistency in the decisions of this Court in Hingir-Rampur Coal Company AIR 1961 SC 459, M.A. Tulloch and Company AIR 1964 SC 1284, Baijnath Kadio 1969 (3) SCC 838 and Amritlal Nathubhai Shah 1976 (4) SCC 108. The Bench in Amritlal Nathubhai Shah 1976 (4) SCC 108 was alive to the legal position highlighted by this Court in Hingir-Rampur Coal Company AIR 1961 SC 459, M.A. Tulloch and Company AIR 1964 SC 1284 and Baijnath Kadio 1969 (3) SCC 838 although it did not expressly refer to these decisions. This is apparent from the observations made in para 3 wherein it has been stated that in pursuance of its exclusive power to make laws with respect t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Section 17 finds support from Amritlal Nathubhai Shah 1976 (4) SCC 108. Insofar as Section 18 is concerned, it basically confers additional rule making power upon the Central Government for achieving the objectives, namely, conservation and systematic development of minerals articulated therein. If the State Government makes reservation in public interest with respect to minerals which vest in it for exploitation in public sector, I fail to see how such reservation can be seen as impairing the obligation cast upon the Central Government Under Section 18. Rule 59 and Janak Lal 117. It is true that Rule 58 as it existed originally did not enable the State Government to reserve any area in the State for exploitation of minerals in public sector. But Rule 59 did recognise the State Government's authority to make reservation for any purpose. It was, however, argued by Dr. Rajiv Dhavan that Rule 59, as it then stood, allowed reservation for any purpose other than prospecting or mining for minerals. He relied upon decision of this Court in Janak Lal 1989 (4) SCC 121. In Janak Lal 1989 (4) SCC 121, admittedly the disputed area was reserved for nistar purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay by Notification in the official gazette reserve any area for exploitation by the Government, a corporation established by the Central, State or Provincial Act or a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act. Rule 58 has been omitted from 1960 Rules as the provision for reservation has now been expressly made by insertion of Section 17A in 1957 Act. According to Section 17A(2), the State Government with the approval of the Central Government may reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease to undertake prospecting or mining operations through a Government company or a corporation owned or controlled by it. In terms of Section 17A(2), any reservation made by the State Government after coming into force of that Section must bear approval of the Central Government. 120. From the above, it becomes clear that what was implied by the provisions originally contained in 1957 Act and 1960 Rules insofar as authority of the State Government to reserve any area within its territory for mining in public sector has been made explicit first by amendment in Rule 58 in 1980 and later on by introduction of Section 17A i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a cardinal principle of construction that every statue is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only. In Principles of Statutory Interpretation (Seventh Edition, 1999) by Justice G.P. Singh, the statement of Lord Blanesburg in Colonial Sugar Refining Company v. Irving (1905) AC 369 and the observations of Lopes, L.J. in Pulborough Parish School Board Election, Bourke v. Nutt (1894) 1 QB 725, p. 737 have been noted as follows: In the words of Lord Blanesburg, provisions which touch a right in existence at the passing of the statute are not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment. Every statute, it has been said , observed Lopes, L.J., which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions already past, must be presumed to be intended not to have a retrospective effect. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atkuri would not be thrown open for grant of prospecting licence, mining licence or otherwise for private parties. In the said Notification, it was noted that the deposits were at all material times kept reserved by 1962 and 1969 Notifications issued by the State of Bihar. It was further mentioned in the Notification that mineral reserved in Ghatkuri area has now been decided to be utilized for exploitation by public sector undertaking or joint venture project of the State Government as they would usher in maximum benefits to the State and would generate substantial amount of employment in the State. 2006 Notification states that it has been issued in the public interest and in the larger interest of the State for optimum utilization and exploitation of the mineral resources in the State and for establishment of mineral based industry with value addition thereon. It was argued that 2006 Notification is bad for the same reasons for which 1962 and 1969 Notifications are bad in law and invalid. The argument is noted to be rejected. For 1962 and 1969 Notifications are not and have not been found by me to suffer from any legal infirmity. 2006 Notification mentions factum of reservation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State Government before the exercise of power of reservation or after exercise of such power. The approval by the Central Government contemplated in Section 17A(2) may be express or implied. In a case such as the present one where the Central Government has relied upon 2006 Notification while rejecting Appellants' application for grant of mining lease, it necessarily implies that the Central Government has approved reservation made by State Government in 2006 Notification otherwise it would not have acted on the same. In any case, the Central Government has not disapproved reservation made by the State Government in 2006 Notification. 130. Two more contentions advanced on behalf of the Appellants, one, with regard to 2006 Notification and the other with regard to 1962 and 1969 Notifications may be briefly noticed. As regards 2006 Notification it was contended that it was not legally valid as it has been made operative with retrospective effect. In respect of 1962 and 1969 Notifications, it was argued that the State Government had never adopted these Notifications and, accordingly, these Notifications lapsed. None of these two arguments has any merit. 2006 Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also a cold storage plant and a steel foundry. On October 10, 1968 a news item was carried in the newspaper/s that the State of Uttar Pradesh had decided to give exemption from sales tax for a period of three years Under Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to all new industrial units in the State with a view to enabling them, to come on firm footing in developing stage . Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills 1979 (2) SCC 409 on the basis of the above news, addressed a letter to the Director of the Industries stating that in view of the Sales Tax Holiday announced by the Government, it intended to set up a hydrogeneration plant for manufacture of vanaspati and sought confirmation whether proposed industrial unit would be entitled to sales tax holiday for a period of three years from the date it commenced production. The Director of Industries replied that there would be no sales tax for three years on the finished product of the vanaspati from the date it got power connection for commencing production. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills 1979 (2) SCC 409 then started taking steps for establishment of the factory. It entered into agreement for procuring plant and machinery and also took diverse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal position as follows: 8. ... The true principle of promissory estoppel, therefore, seems to be that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties, and this would be so irrespective of whether there is any pre-existing relationship between the parties or not. Then in para 9, the Court stated that it was a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice. The Court pointed out that where promise is made by a person knowing that it would be acted on by the person to whom it is made and in fact it is so acted on, it is inequitable to allow the party making the promise to go back upon it. 133. In para 13, the development of do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1970) 1 SCC 582, M. