M/S. GEOMYSORE SERVICES (I) PVT. LTD & Anr. v. M/S. HUTTI GOLDMINES CO. LTD & Ors.

#6. Section 17A(2) of the Act envisages four conditions, viz. (a) The land is not held under prospecting licence or mining lease; (b) there is approval by the Central Government; (c) a notification is issued in the Official Gazette specifying the boundaries of such area; and (d) such notification should identify the mineral or minerals in respect of which such areas are sought to be reserved. In the present case, only the first condition was fulfilled. None of the other conditions were satisfied. Therefore, the State of Karnataka could not have issued recommendation in favour of respondent No. 1 on 27.12.2008. Unless reservation takes place, a private company stands on the same footing as a Government company and in that eventuality, Section 11 of the Act would be applicable and the appellants being the RP holders and also being earlier PL applicants, had to be given preference. The Central Government was justified in rejecting the request of the State of Karnataka in reserving the land in question. [Paras 45 and 46] [558-G-H; 559-A-C, G-H] Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 331 : [2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 640 ; Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors (2012) 11 SCC 1: [2012] 7 SCR 644 ; Amritlal Nathubhai Shah and Others v. Union Government of India and Another (1976) 4 SCC 108 : [1977] 1 SCR 372 ; State of T.N. v. M/s Hind Stone and Others (1981) 2 SCC 205 : [1981] 2 SCR 742 ; Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (1992) 1 A B C D E F G H M/S. GEOMYSORE SERVICES (I) PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. M/S. HUTTI GOLDMINES CO. LTD. & ORS. 537 Suppl. SCC 91 : [1990] 2 Suppl. SCR 27 ; State of T.N. v. M.P.P. Kavery Chetty (1995) 2 SCC 402 : [1995] 1 SCR 441 ; Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 1 : [2010] 11 SCR 240 ; State of Kerala and Ors. v. Kerala Rare Earth & Minerals Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 323 : [2016] 5 SCR 515 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 640 referred to [2012] 7 SCR 644 [1977] 1 SCR 372 [1981] 2 SCR 742 referred to referred to referred to [1990] 2 Suppl. SCR 27 referred to [1995] 1 SCR 441 [2010] 11 SCR 240 [2016] 5 SCR 515 referred to referred to referred to Para 8 Para 25 Para 28 Para 29 Para 31 Para 32 Para 36 Para 38 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2537 of 2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 03.04.2012 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 25899 of 2011 Civil Appeal No. 2538 of 2017. WITH Maninder Singh, ASG, A. K. Panda, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, C.S. Vaidyanathan, C. U. Singh, Jaideep Gupta, Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Advs., S. A. Haseeb, T. A. Khan, Mrs. Manita Verma, Prabhas Bajaj, Akshay Amritanshu, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, G.S. Makker, Arun Mani, Naveen Kumar, Nishi Kant Singh, Abhinav Raghuvanshi, Naveen R. Nath, MRC Ravi, Darpan K.M., V. N. Raghupathy, Chinmay Deshpande, Parikshit Angadi, Ms. Rachita, Advs. for the appearing parties. A B C D E F G H 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEEPAK GUPTA J. 1. What is the role and power of the Central Government while dealing with the request of a State Government for reservation of lands for government companies or corporations owned and controlled by the State Government under section 17A (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is the main issue involved in this case. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND

#2. This case has a long and chequered history. There are gold mines in the State of Karnataka and parties are litigating in respect of their rights to exploit those mines. We have two appellants before us, M/s. Geomysore Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Appellant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “Geomysore”) and Deccan Gold Exploration Services Pvt. Ltd., Appellant No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “Deccan”).

#3. On 01.04.2000 Geomysore applied for grant of Reconnaissance Permit (for short ‘RP’) for 315 sq. kms. of land in Hutti South Belt Gold Mines area. After approval by the Central Government, the State Government granted RP on 03.11.2000 for a period of 3 years. Similarly, Deccan was granted RP in Northern part of Hutti Gold Mines for an area measuring 501.48 sq. kms. for a period of 3 years on 09.01.2003 after completing all formalities. The respondent no. 1 i.e. M/s Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “HGML”) did not file any application for grant of RP for either of the two areas.

