BABUL AHMED Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above civil petition for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment and order dated 3.6.2007 of the High Court Division passed in Writ Petition Nos. 5945, 5946 and 5947 of 2005 (heard analogously with Writ Petition Nos. 5674, 2170, 2171, 2033, 3182,1235, 3400 and 6645 of 2005) discharging the Rules. Since the High Court Division heard the above writ petitions analogously and disposed of those by a common judgment, all civil petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by this single judgment.

(2.) In all the above writ petitions the petitioners challenged the Memo dated 10.8.2005 issued by the Director, Bureau of Mines and Minerals Development, the respondent No. 2, refusing to renew the lease of the pathor mahals granted in their favour for further period as per provisions of the Mines and Minerals Rules 1968 as amended upto 1995 and also in terms of the lease agreements executed in their favour on the averments that they, with a view to take lease of the respective pathor mahals, filed applications to the respondent No. 2 as per provisions of Mines and Minerals Rules, 1968 as amended upto 1995 and after considering their applications the respondent No.2 granted leases in their favour with effect from the dates of their applications, and thereafter the petitioners executed bilateral lease agreements with them which, as per clause 4 of the lease agreements as well as the provisions of the said Rule 1968 as amended, were renewable upto 6 years and after completion of all necessary formalities the respondent No. 2 issued works orders in their favour and they, after making huge investments, started extracting and lifting stones from their respective pathor mohals with satisfaction of all concerned and that towards the end of the 2nd year of their leases they while extracting stones peace-fully on investing further fund of improving the extraction facilities of stones, they filed applications for renewal of their leases for further period with challans showing payment of annual fees etc for the respective years, but inspite of receipts of the said applications, the respondent No.2 did not take any step to renew the leases and then they suddenly received the memo dated 10.8.2005 providing that in terms of the provisions of the Gazette Notifications dated 11.5.2004, and 19.6.2004, Annexures D and D-1, the respondent No. 2 has no longer any jurisdiction to renew the quarry leases of the pathor mahals without recommendations of the District Committee and that prior to issuance of the above memo no intimation were ever given to the petitioners.

(3.) The respondents, though did not file any affidavit-in-opposition, contested the Rules on making oral submissions for the effect that the leases granted to the petitioners were initially for a period of one year and in some cases those were extended from time to time for one year at a time but the period of all the leases have already expired in the year 2005 and so after expiry of their leases they have no locus standi to file the writ petitions and further no lease was at all granted to the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 5674 of 2005 and that by Notification dated 13.5.2004 by inserting new Rule 55B in the Mines and Minerals Rules, 1968, new administrative systems have been established providing proper checks and balance in leasing out the quarries and that in clause 1 of the agreement for lease it was clearly stipulated that the provisions of the Mines and Mineral Act, 1992 and those of the Mines and Minerals Rules, 1968 shall be applicable and prevail inspite of any contrary provision contained in the agreement for lease and clause 4 of the agreement for lease specifically provided that subject to the satisfactory performance and payment of fees, royalties and other outstanding dues of the leasee the leasing authority shall grant renewal of the lease and it is thus evident that the leasing authority, even after satisfactory performance of the lease, has the option not to grant renewal of the lease and thus the petitioners, who are the lessees can not claim renewal as a matter of right and moreover as per clause 1 of the Angikarnama admittedly signed by the petitioners as well as in terms of clause 1 of the lease granting order, the petitioners are bound to abide by any amendment of the provisions of Act 1992 as well as Rules 1968 and further according to the Notification dated 13.05.2005 there is no scope of renewal of lease without the recommendation of the District Committee and in the present cases those are wanting and that the government can change rules for achieving administrative efficiency and/or for public interest and the government, having suffered loss of huge revenue due to the mismanagement of the quarries in different parts of the country, made the changes and most of the lessees, whose leases have expired, have come before the High Court Division and obtained Rule Nisi as well as orders of status-quo till disposal of the Rules and thereby caused a deadlock situation in the leasing out of quarries and also caused delay in the development plans of the government and various development projects are facing acute crisis because of shortage of stones/ sand; further renewal of lease of balu mohal and pathor mohal can not be claimed as of right and as such the writ petitions are nothing but a device to prolong the time to enjoy the usufructs of the pathor mahals for indefinite period in disguise of the pendency of the writ petitions.