TATA STEEL LTD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: - (a) for issuance of an appropriate order directing the respondent no. 2, the District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa to forthwith issue an express order in furtherance of its considered opinion in terms of Section 8(3) of the Mines Minerals (development and Regulation) Act 1957 in respect of the petitioner's Noamundi Iron Ore Mines and pursuant to its application for renewal dated 17.12.2009. (b) an appropriate writ, order or direction for setting aside the notice dated 04.09.2014 referring to notification no. 510(E) dated 18.07.2014 issued by the District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa whereby the petitioner has been asked to stop mining operations of its Noamundi Iron Ore Mines situated in the district of West Singhbhum.

(3.) THE case of petitioner is that its a Public Limited Company under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mumbai and its works at Jamshedpur in the district of East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. It was incorporated in 1907 with the primary objective of manufacturing and selling iron and steel products, which were carried out in the petitioner's steel plant at Jamshedpur in the district of East Singhbhum. The petitioner was granted mining lease of iron ore over an area of 1160.06 Hectares in Noamundi district, West Singhbhum. The Mining lease was originally granted for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 01.01.1922 by the then Provincial Government. It was twice renewed for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 01.01.1952 to 31.12.1981 and 01.01.1982 to 31.12.2011. The petitioner has been operating mining lease on the strength of about 4500 direct/indirect workers and officers and the ore from Noamundi Mines lease meets 60% of the requirement of the petitioner for its steel production at Jamshedpur. Since 2nd period of mining renewal was to expire on 31.12.2011, the petitioner made application in Form 'J' prescribed under Mineral Concessions Rules 1960 for renewal of mining lease. The said application was submitted on 17.12.2009 and acknowledged by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa by issuance of statutory Form 'D'. As per the provisions of Rule 24 A (6) of Mineral Concessions Rules 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the MCR), if an application for renewal of a mining lease made withinprescribed time by the lessee, is not disposed of by the State Government before the date of expiry of the lease, the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by further period till the State Government passes order thereon. Accordingly, as per the petitioner, they have been carrying out mining operations adhering to the statutory and regulatory requirements. The petitioner claims to have obtained forest clearance earlier for 346.49 hectares on 23.04.1999 and for 24.43 hectares on 07.11.2007. However, in terms of requirement of Forest Guidelines 2004 Clause 4.16, the petitioner also made an application for fresh forest clearance in Form 'B' under the Forrest Conservation Rules, 2003 to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Nodal), Ranchi on 21.12.2009. On 29.03.2012, the Ministry of Environment and Forest (in short MOEF) granted temporary working permission w.e.f. 29.03.2012 for a period of one year. It was extended further and the petitioner was granted stage I clearance on 06.09.2013 with working permission for a period of one year. Stage II forest clearance was issued by the MOEF on 04.09.2014. In the meantime, on 10.06.2013, the petitioner also received environmental clearance for mining of 10 MTPA and expansion of beneficiation facilities from 10 MTPA to 18 MTPA. During the period of pendency of application for renewal of the mining lease, the petitioner is said to have made several representations vide Annexure -8 series. In the meantime, as per the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Goa Foundation in W. P. (C) No. 435 of 2012 dated 21.04.2014, it has been held that the opinion of the State Government in terms of Section 8(3) is a sine qua non for carrying out mining operations in terms of Rule 24 A (6). The petitioner thereafter again represented for taking a decision on its pending renewal application on 18.06.2014, The Government of India amended Rule 24 A (6) and substituted it. As per the amended Rule, if anapplication for first renewal of a mining lease is made within the period before expiry of the lease, it would be deemed to have been extended for a further period of two years or till the State Government passes order thereupon, whichever is earlier. Further such an application for first renewal which have not been disposed of by the State Government before the date of expiry of lease pending for disposal on the date of notification of the amendment, it shall be deemed to have been extended by further period of two years from the coming into force of the amendment or till the State Government passes order thereupon or the date of expiry of the maximum period allowed for first renewal, whichever is earliest. However, amended Rule provided that this shall not apply to renewal under sub section (3) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act, 1957. Further amendments were brought in Rule 9 of the said Rules. The State Government through its letter dated 20.08.2014 made a request to the Government of India for seeking relaxation under Section 31 of the Act and to grant mining lease w.e.f. 01.01.2012 i.e. the date on which the renewal of the mining lease for Noamundi Iron Mines fell due for a period of 20 years. According to the petitioner, the said letter indicates that the State Government had in principle taken a decision to renew mining lease of the petitioner. In the meantime, the Indian Bureau of Mines (in short IBM) gave a report on 28.08.2014 in terms of MC Rules 1960 recommending grant of renewal in favour of the petitioner. Further representations were made by the petitioner to the State Government for favourable consideration of its pending mining lease. However, the petitioner was shocked to receive the notices dated 03.09.2014 and 04.09.2014, Annexure -17 and 18 respectively issued by the State Government asking it to discontinue the mining operations. The petitioner thereafter made specific requests for issuance of express orders under Section 8 (3) of the Act so as to resumemining operations. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that the sudden stoppage of mining operations and further discontinued mining operations has adversely affected the work population of 2,500/ - directly at the mine site alongwith its adverse impact on the Jamshedpur steel works where a work population of 75,000/ - depend directly or indirectly. The petitioner claims to contribute substantially towards statutory payment such as royalty, welfare cess, Sales Tax, Excise, Electricity Duty etc. to the central as well as the State Government. In the financial year 2013 -14, the petitioner claims to have paid Rs. 288 crores as royalty to the State Government, Rs. 397 crores VAT/CST, Rs. 2688 crores towards excise duty, Rs. 77 crores towards cess, Rs. 75 crores towards service tax and Rs. 400 crores towards other taxes. With the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the instant reliefs.