#4. Geomysore conducted the reconnaissance and submitted a consolidated report on 30.11.2003. Deccan submitted its consolidated report on 21.04.2006. Both the Companies found evidence to suggest the existence of gold deposits and need to carry out further prospecting in certain areas. On the basis of the results of the reconnaissance, Geomysore filed 4 applications for grant of Prospecting Licence (for short ‘PL’) under Section 11(1) of the Act. Deccan filed 7 applications for grant of PL with regard to the area where it had conducted reconnaissance.

#5. On 28.11.2006, HGML sent a letter to the Commissioner, Geological Resources Development and Director, Department of Mines B C D E F G H M/S. GEOMYSORE SERVICES (I) PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. M/S. HUTTI GOLDMINES CO. LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 539 and Geology, Bangalore praying for reservation of area for the purpose of conservation exclusively for public sector undertakings under Section 17A(2) of the Act. It was stated that HGML was keen to continue prospecting investigations in the area in question. It was submitted that grant of Mining Lease (for short ‘ML’) to different organizations would create severe problems including safety hazards and as such it was prayed that the entire area, including the area for which RP had been granted to Geomysore and Deccan, be reserved under Section 17A(2) of the Act. It appears that Geomysore came to know about this proposal and it sent a letter on 28.11.2006 itself to the Government of India and opposed the contemplated action of the State of Karnataka to forward a proposal to the Ministry of Mines for reservation of the mining area.

#6. In the meantime, two other developments took place. The Ministry of Mines published the National Mineral Policy, 2008 (for short ‘the NMP 2008’) and the Government of Karnataka released the Karnataka Mineral Policy, 2008 (for short ‘the KMP, 2008) in consonance with NMP, 2008 to which we shall advert later.

#7. On 27.12.2008, the Government of Karnataka wrote to Government of India for reservation of area in favour of HGML and recommended that 161 sq. kms. of land be allocated to HGML for mining. This covered the areas for which RPs had been granted to Geomysore and Deccan and, therefore, Geomysore and Deccan filed revision petitions before the Central Government. The main challenge to the decision of the State Government was that the appellants were entitled to preference while considering their application for grant of PL and also their PL applications have been filed earlier in time. It was also urged that in terms of the NMP, 2008 and the KMP, 2008 reservation could not be made. The Central Government allowed the revision petitions and directed the State of Karnataka to consider the PL applications filed by Geomysore as well as Deccan.

#8. Thereafter, HGML filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court. The High Court held that the reservation of the area had not yet taken place and since the Central Government was still to take a decision on the request of the State Government, it was not necessary to determine whether the preferential right claimed by Geomysore and Deccan under Section 11 of the Act could defeat the right of the State Government to A B C D E F G H 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. seek reservation of the area under Section 17A(2) of the Act. The High Court, after considering the judgment of this Court in the case of Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.1 held as follows: “10. Having held so, the Hon’ble Court has further held that the power under Section 17A(2) is the statutory power and normally there could be no estoppel against the exercise of statutory power and upheld the recommendation of the State Government seeking for approval of the Central Government. It is clear that, in the instant case, the undisputed fact is that the contesting respondents in any event have not been granted the prospecting licence or mining lease and as such the area in question is not the one which is already held under a prospecting licence or mining lease. Therefore, if the above decision is kept in view, the State Government was well within its powers to seek approval of the Central Government to reserve the area in question. In any event, the Central Government before granting its approval would have to consider all these aspects of the matter and any such consideration by the Central Government could not have been stifled by the contesting respondents in the form of revision application and the revision authority was also not justified in interfering. The preferential right claimed by the contesting respondents cannot be accepted at this stage and a direction could not have been issued to consider the applications of the contesting respondents by setting aside the communication dated 27.12.2008. The appropriate procedure would be to allow the Central Government to take a decision on the approval sought by the State Government by its communication dated 27.12.2008. Thereafter, the consideration or otherwise of the applications for prospecting licence by any other person including the contesting respondents would arise depending on the result of such consideration by the Central Government. If for any reason, the Central Government does not accede to the proposal of the State Government and in such situation if the applications remain open for consideration, then and only then the question of preferential right would arise for consideration.” 1 (2006) 12 SCC 331 A B C D E F G H M/S. GEOMYSORE SERVICES (I) PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. M/S. HUTTI GOLDMINES CO. LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 541