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala (1974) 1 SCR 515, Assistant Custodian v. Brij Kishore Agarwala (1975) 1 SCC 21, State of Kerala v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Company Ltd. (1973) 2 SCC 713, Excise Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad v. Ram Kumar: (1976) 3 SCC 540, Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh (1977) 4 SCC 145 and Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar: (1977) 3 SCC 457 were considered. 137. After entering into detailed consideration as noted above, in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills 1979 (2) SCC 409, this Court exposited the legal position that the doctrine of promissory estoppel may be applied against the State even in its governmental, public or sovereign capacity where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. The following position was culled out: The promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to compel the Government or even a private party to do an act prohibited by law. To invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel it is not necessary for the promisee to show that he suffered any detriment as a result of acting in reliance on the promise. The detriment is not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause of action. The decision of this Court in Motilal Sugar Mills case contains an exhaustive discussion of the doctrine of promissory estoppel and we find ourselves wholly in agreement with the various parameters of this doctrine outlined in that decision. 139. The doctrine of promissory estoppel also came up for consideration before this Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Limited v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 86. In para 18 (page 95) of the Report the Court stated as follows: 18. Here the Railways Rates Tribunal apparently, appears to have gone off the track. The doctrine of promissory estoppel has not been correctly understood by the Tribunal. It is true, that in the formative period, it was generally said that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked by the promisee unless he has suffered detriment or prejudice . It was often said simply, that the party asserting the estoppel must have been induced to act to his detriment. But this has now been explained in so many decisions all over. All that is now required is that the party asserting the estoppel must have acted upon the assurance given to him. Must have relied upon the repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... country. To put it simply, the doctrine represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice. The basis of the doctrine is that where any party has by his word or conduct made to the other party an unequivocal promise or representation by word or conduct, which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing as well as intending that the representation, assurance or the promise would be acted upon by the other party to whom it has been made and has in fact been so acted upon by the other party, the promise, assurance or representation should be binding on the party making it and that party should not be permitted to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings, which have taken place or are intended to take place between the parties. 12. It has been settled by this Court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable against the Government also particularly where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. The doctrine, however, cannot be pressed into aid to compel the Government or the public authority to carry out a representation or p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts were totally different. In the correspondence exchanged between the State and the Petitioners therein it was held out to the Petitioners that the industry would be exempted from sales tax for a particular number of initial years but when the State sought to levy the sales tax it was held by this Court that it was precluded from doing so because of the categorical representation made by it to the Petitioners through letters in writing, who had relied upon the same and set up the industry. 21. The power to grant exemption from payment of duty, additional duty etc. under the Act, as already noticed, flows from the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act. The power to exempt includes the power to modify or withdraw the same. The liability to pay customs duty or additional duty under the Act arises when the taxable event occurs. They are then subject to the payment of duty as prevalent on the date of the entry of the goods. An exemption notification issued Under Section 25 of the Act had the effect of suspending the collection of customs duty. It does not make items which are subject to levy of customs duty etc. as items not leviable to such duty. It only suspends the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt went on to observe (paras 24 and 25, pages 289-290) as under: 24. It needs no emphasis that the power of exemption Under Section 25(1) of the Act has been granted to the Government by the Legislature with a view to enabling it to regulate, control and promote the industries and industrial productions in the country. Where the Government on the basis of the material available before it, bona fide, is satisfied that the public interest would be served by either granting exemption or by withdrawing, modifying or rescinding an exemption already granted, it should be allowed a free hand to do so. We are unable to agree with the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that Notification No. 66 of 1979 could not be withdrawn before 31-3-1981. First, because the exemption notification having been issued Under Section 25(1) of the Act, it was implicit in it that it could be rescinded or modified at any time if the public interest so demands and secondly it is not permissible to postpone the compulsions of public interest till after 31-3-1981 if the Government is satisfied as to the change in the circumstances before that date. Since, the Government in the instant case was sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited (1985) 4 SCC 369 which was found to be close to the facts of that case. The Court did not accept the argument canvassed on behalf of the State of Punjab that the overriding public interest would make it inequitable to enforce the estoppel against the State Government. 144. In Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 625, the development of doctrine of promissory estoppel was noted (paras 5-7, pages 631-633) and it was held as under: 5. Estoppel is a rule of equity which has gained new dimensions in recent years. A new class of estoppel has come to be recognised by the courts in this country as well as in England. The doctrine of promissory estoppel has assumed importance in recent years though it was dimly noticed in some of the earlier cases. The leading case on the subject is Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd., (1947) 1 K.B. 130 The rule laid down in High Trees case again came up for consideration before the King's Bench in Combe v. Combe [(1951) 2 KB 215]. Therein the Court ruled that the principle stated in High Trees case is that, where one party has, by his words or conduct, made to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. State of Bihar [(1977) 3 SCC 457], Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Ltd. v. State of U.P. [ (1979) 2 SCC 409], Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (1985) 4 SCC 369] and Ashok Kumar Maheshwari (Dr.) v. State of U.P. [ (1998) 2 SCC 502]. 