K JAMAL MAIDEEN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FUNCTION keypress (){document. selection. empty ()} FUNCTION keydown (){document. selection. empty ()} FUNCTION keyup (){document. selection. empty ()} FUNCTION Mouseup (){document. selection. empty ()} FUNCTION Mousedown (){document. selection. empty ()} FUNCTION expand (cl){cl. style. display='block'} FUNCTION collaps (cl){cl. style. display='none'} The petitioner obtained a mining lease for quarrying quartz and felspar in Survey No. 42/14, Desavilakku Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District over an extent of 1 acre for a period of three years. It may be stated that the petitioner asked for a lease for a period of 20 years but actually the grant was for only three years. A lease deed was executed on 15. 12. 1983. On 12. 12. 1985, the petitioner made an application for renewal of the lease. This application not having been disposed of on or before 11. 6. 1986, the application is deemed to be rejected. The petitioner thereupon filed a revision petition under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 to the Central Government. This revision having been made on 25. 6. 1986 and not having been disposed of, the petitioner sent a reminder on 10. 10. 1986 and a telegram on 9. 12. 1986. Since the period of lease was expiring, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 13523 of 1986 for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to renew the lease for a further period of 5 years. Meanwhile, on 28. 11. 1986, the Government of India passed orders setting aside the deemed rejection and directing the State Government to pass orders within 200 days from the date of communication of the order of the Central Government. By, G. O. Ms. No. 1146, Industries (D) Department, dated 27. 10. 1986, the Government reserved the area for State exploitation by the Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited. By a further Government Order dated 30. 7. 1987, the State Government passed orders rejecting the renewal application on the ground that the area had been reserved for exploitation by Tamil Nadu Minerals. W. P. No. 7717 of 1987 is to quash the G. O. dated 30. 7. 1987 and to direct the Government to renew the lease. W. P. No. 8110 of 1987 is to quash both G. O. Ms. No. 577, Industries (D) Department, dated 30. 7. 1987 as well as G. O. Ms. No. 1146 Industries (D) Department, dated 27. 10. 1986. According to Mr. K. Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, renewal is mandatory having regard to Clause3 of Part VIII of the lease deed and Rule 24-A of the Mineral Concession Rules read with Sec. 8 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The second submission is that the reasons given in the impugned Government Order dated 30. 7. 1987 namely that the area had been reserved for exploitation by the Tamil Nadu Minerals is contrary to the legal provisions especially the proviso to Rule 59 (1) (e ). The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that Clause 3 of Part VIII of the lease deed has been subsequently amended on 19. 8. 1983 by inserting the word "may" instead of the word "shall" with regard to the option for renewal. It is also contended that renewal is discretionary on the part of the Government and not mandatory as contended by the petitioner. Reference is made to Rule 26 (1) of the Rules to say that as in the case of grant renewal also is only discretionary. In other words, it is stated that the renewal is not automatic and the petitioner cannot claim renewal as a matter of right. But it is interesting to note that neither in the counter affidavit filed in W. P. No. 7717 of 1987 nor in the counter affidavit filed in W. P. No. 13523 of 1986 is there a reference to the first proviso to Rule 59 (1) (e ). No counter has been filed in W. P. No. 8110 of 1987. Clause 3 of Part VIII of the lease deed is as follows: "3. To Renew: Where the mining lease relates to any minerals not specified in the First Schedule to the Act, it shall be renewable for one period not exceeding the period specified in Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 8 at the Option of the lessee. "

(2.) NO doubt it is stated in the counter affidavit that the word "shall" has been removed and the word "may" has been introduced. Probably, this is to bring the leasedeed in accordance with Rule 24-A which also uses the word "may". I accept the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that renewal is not mandatory. But having regard to Sec. 8 (2) and Rule 24-A as well as the said clause in the lease deed, it cannot be disputed that an order refusing to grant lease should contain reasons. This is because a lessee might have invested heavy amounts and he might have experienced other difficulties during the period of lease and these facts have to be considered before rejecting the renewal application. NO doubt, the question of mineral development and the interests of the State have also to be taken note of before granting or rejecting a renewal application. Whatever may be the reason, the right of renewal is a valuable right so far as the lessee is concerned. Therefore, necessity to give reasons for rejectin. C. C. 280, the Supreme court has emphasised the duty to record reasons and duty to communicate them as part and parcel of the principles of natural justice. NOw, if we turn to the impugned order dated 30. 7. 1987, it no doubt, gives a single reason for rejecting the renewal application and the reason is that the land has been reserved for exploitation by the Tamil Nadu Minerals in and by G. O. Ms. NO. 1146, Industries (D) Department, dated 27,10,1986. If the reasons given by the Government is a valid reason, I must accept the stand of the respondents that the order of rejection is legal and valid. This is precisely the reason why the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the proviso to Rule 59 (1) (e ). I have already pointed out that the respondents have not adverted to this aspect of the case in their counter affidavits. Learned counsel for the respondents is also unable to meet the points raised on the basis of the said proviso. I will now quote the relevant rules for appreciating the contention raised by the petitioner. Rule 58 is as follows: "58. Reservation of areas for exploitation in the Public Sector, etc. : The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, reserve any area for exploitation by the Government, a Corporation established by any Central State or Provincial Act or a Government company within the meaning of Sec. 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956 ). " Rule 59 (1) (e) reads as follows: "59. (1) NO. area.----- (a ). . . . . . (b ). . . . . . (c ). . . . . . (d ). . . . . . (e) which has been reserved by the State Government (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, 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 is proposed to be granted to a Government Company, no notification under Clause (ii) shall be required to be issued. "