KHUSHAL ARJUN RATHOR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition was preferred on 21.12.2015 with a prayer to direct the respondent- State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 8(A)(3) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015] (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act,2015). It sought quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 which have denied the benefits of Section8A(3) of the Amendment Act of 2015 with a prayer that case of the applicant should be re-examined in the light of the amended section. It had also sought a declaration that period of mining lease of the petitioner be treated as valid for a period of 50 years from the date of the commencement of mining lease dated 11.11.1970 in terms of section 8A(3) of the Amendment Act, 2015.

(2.) Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 31.984 hectares in protected forest ,block no.40, Noamundi, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand for a period of 20 years effective from 11.11.1979 till 10.11.1999. Before expiry of the statutory period of 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 6.11.1998. That application for renewal got rejected during pendency of the writ petition through memo no 196/M, Ranchi dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure-IA/1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner thereafter sought amendment in the writ petition through I.A. No. 566 of 2016 also seeking quashing of the order dated 22.1.2016. The respondent- State had also issued a notice on 2.2.2016 through letter no. 141 contained in Annexure-SA/1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2016 where under the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the lease hold area to the State authorities failing which, unilateral steps would be taken for its possession.

(3.) In the aforesaid background of facts, when the matter was taken up on 10.2. 2016, learned counsel for the Union of India and the State sought for and were allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit in the main matter as well as I.A. No. 566 of 2016. An interim order was passed to the effect that petitioner would not carry out mining activity on the lease in question, however status- quo as on that day shall be maintained in respect of possession. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had raised the question relating to interpretation of provisions of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 to substantiate the prayer made in the writ application that the petitioner is entitled to treat his lease as valid for a period of 50 years. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit thereafter and the matter has been taken up today. In between an authoritative pronouncement has been rendered by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 8A of the Amendment Act,2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated 04.04.2016.