HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, LOHARDAGA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. A.K. Ganguly, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that closure of Hisri New Mines, Chapi for which a mining lease was granted on 19.07.1966 for a period of 15 years has caused serious prejudice and difficulties in working of the petitionerIndustry. The mineralBauxite mined from Hisri New Mines is used for captive use by the petitionerCompany for its Aluminium factory. The learned Senior counsel prays for an interim direction to the State of Jharkhand for granting an order so that the petitionerCompany can commence its mining operations in the said mines.

(2.) It is not in dispute that a mining lease for a period of 15 years over an area of 43.39 acres at Hisri New Mines, Chapi was executed on 19.07.1966. The lease was renewed for a further period of 15 years till 18.07.1996. The petitioner submitted application for renewal of the mining lease for a period of 20 years on 07.07.1995. The State Government sent communication dated 30.11.1996 to the Department of Mines seeking its prior approval and vide communication dated 16.06.1998, the Central Government accorded its approval for second renewal of the mining lease in favour of INDAL. Subsequently, the said Company was merged in the year, 2003 with M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited, the present petitioner and, the mining lease was transferred in favour of the petitionerCompany vide order dated 23.08.2010.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Ganguly, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contends that once the Central Government accorded its approval vide order dated 16.06.1998 for second renewal of the mining lease for 20 years, the State should have executed the leasedeed. In the meantime, the petitionerCompany on an assumption of deemed renewal, continued to operate the said mines. The petitionerCompany continued to pay royalty, deedrent, cess and other statutory liability to the State Government and the State Government, in the meantime, did not raise any objection to the mining operation by the petitionerCompany or its predecessor. It is submitted that only after decision in "Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2014 6 SCC 590", a letter was issued by the Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga on 09.09.2014 directing the petitionerCompany to close its mining operation. It is thus contended that in view of order dated 16.06.1998, the mining operation of the petitionerCompany cannot be held illegal and no penalty can be realised from the petitionerCompany.