6. In the backdrop, let us travel a little distance into the past to understand the evolution of the doctrine of promissory estoppel . Dixon, J., an Australian jurist, in Grundt v. Great Boulder Gold Mines Pty. Ltd. [(1939) 59 CLR 641 (Aust HC) laid down as under: It is often said simply that the party asserting the estoppel must have been induced to act to his detriment. Although substantially such a statement is correct and leads to no misunderstanding, it does not bring out clearly the basal purpose of the doctrine. That purpose is to avoid or prevent a detriment to the party asserting the estoppel by compelling the opposite party to adhere to the assumption upon which the former acted or abstained from acting. This means that the real detriment or harm from which the law seeks to give protection is that which would flow from the change of position if the assumptions were deserted that led to it. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her there exists an element of mutuality in the contract. If there is absence of mutuality the court will not exercise discretion in favour of the Plaintiffs. Even if, want of mutuality is regarded as discretionary and not as an absolute bar to specific performance, the court has to consider the entire conduct of the parties in relation to the subject-matter and in case of any disqualifying circumstances the court will not grant the relief prayed for (Snell's Equity, 31st Edn., p. 366).... 146. In my view, the following principles must guide a Court where an issue of applicability of promissory estoppel arises: (i) Where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is, in fact, so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place bet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he result sought to be achieved and the public good at large. The fundamental principle of equity must forever be present to the mind of the court. Absence of it must not hold the Government or the public authority to its promise, assurance or representation. Principles of legitimate expectation 147. As there are parallels between the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation because both these doctrines are founded on the concept of fairness and arise out of natural justice, it is appropriate that the principles of legitimate expectation are also noticed here only to appreciate the case of the Appellants founded on the basis of doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. 148. In Union of India and Ors. v. Hindustan Development Corporation and Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 499, this Court had an occasion to consider nature, scope and applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The matter related to a government contract. This Court in paragraph 35 (Pgs. 548-549) observed as follows: 35. Legitimate expectations may come in various forms and owe their existence to different kind of circumstances and it is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to why the legitimate expectation should not be substantively protected than the reasons as to why it should be protected. In other words such a legal obligation exists whenever the case supporting the same in terms of legal principles of different sorts, is stronger than the case against it. As observed in Attorney General for New South Wales case: [(1990) 64 Aust LJR 327]: To strike down the exercise of administrative power solely on the ground of avoiding the disappointment of the legitimate expectations of an individual would be to set the courts adrift on a featureless sea of pragmatism. Moreover, the notion of a legitimate expectation (falling short of a legal right) is too nebulous to form a basis for invalidating the exercise of a power when its exercise otherwise accords with law. If a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of right guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse of power or violation of principles of natural justice, the same can be questioned on the well-known grounds attracting Article 14 but a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive and the legislature. Granting licences for import or export is by executive or legislative policy. Government would take diverse factors for formulating the policy for import or export of the goods granting relatively greater priorities to various items in the overall larger interest of the economy of the country. It is, therefore, by exercise of the power given to the executive or as the case may be, the legislature is at liberty to evolve such policies. 4. An applicant has no vested right to have export or import licences in terms of the policies in force at the date of his making application. For obvious reasons, granting of licences depends upon the policy prevailing on the date of the grant of the licence or permit. The authority concerned may be in a better position to have the overall picture of diverse factors to grant permit or refuse to grant permission to import or export goods. The decision, therefore, would be taken from diverse economic perspectives which the executive is in a better informed position unless, as we have stated earlier, the refusal is mala fide or is an abuse of the power in which event it is for the applicant to plead and prove to the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 is worth noticing. The Court observed that legitimate expectation was different from anticipation; granting relief on mere disappointment of expectation would be too nebulous a ground for setting aside a public exercise by law and it would be necessary that a ground recognized under Article 14 of the Constitution was made out by a litigant. 153. It is not necessary to multiply the decisions of this Court. Suffice it to observe that the following principles in relation to the doctrine of legitimate expectation are now well established: (i) The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked as a substantive and enforceable right. (ii) The doctrine of legitimate expectation is founded on the principle of reasonableness and fairness. The doctrine arises out of principles of natural justice and there are parallels between the doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel. (iii) Where the decision of an authority is founded in public interest as per executive policy or law, the court would be reluctant to interfere with such decision by invoking doctrine of legitimate expectation. The legitimate expectation doctrine cannot be invok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Iron Ore Mining and Phase-III comprised of establishment of Power Plant. Para 4 of MOU states that Adhunik requires help and cooperation of the State Government in several areas to enable them to construct, commission and operate the project. The State Government's willingness to extend all possible help and cooperation is stated in the above MOU. Para 4.3 of MOU records that the State Government shall assist in selecting the area for Adhunik for iron ore and other minerals as per requirement of the company depending upon quality and quantity. The State Government also agreed to grant mineral concession as per existing Acts and Rules. 156. In pursuance of the above MOU, the State Government through its Deputy Secretary, Mining and Geology Department recommended to the Government of India through its Joint Director, Mining Ministry on August 4, 2004 to grant prior approval Under Section 11(5) and Section 5(1) of the 1957 Act for grant of mining lease to Adhunik for a period of 30 years in the area of 426.875 hectares. The reasons for such recommendation were stated by the State Government in the above communication. In the above communication, it was stated that Adhun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... area for exploitation in the public sector. It was on November 17, 2004 that the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa informed the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand that certain portions of Mauza Ghatkuri and the adjoining areas were reserved for public sector under 1962 and 1969 Notifications issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar. The District Mining Officer suggested to the State Government that approval of the Central Government should be obtained for grant of leases to the concerned applicants. In his communication, he stated that the fact of reservation of the subject area in public sector vide 1962 and 1969 Notifications was brought to the knowledge of the Director of Mines, Jharkhand but he did not take any timely or adequate action in the matter. In view of the fact that the subject mining area had been reserved for exploitation in public sector under 1962 and 1969 Notifications, in my opinion, the stipulation in the MOU that the State Government shall assist in selecting the area for iron ore and other minerals as per requirement of the company and the commitment to grant mineral concession cannot be enforced. For one, the stipulation in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of promise, assurance or representation which is against law, public interest and public policy which I am afraid cannot be permitted. 