BHRAMARABAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to declare Rules 35 and 36 of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (for short, "OMMC Rules, 2004") violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and to quash the order dated 14.01.2011 (Annexure-4) rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal of the lease and the auction notice dated 15.02.2011 (Annexure-5) issued by opposite partyNo.3-Sub-Collector, Rourkela and published on 25.02.2011 in the Odia daily "The Sambad".

(2.) The petitioner's case in a nutshell is that he is engaged in manufacturing stone chips and metals since 1993 in the name and style of "M/s. Jharabahal Stone Quarry", which comes within micro small scale industry and has been allotted entrepreneurs' Memorandum No.210311100289 on 28.06.2008 by the Project Manager, District Industries Centre, Rourkela. Since 1993 the petitioner was operating the stone quarry on lease basis from the Government of Orissa. Jharabahal Stone Quarry No.1 was granted/renewed in favour of the petitioner in 2007 by the opposite party No.4-Tahasildar, Rourkela on 11.09.2007 for a period of four years starting from the financial year 2007-2008 till 2010-2011 and the said lease was to expire on 31.03.2011. Since the lease was to expire on 31.03.2011, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of Jharabahal (RTU-47) Stone Quarry lease before Opposite Party No.4. The said application has been duly received by the office of opposite party No.4 on 20.12.2010 along with all necessary documents like the solvency certificate, clearance certificate obtained from the Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax, a treasury challan of Rs.1000/- etc. Opposite party No.4 by his order dated 14.01.2011 rejected the said renewal application on the ground that the Government of Orissa as well as the Board of Revenue in their various circulars and instructions have made it clear to settle the Miner Mineral through annual auction only and not through lease. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. B. M. Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the OMMC Rules, 2004 which provides for auctioning of the mineral sources every year will lead to closure of micro level crusher units due to lack of raw materials. Micro level entrepreneurs because of their size cannot afford to remain in manufacturing by sourcing stones from the quarry owners in case of auction of the quarries. The duty of the Government is not only to get revenue but it is equally the duty and responsibility of the Government to ensure that the Micro level manufacturers also survive and have reasonable access to the sources of new materials. Rules 35 and 36 of the OMMC Rules, 2004 put unreasonable restriction on business of unemployed youths inasmuch as the auction will be for a period of one year only. The cost for setting up of a crusher unit is about Rs.20 to 25 lakhs. Besides arranging finance from Banks, for getting licence under the Explosive Act, Pollution Control Act, Sales Tax/Value Added Tax Act etc. cumulatively it will take minimum 3 to 6 months' time. Rule 27 of the OMMC Rules, 2004 mandates that in case of renewal, a person who has been operating an industry based on minor mineral shall be given priority. The aim behind such a legislation is to see that if a person, applying for renewal of his quarry, who has set up an industry based on minor minerals is given priority as because the same individual must have expended a huge sum of money in setting up the said industry and if the lease deed is not renewed, it may so happen that the said person may not be able to pay back his debts and the industry may come to a standstill position. The petitioner is running a manufacturing unit based on the minerals quarried from the stone quarry, which is evident from the certified copy issued by the DIC, Rourkela under Annexure-1. The petitioner has taken all pains and has expended a large sum of money to obtain necessary permissions from various statutory authorities to operate the stone quarry and the manufacturing unit. The petitioner has also received huge sum of money as loan from various financial institutions to carry on its manufacturing unit. The petitioner is providing bread and butter to a large number of local people. It is asserted here that after signing of the lease deed the petitioner reasonably expected that the lease over the stone quarry would be renewed after expiry of four years if he could set up a manufacturing unit based on the said minor mineral. Accordingly, loans and advances of huge amount and due permissions for a longer term were obtained from the financial institutions and the statutory authorities. The provisions enshrined under Rule 27 of the OMMC Rules, 2004 have been laid down keeping in view the doctrine of Legitimate Expectations. The petitioner while submitting his application for renewal of Jharabahal (RTU-47) Stone Quarry in his favour had expressed his willingness to pay the upset price fixed by him. It was submitted that the provisions of Rules 35 and 36 of the OMMC Rules, 2004 have not been made in consonance with Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, "MMDR Act, 1957").