IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.268 of 2008
DEEPAK KUMAR, S/O LAKHAN LAL BARANWAL, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE & P.O.: & P.S.: KODERMA, SAHANA ROAD,
DISTRICT KODERMA (JHARKHAND).
.....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF
BIHAR, PATNA.
2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES
& GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE COLLECTOR, NAWADAH.
4. THE ASSISTANT MINING OFFICER, NAWADAH.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
CWJC No.241 of 2010
NAVIN KUMAR SINHA S/O SHRI KEDAR PRASAD SINHA R/O
MOH BABIBPURA, P.O.& P.S.SOHSARAI, BIHARSHARIF, DISTT-
NALANDA.
....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY-CUM-MINES COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT
OF MINES & GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
2. THE MINES COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF MINES &
GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES
& GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADAH.
5. THE ASSISTANT MINING OFFICER, NAWADAH.
...RESPONDENTS.
WITH
CWJC No.465 of 2010
SANJIV KUMAR S/O SHRI RAM BILASH SINGH C/O SHRI
MAHADEV PRAAD, AT: & P.O. & P.S.- RAJAULI, DISTT.-
NAWADAH.
.....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY-CUM-MINES COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT
OF MINES & GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
2. THE MINES COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF MINES &
GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES
& GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE , NAWADAH.
5. THE ASSISTANT MINING OFFICER, NAWADAH.
.... RESPODNENTS.
-2-
.
WITH
CWJC No.526 of 2010
SHIV RATAN SANGAI S/O LATE RAM PRASAD SANGAI R/O
SANGAI MEDICAL HALL, DOCTORS LANE, P.O. & P.S.
JHUMRITELAIYA, DISTT. KODARMA.
……PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY-CUM-MINES COMMISSIONER , DEPTT. OF
MINES & GEOLOGY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
2. THE MINES COMMISSIONER DEPTT. OF MINES &
GEOLOGY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF MINES &
GEOLOGY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NAWADAH.
5. THE ASSISTANT MINING OFFICER NAWADAH.
…..RESPONDENTS.
WITH
CWJC No.493 of 2010
VYAS KUMAR @ BYASH KUMAR S/O SHRI MAHADEO
PRASAD R/O P.O. RAJAULI, P.S.RAJAULI, DISTT-NAWADAH.
…..PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY -CUM-MINES COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT
OF MINES &GEOLOGY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
2. THE MINES COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF MINES &
GEOLOGY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES
& GEOLOGY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NAWADAH.
5. THE ASSISTANT MINING OFFICER NAWADAH.
….RESPONDENTS
———–
For the petitioners : M/s. S.D.Sanjay Alok Kumar
( in all cases) Akash Chaturvedi, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. V.M.K.Sinha, Advocate.
(in all cases)
——–
11/ 25.03.2011 In all the aforesaid five cases, common issues are
involved and hence they have been heard together and are being
decided by this common order.
-3-
2. All the above named petitioners have filed their
respective writ petitions challenging orders of the Collector Nawada
cancelling the leases of the petitioners as well as the orders of the
Commissioner of Mines, Govt. of Bihar, Patna dismissing the
revisions of the petitioners and affirming the orders of the Collector
and also for declaration that the proceedings initiated against the
petitioners by the Collector on the basis of letter of the Additional
Secretary, Mines & Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna with respect to
the grant of mining lease to the petitioners were absolutely without
jurisdiction and were arbitrary, malafide and were liable to be
quashed and also for declaration that the petitioners or their
transferors were validly granted mining lease in the year 2001 for a
period of ten years in exercise of powers under Rule 22 of the Bihar
Minor & Minerals Concessions Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the Rules’ for the sake of brevity) and as such the said mining
leases could not have been legally cancelled before the expiry of the
aforesaid period of leases and for further declaration that the mining
leases of the petitioners were granted prior to the change in the
procedure for grant/renewal of lease and such change in the
procedure was not applicable in relation to the cases of the
petitioners and for a direction to the respondents to allow the
petitioners to continue the mining of minor minerals for the
remaining period of lease.