162. On behalf of the Appellants, it was also argued that the 1962 and 1969 Notifications had remained in disuse for about 40 years and it is reasonable to infer that these two Notifications no longer operated. In this regard, the doctrine of quasi repeal by desuetude was sought to be invoked. Doctrine of desuetude 163. The doctrine of desuetude and its applicability in Indian Jurisprudence have been considered by this Court on more than one occasion. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik and Ors. (1982) 3 SCC 519, the Court noted the decision of Scrutton, L.J. in R.v. London County Council LR (1931) 2 KB 215 (CA) and the view of renowned author Allen in Law in the Making and observed that the rule concerning desuetude has always met with general disfavour. It was also held that a statute can be abrogated only by express or implied repeal; it cannot fall into desuetude or become inoperative through obsolescence or by lapse of time. 164. In Bharat Forge Company Ltd. 1995 (3) SCC 434 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statute in question had been in disuse for long and the contrary practice of some duration has evolved. It was also held that neither of these two facts has been satisfied in the case and therefore the doctrine of desuetude had no application. 167. From the above, the essentials of doctrine of desuetude may be summarized as follows: (i) The doctrine of desuetude denotes principle of quasi repeal but this doctrine is ordinarily seen with disfavour. (ii) Although doctrine of desuetude has been made applicable in India on few occasions but for its applicability, two factors, namely, (i) that the statute or legislation has not been in operation for very considerable period and (ii) the contrary practice has been followed over a period of time must be clearly satisfied. Both ingredients are essential and want of anyone of them would not attract the doctrine of desuetude. In other words, a mere neglect of a statute or legislation over a period of time is not sufficient but it must be firmly established that not only the statute or legislation was completely neglected but also the practice contrary to such statute or legislation has been followed for a co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 24A of the 1960 Rules provides for an application for renewal of lease to be made one year prior to the expiry of lease but no application for renewal was made by Rungta within this time and, therefore, Rungta had no legal right over the overlapping area. 170. It was submitted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar that the Appellant - Monnet had produced two maps before the High Court and this Court (one was prepared by the District Mining Officer in 2004) that depicted that the area recommended for grant to the Appellant was not covered by 1962 or 1969 Notifications. 171. It was submitted on behalf of Monnet that the case of Monnet was identical to the case of M/s. Bihar Sponge Iron Ltd. and the State Government had discriminated against the Appellant vis- -vis the case of M/s. Bihar Sponge Iron Ltd. 172. Mr. Ranjit Kumar also submitted that there has been violation of the statutory right of hearing in terms of Rule 26 of the 1960 Rules. He submitted that order was not communicated to Monnet by the State Government and thereby its remedy under Rule 54 of 1960 Rules was taken away. The violation of principles of natural justice goes to the root of the matter and on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 of the impugned judgment, the arguments of the learned senior Counsel for Monnet have been noticed. It transpires therefrom that many of the above arguments were not advanced including the issue of overlapping with the area of Rungta. In the list of dates/synopsis of the special leave petition, Monnet has not raised any grievance that arguments made on its behalf before the High Court were not correctly recorded or the High Court failed to consider any or some of its arguments. Criticism of the High Court judgment is thus not justified and I am not inclined to go into above submissions of Mr. Ranjit Kumar for the first time. 178. It is too late in the day for Monnet to contend that its case could not have been decided with group matters and in any case the matter should be remanded to the High Court for reconsideration on the issues, namely, (a) whether the area recommended for the Appellant was overlapping with Rungta only to the extent of 102.25 hectares out of total 705 hectares recommended for Appellant; (b) whether after expiry of lease Rungta's area was renotified for grant in 1996; (c) what was the reason for the State Government to withdraw the recommendation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tablished. The argument with regard to violation of principles of natural justice is also devoid of any substance. The recommendation in favour of Monnet to the Central Government was simply a proposal with certain pre-conditions. For withdrawal of such proposal by the State Government, in my view, no notice was legally required to be given. Moreover, no prejudice has been caused to it by not giving any notice before recalling the recommendation as it had no legal or vested right to the grant of mining lease. The area is not available for grant of mining lease in the private sector. For all these reasons, I do not find that the case of Monnet stands differently from the other Appellants. Conclusion 182. In view of the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in these appeals and they are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. R.M. Lodha ORDER 183. I find from the proceedings that no notice has been issued in the contempt petition. The proceeding of January 28, 2009 reveals that the Court only ordered copy of the contempt petition to be supplied to Learned Counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand to enable it to file its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w other entities like the National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC), Tata Iron Steel Company (TISCO) and Arclor Mittal (India) Ltd. have intervened to oppose them. Learned Senior Counsels Sarvashri C.A. Sunderam, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Ranjit Kumar, Dhruv Mehta, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, L. Nageswara Rao, and G.C. Bharuka have appeared in support of these appeals. Senior Counsel Shri A. K. Sinha, and Shri Ashok Bhan have appeared for the State of Jharkhand, and Union of India respectively. Shri P.S. Narasimha, Senior Counsel for NMDC, Shri Vikas Singh, Senior Counsel for TISCO, Shri Krishnan Venugopal, Senior counsel for Arclor Mittal (India) Ltd. and Shri J.K. Das, Learned Counsel for M/s Rungta Sons Pvt. Ltd., have appeared to oppose these appeals. Facts leading to these appeals: 186. The facts in all these appeals are by and large similar. We may refer to the facts of the first Civil Appeal in the case of M/s Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. (for short 'Monnet') as somewhat representative. It is the case of Monnet that it wanted to set-up an iron and steel plant in the State of Jharkhand. It was ready to invest an amount of ₹ 1400 crores on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MMDR Act ). The letter stated that some 58 applications were received, seeking grant of the mining leases over an area of 3566.54 hectares in Ghatkhuri reserved forest. All applicants were given sufficient opportunity of hearing. As far as Monnet is concerned, State Government had recommended the amended area of 705 hectares for the consent of the Central Government for grant of lease Under Section 5 (1) of the Act. The letter also stated that priority was being given to Monnet in terms of Section 11 (3) of the Act on the basis of its technical mineral based industry and financial capacity. 