STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY HAVING OFFICE AT JHARKHAND MANTRALAYA, PROJECT BHAWAN, HEC TOWNSHIP, DHURWA, P.O. & P.S. Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED, THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER (LIASON) MR. DEBANANDA MARNDI, S/O LATE BALAI MARANDI, R/O ROOM NO.26, IEH, SAIL SATELLITE TOWNSHIP, P.O.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13.11.2014, passed in writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5368 of 2014 whereby, the learned single Judge quashed an order dated 04.09.2014 passed by this appellant-State. By this order dated 04.09.2014, State of Jharkhand had directed respondent to stop mining activities. While quashing an order dated 04.09.2014, learned Single Judge has directed the State of Jharkhand to take a decision under Sec. 8(3) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1957 " for the sake of brevity).

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that initially the lease was granted on 22.02.1949 for 30 years, which expired in the year 1979. An application for extension of the first lease was preferred and the same was granted for another 30 years. The said extended period for lease also expired on 21.02.2009. On 08.02.2008, an application for extension of the lease was preferred and the same has not been granted by the appellant-State. Meanwhile, Honourable Supreme Court has decided in the case of Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India and ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 590 , that there cannot be automatic extension of second lease period. Thereafter, an amendment has been brought and ultimately Sec. 8A has been added with effect from 12.01.2015 in the Act, 1957, which reads as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-State has further submitted that before passing a renewal order in view of the provisions of the Act, 1957, quoted as above, and also in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Goa Foundation (Supra), a letter was issued on 04.09.2014 to the respondent (original petitioner) for bringing to an end of their mining activities in absence of renewal of lease period for their mines, which they are using for their captive purpose, and by an interim order dated 16.10.2014, the State of Jharkhand was directed to take a decision under Sec. 8(3) of the Act, 1957 which decision is yet to be finally taken by the State of Jharkhand and meanwhile, State of Jharkhand has issued one more letter dated 22.10.2014 seeking consent of the lessee for imposing conditions for renewal of the lease. This has given birth to one more writ petition being WP. (C) No. 5640 of 2014. Meanwhile, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.5638 of 2014 has been finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge by quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.09.2014, passed by the appellant state and also the learned single judge passed an order that if an order under Sec. 8(3) of the Act, 1957 is not passed by the appellant-State within a period of one week from the date of the order, the respondent was allowed to continue with the mining activities, and against this order the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand.