NARAYAN MINES PVT. LTD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner applied for second renewal of mining lease for a period of 20 years with effect from 23rd January 1997. The Government of Karnataka, by a notification dated 4th March 2006, accorded sanction for second renewal of mining lease for a period of 20 years with effect from 23rd January 1997. The notification specifically provided that the renewal was subject to the condition that the lease holder obtains forest clearance under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short 'the Forest Act '). Going by the case of the petitioner, final forest clearance for second renewal was granted on 27th January 2016. The petitioner voluntarily executed mining lease dated 2nd August 2016 which provided for extension of lease up to 31st March 2020. No protest was made by him regarding the term of lease. Going by the list of dates tendered by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in February 2017, the petitioner commenced mining operations on the basis of the mining lease dated 2nd August 2016. Admittedly, from the date of execution of the mining lease till the date of filing of the present petition on 27th May 2019, the petitioner did not make any grievance regarding the term of lease as provided in the deed of lease. Perhaps, the reason for filing this petition is the communication dated 8th March 2019 by which a notice inviting bids was published.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken us through the list of dates. He also explained to us the reason why there was a delay in obtaining clearance under Section 2 of the Forest Act though the application for that purpose was made by the petitioner on 7th July 2006. He has pointed out the various intervening circumstances. His submission is that the renewal of lease ought to have been for a period of 20 years from the date of execution of the lease. He submitted that on 4th March 2006, a right was created in favour of the petitioner for getting the lease for a period of 20 years. He relied upon Rule 31 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'the said Rules'). He submitted that the mining lease ought to have been executed by the State within a period of six months from 4th March 2006 as no fault is attributed to the petitioner by the State Government. Secondly, he would submit that the date of commencement of the period for which mining lease is granted shall be the date on which duly executed deed as provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 31 is registered. He would, therefore, submit that renewal should have been granted for a period of 20 years commencing from 2nd August 2016. He submitted that even assuming that the petitioner has voluntarily executed the lease dated 2nd August 2016, a right accrued to the petitioner and the right vested in the petitioner to have renewal for a period of 20 years from the date of execution of the deed cannot be defeated. He would also submit that the petitioner is entitled to enforce the right vested in it.