189. On receiving that application and after considering that the mining lease was to be granted for a period of 30 years, the Central Government asked the State Government, vide its letter dated 6.9.2004, to forward its justification in support of the proposal, since in its view an adequate justification, in the interest of mineral development, had not been sent. The State Government explained its position, vide its reply dated 17.11.2004, as to why priority was given to Monnet, and sought the approval of Government of India Under Sections 5 (1) and 11 (5) of MMDR Act. It enclosed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry south. South-West of 3039 and runs in a northwest direction upto 8 miles north west of 2939. From here the boundary reaches the sadly south of 2069. West From saddle south of 2069, southwards along the foot of the main hill, meeting the north-west corner of Kiriburu Block. Sasangda North- East Block South East North West Bihar, Orissa boundary Property of Shri W.V. Upto northern corner of M.L. No. 20 6. Bhalata Block Boundary South- West A line running west-north-west-east-south each passing the ugh 2200 feet contour at the south-western and of the Bhanalata ridge south-east-From 21 furlongs east of 2181 north-east wards upto north-west pochanalu village (22016'850 20') and from here north-north-east upto 3 furlongs east-sough-east of 2567 (Painsira Buru) North Fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwarded to the Dy. Commissioner, Singhbhum/Dy. Director of Mines, 2, College Road, Circuit House Area, Jamshedpur 7/ District Mining Officer, Singhbhum, Chaibasa/Director, Mines, Bihar/Dy. Director of Geology, Bihar/Advisor in Geology, Bihar for information. Sd/- C.P. Singh Dy. Secretary to Government 192. Thereafter, in continuation with the correspondence with the State Government, the Central Ministry of Mines by its letter dated 15.6.2005, wrote to the Secretary to the State Government, Department of Mines, seeking a meeting of the concerned officers of the State Government and the Ministry of Mines of the Central Government for the clarification on the following issues: (i) The State Government had rejected even those applicants who were prior applicants but were not willing to set up the mineral based industry in the State. This stipulated condition of State Government is not as per the National Mineral Policy. (ii) As against the applicants at Sl. Nos. 18, 20, 23, 29, 33, 41, 44 and 58, the State Government had stated that they had not submitted any solid proposals. The Central Government wanted to know what the Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 5. S/Shri Ujjwal Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 6. S/Shri Adhunik Alloy and Power Ltd. 7. S/Shri Prakash Ispat Ltd. 8. S/Shri Monnet Ispat Ltd. 9. S/Shri Steeko Power Ltd. 10. S/Shri Jharkhand Ispat Pvt. Ltd. On analysis in the department, it has become clear that out of the 10 proposals above said sent in the past, leaving apart Bihar Sponge and Iron Ltd. at Sl. No. 1, the rest of the nine proposals over-lap the public undertaking/ S/Shri General Produce Company Madhu Bazar Chhaibasa and S/Shri Rungta Sons Ltd. Chhaibasa. After complete consideration, the Government has taken this decision that out of the ten proposals sent in the past, leaving apart the proposal of S/Shri Bihar Sponge Iron Ltd., in connection with the rest of the nine proposals, for consideration as per law, they may be called back from the ministry of mines Government of India. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held by M/s General Produce Company 2. M/s Bimal Deep Steel Pvt. Ltd. i) Kh. Ni. (Pa. Singhbhum)-78/03- 131/D.S.M./M dated 4.8.2005 ii) 519/M dated 24.11.2004 112.072 Reserved for PSU 3. M/s Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. i) Kh. Ni. (Pa. Singhbhum)-78/03- 117/D.S.M./M dated 4.8.2004 ii) 519/M dated 24.11.2004 429.00 Reserved for PSU 4. M/s Ujjawal Mineral Pvt. Ltd. i) Kh. Ni. (Pa. Singhbhum)-78/03- 114/D.S.M./M dated 4.8.2004 ii) 1520/M dated 24.11.2004 103.00 Reserved for PSU 5. M/s Adunik Alloya Power Ltd. i) Kh. Ni. (Pa. Singhbhum)-78/03- 111/D.S.M./M dated 4.8.2004 ii) 1518/M dated 24.11.2004 426.875 Reserved for PSU 6. M/s Prakash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Government that the iron ore deposits at Ghatkuri would not be thrown open for grant of prospecting licence, mining lease or otherwise for the private parties. The deposit was at all material times kept reserved vide gazette notification No. A/MM-40510/62-6209/M dated the 21st December, 1962 and No. B/M-6-1019/68-1564/M dated the 28th February, 1969 of the State of Bihar. The mineral reserved in the said area has now been decided to be utilized for exploitation by Public Sector undertaking or Joint Venture Project of the State Government which will usher-in maximum benefit to the State and which generate substantial amount of employment in the State. The aforesaid notification is being issued in public interest and in the larger interest of the State. The defining co-ordinates of the reserved area enclosed here with for reference. By order of the Governor. S.K. Satapathy. Secretary to Government Submissions on behalf of the Appellants: 196. (i) There is not much difference between the facts of the other Appellants and Monnet, except that as far as the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3286/2009 i.e. Adhunik Alloy and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Section 17 and 17A of the MMDR Act give special power to the Central Government to undertake the mining operations and effect reservations. Section 18 of the Act casts a duty on the Central Government to take steps for the conservation and systematic development of minerals and for the protection of environment by preventing or controlling any pollution which may be caused by the prospecting or mining operations. These powers were not with the State Government. The reservations in the notifications of 1962 and 1969 will therefore have to be held as outside the powers of the State Government (iii) This will be the position even when read with Rule 59 (1) (e) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (M.C. Rules 1960 in short) which speaks about reservation of areas by the State Government and re-grant thereof. Even the subsequent notification of 27.10.2006, providing for a joint venture is contrary to 17A of MMDR Act, and therefore bad in law. (iv) Shri Sundaram submitted that the High Court's view that the State Government had the inherent power over the mining areas was equally erroneous. 198. (i) Learned senior Counsel Dr. Rajeev Dhawan appearing fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endment Act No. 36 of 1986. (iii) The two notifications of 1962 and 1969 providing for reservation in favour of the public sector undertakings suffered on account of 'Desuetude', since they were never acted upon. (iv) In view of the proviso Rule 63A, once a recommendation is made, the State Government becomes functus officio, and it has no power to recall the recommendation. (v) The right of hearing of Monnet was affected in as much as the decision of the State Government to reject its application was taken behind its back. It was not provided with any opportunity of being heard under Rule 26 of the M.C. Rules 1960 before refusing to grant the mining lease. Besides, their remedy to file a revision to the Central Government under Rule 54 thereof was affected. (vi) The Appellants disputed the fact that at the time of rejection of their applications, M/s Rungta Sons were having any subsisting allotment in their favour. It was submitted that the grant in favour of M/s Rungta Sons had already expired, and in fact they had applied for renewal in 2006. The area recommended to Monnet was not under any previous reservation of any public sector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epeal of a statute only when it is saved. It was further submitted that the impugned notifications were issued without prior approval of the Central Government and were therefore bad in law. 202.