S N S MINERALSLIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS challenge in both these petitions are made to Rule 23-F of the Mineral conservation and Development Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'rules of 1988') incorporated vide Notification dated 10-4-2003, these petitions are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts in the record of Writ Petition No. 1679/2004 are referred to.

(2.) PETITIONERS in both these petitions are carrying on mining activities on the basis of lease granted to them under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Vide Notification dated 10-4-2003 (Annexure P-2) published in the Gazette of india, the Central Government made certain amendments to the Rules of 1988. The aforesaid amendment were made in exercise of the powers conferred on the central Government under Section 18 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'act of 1957' ). Being aggrieved by the amendment incorporated in the Rules of 1988 vide the Mineral Conservation and Development (Amendment) Rules, 2003, as contemplated under Rule 23-F pertaining to submission of financial assurance, petitioners have filed this petition. It is the case of the petitioners that the amendment is contrary to the powers conferred on the Central Government under Section 18 of the Act of 1957. It is the case of the petitioners that Section 18 does not permit framing of the Rules in the manner as done and, therefore, the rule in question framed being in excess to the powers conferred under Section 18, is liable to be declared as ultra vires.

(3.) IT was emphasized by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that in pursuance to the agreement entered into under the Mineral concession Rules, 1960 in statutory Form K, a separate provision has been made for deposit of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as security with the State Government. This amount having been paid as security can be utilized by the Government for violation of any provisions of the mining lease and when security is already paid in pursuance to the agreement, there is no necessity for insisting upon any further assurance or security from the lease holder. Inter alia contending that the demand of financial assurance contemplated in Rule 23-F is not warranted in the light of the fact that security is already submitted in accordance to the Mineral concession Rules and further as royalty and other payments are made in accordance with the statutory provision, it is not all necessary for seeking any further amount by way of financial assurance. It is stated by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that in accordance with the statutory provisions, closure plan has to be executed and approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines, who are conducting inspection of the mining area once or twice in a year and various measures have been provided for taking penal action in case of deviation from the closure plan. It was emphasized that when the measures for protection of environment are already taken in the agreement executed in Form K, appended to the Mineral Concession Rules, when security and royalty are being paid in accordance to the statutory provision and as per the closure plan when the measures for environment protection by planting of trees and reclamation of land is already being undertaken, there is no necessity for incorporating a further provision for seeking financial assurance for the purpose of protecting the environment and rehabilitation. Inter alia contending that the provision of Rule 23-Fisultra vires to the provisions of Section 18of the Act of 1957, and is liable to be quashed for the grounds stated hereinabove, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners pray for grant to relief prayed for.