3. From the arguments raised by learned counsel for
the parties as well as from the materials on record it is quite
-4-
apparent that notices were published in the District Gazette of
Nawada in the year 2001 under the authority of the Collector,
Nawada in terms of Rule 22 of the Rules mentioning that the earlier
leases having been cancelled, the respective lands were available for
re-leasing and as such people were invited to apply for the same. In
response to the said notice, the petitioners of CWJC No.268 of
2008, CWJ No.241 of 2010, CWJC No.465 of 2010 and CWJC
No.526 of 2010 filed their respective applications within the period
prescribed for grant of fresh leases. However, the petitioner of
CWJC no.493 of 2010 being the earlier lessee applied for renewal
of his lease. Finally all the said applications were allowed by the
authorities and mining leases for the respective areas were granted
to them by the Collector, Nawada on 31.03.2001, 27.04.2001,
07.04.2001 and 09.04.2001 respectively. The said orders of the
Collector are annexed to the respective writ petitions. Since then the
petitioners are continuing with mining on their respective lands
strictly in accordance with the terms of the lease.
4. It further transpires that on 30.03.2007 the
Additional Secretary, Department of Mines and Minerals, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna sent a letter to the Collector, Nawada informing that
Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 had been amended
on 23.03.2001 vide Bihar Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment)
Rules, 2001 adding Rule 9A, 22A and 52 by which it had been
provided that no mining lease shall be renewed and all the existing
mining leases shall be allowed to continue only till the completion
-5-
of the period of lease and in future all mining settlements shall be
made by auction. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the
Department had come to know that the provisions of Amended
Rules were being violated and hence an inquiry should be made and
steps should be taken for cancellation of those mining leases which
were granted after the amendment of the Rule on 23.03.2001,
violating its aforesaid provisions.
5. In view of the aforesaid letter of the Department, the
Collector, Nawada initiated proceedings against the petitioners and
found that the amendment dated 23.03.2001 was notified vide
Notification no.12/B.M-70/2/97.KHAND-II-702/M dated
17.04.2001 and although orders for grant of mining leases to the
petitioners were passed between 23.03.2001 and 17.04.2001, but
leases to the petitioners were executed after 17.04.2001, hence the
said leases being in violation of Rule 9A of the Amended Rule, they
were cancelled vide orders dated 22.05.2007. Against the said
orders of the Collector, the petitioners filed their respective
revisions before the Commissioner of Mines, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
but he dismissed the said revisions holding that the leases
granted/renewed to the petitioners were in contravention of the
Rules and therefore, in view of Section 19 of the Mines and Mineral
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Act’), the said leases granted/renewed were void, but to protect
the petitioners from serious legal consequences of the said
cancellation of leases it was clarified that for the period during
-6-
which the petitioners had worked, the leases shall be treated as
valid.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case as well as the arguments of learned counsel for the parties,
it is quite apparent that the Rules were amended on 23.03.2001 vide
Bihar Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2001 by
which Rule 9A and 52 were added out of which Rule 9A provided
that notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the
Government may by notification in the official Gazette direct that
any mineral may be leased out or settled by public auction in the
manner prescribed in Rule 52. The newly added Rule 52 provided
that settlement of land for mining leases should be done by public
auction for which detailed procedure was prescribed. Admittedly,
the said amended Rules were duly notified by the Government on
17.04.2001.
7. Furthermore, from the undisputed claim of the
parties, it is clear that the Collector, Nawada accepted the
applications of the petitioners for grant/renewal of the lease before
the date of notification, i.e. 17.04.2001, but the mining leases were
executed in their favour by the authorities concerned much after the
notification of the Amended Rules on 17.04.2001. It is also clear
that in view of the aforesaid amended Rules such leases were
strictly prohibited and the settlements of leases were directed to be
done through public auction. Section 19 of the Act specifically
provided that any prospecting licence or mining lease renewed or
-7-
acquired in contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules or
orders made thereunder shall be void and of no effect.
8. In the instant case, the vires of the aforesaid
amendment in the Rules are not under challenge. Furthermore, the
amendment in the Rules are not subsequent to the grant of lease,
rather the leases were granted much after the amendment of the
Rules, but were violative of the said provisions which had been
brought by amendment earlier. In the said circumstances, the
decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel for
the petitioners in case of M/s Gujarat Pottery Works Private Ltd.
Vs. B.P. Sood and others, reported in A.I.R. 1967 S.C.964, in
case of State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Voltas Ltd. East
Singhbhum, reported in 2007(4) P.L.J.R. (S.C) 242 as well as the
decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s Larsen &
Toubro Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2004 (1)
P.L.J.R. 350, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of
this case.
9. Considering the admitted facts and position in law, this
court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders of the
authorities concerned and accordingly all these writ petitions are
dismissed.
(S. N. Hussain, J.)
Sunil