(i) Learned senior Counsel Shri G.C. Bharuka, appearing for Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ('Abhijeet' for short) submitted that Central Government had opened up the minerals for private participants. In 1962, the Government had no power to issue the notification in the absence of any legislation conferring any executive power. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar reported in 1990 (4) SCC 557 (para 19), and submitted that the State can act only under a legislation or under Article 162 by way of an executive order and not otherwise. He submitted that the 1962 notification was issued under the un-amended Rule 59, and that time there was no power to issue such notification. In his view the subsequent notification dated 27.10.2006 which is issued Under Section 17A (2) was also bad in law because it was issued without the prior approval of the Central Government (ii) It was then submitted by Shri Bharuka, that Abhijee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted within its territory. The power to issue appropriate notifications concerning the mines and minerals situated within the State is not taken away by any of the provisions of the MMDR Act. In the instant case the Central Government, in its counter affidavit at para 5 (a) and para 10 filed before the High Court, had given deemed/de-jure approval to the reservation upon examination of the 1962 1969 notifications. This was apart from the impugned order, dated 6.3.2006, rejecting the proposals of the Appellants on the ground that the recommended areas in the said nine proposals were either reserved for public sector undertakings, or overlapped the areas held by M/s. Rungta Sons Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. General Produce Company. In the counter affidavit filed in this appeal by the Central Government, it has been specifically stated in paragraph 5 that the State Government is the 'owner of the minerals.' 205. It was submitted by Shri Sinha that the notifications of 1962 and 1969 continued to be applicable and protected even after the creation of state of Jharkhand by virtue of Section 85 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, which provides that the existing laws prior to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eated as a contract under Article 299 (1) of the Constitution of India. It was neither enforceable nor binding. Based on the MOU, the State Government had made a recommendation which was only a proposal. Besides, no one had any legal or vested right for the grant or renewal of a mining lease. In this behalf, he relied upon paragraph 13 of State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s Hind Stone reported in (2) SCC 205, paragraph 4 of Dharambir Singh v. Union of India reported in 1996 (6) SCC 702, paragraph 13 of M.P. Ram Mohan Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2007 (9) SCC 78, paragraphs 19 to 22 and 28 of State of Kerala v. B. Six Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 186, and paragraph 4 of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka reported in 2010 (13) SCC 1. 210. Last but not the least, Shri Sinha pointed out that the controversy in the present matter was fully covered by the judgment of a bench of three Judges of this Court in Amritlal (supra) wherein the facts were by and large similar. This Court has clearly held in that judgment that the mines and minerals within its territory did vest in the State Government, and it had the full authority to reserve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1960 and therefore in present situations the Petitioner has no case and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Submissions on behalf of the intervenors 212. (i) Shri Das Learned Counsel appearing for M/s Rungta Sons pointed out that Rungta had a mining lease in their favour and were entitled to seek the renewal thereof. Therefore, the Appellants could not have been granted any lease, in any way overlapping with the mining area allotted to Rungta Sons. (ii) Learned Senior Counsels Sarvashri Narasinha, Vikas Singh Krishnan Venugopal have appeared for the interveners to oppose these appeals. Their submissions have been similar to that of Shri Sinha. 213. After the hearing of these appeals was concluded, another SLP arising out of the judgment of Orissa High Court in W.A. No. 6288 of 2006 (Geo Minerals and Marketing (P) Ltd. v. State of Orrisa and Ors.) came up for consideration wherein one of the issues involved was regarding reservation of mining areas for public sector. The counsel appearing in that matter for the respective parties viz. Senior counsel Sarvashri Harish Salve, KK Venugopal and RK Dwivedi were therefore heard on this issue. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be deemed always to have ensued, namely:] (a) 2[xxx] Such estate or tenure including the interests of the proprietor or tenure-holder in any building or part of a building comprised in such estate or tenure and used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure, and his interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, hats, bazars, 3[mela] and ferries and all other sairati interests, as also his interest in all subsoil including any rights in mines and minerals whether discovered or undiscovered, or whether been worked or not, inclusive of such rights of a lessee of mines and minerals, comprised in such estate or tenure (other than the interests of raiyats or under -raiyats) shall, with effect from the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the State free from all incumbrances and such proprietor or tenure-holder shall cease to have any interest in such estate or other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act. Besides, we must also note that the Constitutional validity of this provision has already been upheld by a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This was also the approach adopted by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported in 1980 (4) SCC 136 and later by a bench of three Judges in Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in 1991 Supp.(1) SCC 430. (ii) In Ishwari Khetan (supra) the Constitution Bench was concerned with the validity of the provisions of U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 enacted by the State of U.P. It was canvassed that the State's power to legislate in respect of industries under Entry 24 of List II is taken away to the extent of the declaration in that respect made by Parliament under Entry 52 of List I. After examining the relevant provisions, the Constitution Bench held in para 24 as follows: 24. It can, therefore, be said with a measure of confidence that legislative power of the States under Entry 24, List II is eroded only to the extent control is assumed by the Union pursuant to a declaration made by the Parliament in respect of declared industry as spelt out by legislative enactment and the field occupied by such enactment is the measure of erosion. Subject to such erosion, on the remainder the Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement: [Provided further that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to any prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines, [the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research] of the Department of Atomic Energy of the Central Government, the Directorates of Mining and Geology of any State Government (by whatever name called), and the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956: Provided also that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to any mining lease (whether called mining lease, mining concession or by any other name) in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. (1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (2) [No reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the State Government unless it is satisfied that (a) there is evidence to show that the area for which the lease is applied for has been prospected earlier or the existence of mineral contents therein has been established otherwise than by means of prospecting such area; and (b) there is mining plan duly approved by the Central Government, or by the State Government, in respect of such category of mines as may be specified by the Central Government, for the development of mineral deposits in the area concerned. 