SUGGULAMMAGUDDA MINING CO BELLARY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the facts briefly stated, which are considered necessary for disposal of this writ petition, are: the petitioner was granted a mining lease in respect of iron ore covering an area of 10.11 hectares in sandur taluk of bellary district on 14-3-1972 for a period of 20 years by the first respondent under the mines and minerals (regulation and development) Act, 1957 read with the mineral concession rules, 1960 (for short the 'act, 1957' and the 'rules'). The petitioner worked the area by investing substantial sum for developing the area and has carried on the operations. It filed an application for renewal of its mining lease in accordance with Rule 24-a of the rules. It contends that since no orders were passed on the renewal application within the statutory period there was a deemed rejection of the application. It filed a revision petition to the central government under Section 30 of the Act, 1957 read with Rule 54 of the rules. The revision petition was allowed on 13-3-1991 setting aside the deemed rejection and directed the state government to consider the application filed by the petitioner for renewal. But so far no orders are passed and the application for renewal is pending disposal. According to the petitioner the lease granted expired on 14-3-1992 and by virtue of sub-rule (6) of Rule 24-a of the rules, the mining lease of the petitioner stood extended for a further period of one year, that is upto 14-3-1993 as the application for renewal is not disposed of. The petitioner submitted a representation to the director of mines and geology on 13-1-1992 stating that it has a right to work'under Rule 24-a(6) and on that basis sought for issuance of working permit and similar request was also made to the first respondent. On 10-3-1992 the third respondent informed the petitioner to stop mining operation with effect from 14-3-1992 until further orders as working permission for grace period had not been received from the state government. On 7-4-1992 the second respondent sent a communication to the petitioner as per Annexure-C informing that the grant of working permission was not desirable until the forest clearance was obtained in view of the instructions issued by the government of india. Section 2 of the forest (conservation) Act, 1980 (for short the 'act, 1980') states that except with the prior approval of the central government, no state government or other authority shall make any order directing that any reserved forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. The petitioner states that the lease was granted in 1972 and it has worked the area for 20 years and question of breaking up or clearing any forest land at this stage does not arise and that Section 2 of the Act, 1980 is attracted only in cases of leases to be granted on lands after the coming into force of the said act. The further case of the petitioner is that the principal chief conservator of forests (management) in the letter dated 26-6-1992 (Annexure-D) addressed to the petitioner has stated that the government of India in their letter dated 29-5-1992 have agreed in principle for approval for diversion of 10.11 hectares of forest land subject to fulfillment of the two conditions mentioned in Annexure-D . The petitioner contends that asking the petitioner to pay double the cost of afforestation is not correct. The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 10-3-1992, Annexure-B and the endorsement dated 3/7-4-1992, aimexure-c. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's right to carry on mining operations as per Rule 24-a(6) of the rules in the schedule land.

(2.) statement of objection is filed on behalf of the respondents contending that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for. The act 1957 was enacted by the parliament with a view to regulate the mines and development of minerals under the control of the union of india. Under sections 13 and 18 of the act 1957 the central government has promulgated: (a) mineral concession rules, 1960, (b) mineral conservation and development rules, 1958. The respondents further state that the petitioner filed an application for renewal with requisite fee on 28-6-1990. Since the schedule land falls within the forest area the opinion of the forest authorities and the Indian bureau of mines was needed. As such the application could not be disposed of within the statutory period. The application filed on 13-1-1992 by the petitioner for extension of lease period for one year or till the date of receipt of orders of the state government, whichever is earlier was rejected by the letter dated 24-3-1992 on the ground that the government of india, ministry of forest had issued instructions not to continue mining activities from 1-3-1992 in the forest area and until the forest clearance is obtained from the forest department. The respondents resisted the claim of the petitioner stating that the area held under lease by the petitioner is a forest land and it requires the clearance of the forest department and the Provisions of the act 1980 are attracted to the case on hand. Section 2 of the act 1980 lays down that the mining operation is a non-forestry activity, which requires prior consent of the central government. Even if it is assumed that the lease was granted prior to the act 1980 coming into force, the renewal amounts to granting of fresh lease. Hence, Section 2 of the act 1980 has to be complied with. On these grounds the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) Sri D.L.N. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the facts in this case arc not very much in dispute, the lease was granted on 14-3-1972 to the petitioner for 20 years; the lease period came to an end on 14-3-1992; the application for renewal was made on 28-6-1990; the application is pending disposal before the first respondent as directed by the central government in revision; under rule24-a(6) of the rules the lease period automatically gets extended by one year or till the disposal of the application for renewal, whichever is earlier and the area in question is already worked out; in other words it is a broken and cleaned area and there is no question of carrying out the mining operations in the virgin forest land. He also submitted that Section 2 of the act 1980 is not attracted to the case on hand. In support of his submission the learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the case of State of Bihar v Banshi Ram Modi and others, AIR 1985 SC 814.