219. Section 10 of the Act deals with the procedure for obtaining the necessary licences. It makes it very clear the application is to be made to the State Government, and it is the right of the State Government either to grant or refuse to grant the permit, licence or lease. This Section reads as follows: 10. Application for prospecting licences or mining leases (1) An application for [a reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] in respect of any land in which the minerals vest in the Government shall be made to the State Government concerned in the prescribed form and shall be accompanied by the prescr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns with respect to the specified minerals, that does not take away the ownership and control of the State Government over the mines and minerals within its territory. 221. Senior Counsel Shri Sundaram had contended that Section 17 and 17A of the MMDR Act give special power to the Central Government to undertake the mining operations and effect reservations. Section 18 of the Act casts a duty on the Central Government to protect the environment and to prevent pollution that may be caused by mining operations. These powers were not with the State Government. Therefore, the reservations in the notifications of 1962 and 1969 were outside the powers of the State Government. Thus, Sections 17 and 17(A) of the Act were pressed into service to canvass the reduction in the authority of the State Government. Section 17 (1) gives the power to the Central Government to undertake prospecting and mining operations in certain lands. However, such operations have also to be done only after consultation with the State Government as stated in Sub-section (2) thereof. Besides, Sub-section (3) requires the Central Government also to pay the reconnaissance permit fee or prospecting fee, royalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the proposal is to do so. The notification of 27.10.2006 refers to the previous notifications of 1962 and 1969 whereunder the mining areas in the Ghatkuri forest were already reserved, and reiterates the decision of the State Government that the minerals which were already reserved in the Ghatkuri area under the two notifications will continue to be utilised for exploitation by public sector undertakings or joint venture projects of the State Government. Therefore this notification of 27.10.2006 did not require the approval of the Central Government. 223. When it comes to the challenge to the letter dated 13.9.2005, it is seen that the State Government states therein that nine out of the ten proposals overlap the areas meant for public undertakings and two other companies, and therefore the proposals were called back. The power to take such a decision rests in the State Government in view of its ownership of the mines, though there may not be a reference to the source of power. Absence of reference to any particular Section or rule which contains the source of power will not invalidate the decision of the State Government, since there is no requirement to state the sour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) (ii) Rule 59 was amended first on 9.7.1963 and later in 1980 along with Rule 58. The amended Rule 59 as amended on 9.7.1963 reads as follows: Rule 59. Availability of certain areas forgrant to be notified -In the case of any land which is otherwise available for the grant of a prospecting licence or a mining lease but in respect of which the State Government has refused to grant a prospecting licence or a mining lease on the ground that the land should be reserved for any purpose, the State Government shall, as soon as such land becomes again available for the grant of a prospecting or mining lease, grant the license or lease after following the procedure laid down in Rule 58. (iii) Rule 59 when amended in 1980 reads as follows: 59. Availability of area for regrant to be notified-(1) No area- (a) which was previously held or which is being held under a prospecting licence or a mining lease; or (b) in respect of which an order had been made for the grant of a prospecting licence or mining lease, but the applicant has died before the grant of the licence or the execution of the lease, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7D or Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 or Sub-rule (2) of Rule 40, as the case may be; and (ii) the availability of the area for grant is notified in the Official Gazette and specifying a date (being a date not earlier than thirty days from the date of the publication of such notification in the Official Gazette) from which such area shall be available for grant: Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to the renewal of a lease in favour of the original lessee or his legal heirs notwithstanding the fact that the lease has already expired. Provided further that where an area reserved under Rule 58 or Under Section 17A of the Act is proposed to be granted to a Government company, no notification under Clause (ii) shall be required to be issued: Provided also that where an area held under a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence, as the case may be, is granted in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 11, no notification under Clause (ii) shall be required to be issued. (2) The Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax the provisions of Sub-rule (1) in any special case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reason as stated above that the Rules 58 and 59 as they originally stood, merely dealt with three contingencies where the prescribed procedure was required to be followed. This cannot mean that when it comes to reservation of mining areas for public undertakings, such power was not there with the State Government prior to the amendment of 1963. The over-view of various Sections of the act done by us clearly shows that the power to grant the mining leases is specifically retained with the State Government even with respect to the major minerals, though with the approval of the Central Government. The power to effect such reservations for public undertakings, or for any purpose flows from the ownership of the mines and minerals which vests with the State Government. The amendment of Rule 59 in 1963 made it clear that the State can reserve land 'for any purpose', and the amendment of Rules 58 and 59 in 1980 clarified that State can reserve it for a public corporation or a Government company. These amendments have been effected only to make explicit what was implicit. These amendments can not be read to nullify the powers which the State Government otherwise had under the sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the reason that the judgment lays down that the executive power of the State is subject to the law made by the Parliament. There is no conflict with the proposition in the facts of this case. The power of the State flows from its ownership of the mines, and it is not in any way taken away by the law made by the Parliament viz. the MMDR Act or the MC rules. It is therefore not possible to accept the submission of Shri Ranjit Kumar that because a regulatory regime is created under the Act giving certain role to the Central Government, the power to effect reservations is taken away from the State Government. The reference to the judgment of this Court in D.K. Trivedi and Sons (supra) in this behalf was also misconceived. In that matter a bench of two Judges, of this Court, held Section 15 (1) of MMDR Act to be constitutional and valid. The court also held that the rule making power of the State Government, thereunder, did not amount to excessive delegation of legislative power to the executive. In that matter no such submission that the powers of the State Government were restricted only to Section 15 was under consideration 231. Similarly, the reliance on Hukam Chand (sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .3.2006) without exhausting that remedy. The Central Government cannot be faulted for the same. Incidentally, the Petition nowhere states as to how Monnet came to know about these internal communications between the state and the central government. The other Petitioners claim to have learnt about the same through a newspaper report, and Adhunik claims to have got the copies thereof through an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 234. The Appellants had relied upon three judgments of the Constitution Benches of this Court in Hingir-Rampur Coal Company, M.A. Tulloch and Company and Baijnath Kadio (supra). In Hingir-Rampur Coal Company (supra), the Constitution Bench was concerned with the question of legality of the cess under the Orissa Mining Ares Development Fund Act, 1952. One of the grounds canvassed was that the said legislation was bad in law for being in conflict with the previous Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, which was also a Central Act. It was contended that the central legislation was referable to Entry No. 54 of the Union List from the Seventh Schedule. It occupied the field and therefore the state legislation which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opment Fund Act, 1952, and the same question arose as to whether the provisions of the Orissa Act were hit by the MMDR Act, 1957 in view of Entry No. 54 of the Union List. The validity of the state act was canvassed under Entry No. 23 of the State List and was accepted as not hit by the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957. The Court held the Orissa Act and the demand of fee to be valid. What this Court observed in Para 5 is relevant for our purpose.... 5. ...It does not need much argument to realise that to the extent to which the Union Government had taken under its control the Regulation and development of minerals so much was withdrawn from the ambit of the power of the State Legislature under Entry 23 and legislation of the State which had rested on the existence of power under that entry would to the extent of that control be superseded or be rendered ineffective, for here we have a case not of mere repugnancy between the provisions of the two enactments but of a denudation or deprivation of State legislative power by the declaration which Parliament is empowered to make and has made. 236. In Baijnath Kadio (supra), this Court was concerned with the valid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment the Court observed as follows: 3. It may be mentioned that in pursuance of its exclusive power to make laws with respect to the matters enumerated in entry 54 of List I in the Seventh Schedule, Parliament specifically declared in Section 2 of the Act that it was expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the Regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent provided in the Act. The State Legislature's power under entry 23 of List II was thus taken away, and it is not disputed before us that Regulation of mines and mineral development had therefore to be in accordance with the Act and the Rules. The mines and the minerals in question (bauxite) were however in the territory of the State of Gujarat and, as was stated in the orders which were passed by the Central Government on the revision applications of the Appellants, the State Government is the owner of minerals within its territory, and the minerals vest in it. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules to detract from this basic fact. That was why the Central Government stated further in its revisional orders that the State Government had the inherent r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re enough to show that the Act does not contemplate or provide for reservation by any other authority or for any other purpose. The argument is however untenable because the aforesaid Sub-sections of Section 17 do not cover the entire field of the authority of refusing to grant a prospecting licence or a mining lease to anyone else, and do not deal with the State Government's authority to reserve any area for itself. As has been stated, the authority to order reservation flows from the fact that the State is the owner of the mines and the minerals within its territory, which vest in it.... 242. The judgment referred to Rule 59 of the M.C. Rules also, and held that it clearly contemplates such reservation by the order of the State Government In para 7 this Court held in this behalf as follows: 7...A reading of Rules 58, 59 and 60 makes it quite clear that it is not permissible for any person to apply for a licence or lease in respect of a reserved area until after it becomes available for such grant, and the availability is notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette. Rule 60 provides that an application for the grant of a prospecting licence or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not a contract, and not in any case within the meaning of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. Barring one party (Adhunik) other parties do not appear to have taken further steps. In any case, in the absence of any promise, the Appellants including Aadhunik cannot claim promissory estoppel in the teeth of the notifications issued under the relevant statutory powers. Alternatively, the Appellants are trying to make a case under the doctrine of legitimate expectations. The basis of this doctrine is in reasonableness and fairness. However, it can also not be invoked where the decision of the public authority is founded in a provision of law, and is in consonance with public interest. As recently reiterated by this Court in the context of MMDR Act, in Para 83 of Sandur Manganese (supra) 'it is a well settled principle that equity stands excluded when a matter if governed by statute'. We cannot entertain the submission of unjustified discrimination in favour of Bihar Sponge and Iron Ltd. as well for the reason that it was not pressed before the High Court nor was any material placed before this Court to point out as to how the grant in its favour was unjustified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ban may involve the reversal of a major policy and so it may require legislative sanction. But if a decision is taken to ban private mining of a single minor mineral for the purpose of conserving it, such a ban, if it is otherwise within the bounds of the authority given to the Government by the Statute, cannot be said to involve any change of policy. The policy of the Act remains the same and it is, as we said, the conservation and the prudent and discriminating exploitation of minerals, with a view to secure maximum benefit to the community. Exploitation of minerals by the private and/or the public sector is contemplated. If in the pursuit of the avowed policy of the Act, it is thought exploitation by the public sector is best and wisest in the case of a particular mineral and, in consequence the authority competent to make the subordinate legislation makes a rule banning private exploitation of such mineral, which was hitherto permitted we are unable to see any change of policy merely because what was previously permitted is no longer permitted. Last but not least, in para 13 this Court observed as follows: 13...No one has a vested right to the grant or renew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e areas for the public sector undertakings on the basis of notifications of 1962, 1969 and 2006. All that the State Government has done is to act in furtherance of the policy of the statute and it cannot be faulted for the same. 252. For the reasons stated above we do not find any merit in these appeals and they are all dismissed. The interim orders passed therein will stand vacated. 253. The Contempt Petition (C) No. 14/2009 is filed by Abhijeet is for the alleged breach of an earlier order dated 15.12.2008. The order dated 28.01.2009 makes it clear that no notice was issued on the Contempt Petition. Since the appeal is being disposed of and dismissed, the Contempt Petition is also dismissed. 254. Iron is a mineral necessary for industrial development. In view of the pendency of these appeals, and the stay orders sought by the Appellants therein, grant of lease of iron-ore mines to the public sector undertakings could not be made for over six years. The State of Jharkhand and the people at large have thereby suffered. In view thereof we would have been justified in imposing costs on the Appellants. However, considering that important questions of law wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