#9. Consequently, the orders passed by the Central Government were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Central Government to take decision on the recommendation made by the State Government with a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law. The Central Government examined the matter and rejected the proposal of the State Government for reservation of land under Section 17A(2) of the Act for Government undertakings. The order notes that Geomysore and Deccan had already filed PL applications after completing reconnaissance pursuant to the RPs granted to them. Instead of dealing with the PL applications of Geomysore and Deccan, the State Government suddenly decided to make a request to the Central Government to reserve the land. The Central Government held that the action of the State Government is against the stated purpose of Para 3.3 of the NMP, 2008 which provides that there should a regulatory environment conducive to private investment; that the procedure for grant of concession should be transparent and seamless transition shall be guaranteed to the concessionaires; that the action of the State Government was not transparent or fair; that land could only be reserved where private players are not holding the land or have not applied for exploration or mining unless security considerations or specific public interests are involved; that since Geomysore and Deccan had completed their RPs and applied for seamless transition to PL, the proposal of the State Government to reserve the land in favour of HGML was neither in public interest nor in terms of the NMP, 2008 and, therefore, proposal of the State Government to reserve land was rejected and again a direction was issued that the request of Geomysore and Deccan for grant of PL be considered expeditiously.

#10. HGML then filed another writ petition challenging the order of the Central Government dated 31.05.2011. Geomysore and Deccan filed a joint reply in the writ petition and the High Court allowed the writ petition vide the impugned judgment, which is under challenge before us.

#11. The main factor which weighed with the High Court in allowing the writ petition was that whereas under Section 11 of the Act, a party which had carried out reconnaissance pursuant to RP, was entitled to preference at the time of granting PL, under Section 17A(2) of the Act, the words “reconnaissance permit” do not find mention. The Court A B C D E F G H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. further held that in its earlier judgment dated 18.02.2011, it had been held that while taking a decision under section 17A(2) of the Act, the preferential right under Section 11 of the Act had no role to play and, therefore, the claim of the State Government could not be defeated on this ground. Since the judgment had attained finality, the matter should not be reopened. It further held that the NMP, 2008 cannot overrule the provisions of Section 17A of the Act. The Court further held that the policy has to give way to the statutory provisions. It was held that the second order passed by the Central Government contains the same flaws which were there in the earlier order and hence the writ petition was allowed and the order of the Central Government refusing to reserve the land was quashed. THE LEGAL PROVISIONS

#12. At the outset, we may point out that as far as this case is concerned, we are dealing with the Act prior to its amendment in the year 2015. Sub-sections (ha) and (hb) of Section 3 of the Act were introduced w.e.f. 18.12.1999 and define ‘reconnaissance operations’ and ‘reconnaissance permit’ respectively. The same read as follows: “(ha) “reconnaissance operations” means any operations undertaken for preliminary prospecting of a mineral through regional, aerial, geophysical or geochemical surveys and geological mapping, but does not include pitting, trenching, drilling (except drilling of boreholes on a grid specified from time to time by the Central Government) or sub-surface excavation; (hb) “reconnaissance permit” means a permit granted for the purpose of undertaking reconnaissance operations;”

#13. A reconnaissance permit allows the permit holder to carry out reconnaissance operations. A reconnaissance permit holder carries out operations to determine whether the area is fit for mining only by way of non-invasive techniques, except for some minimal drilling. Normally, reconnaissance permits are granted for huge areas of land.

#14. Sub-sections (g) and (h) of Section 3 of the Act define ‘prospecting licence’ and ‘prospecting operations’ respectively. The same read as follows: “(g) “prospecting licence” means a licence granted for the purpose of undertaking prospecting operations; A B C D E F G H M/S. GEOMYSORE SERVICES (I) PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. M/S. HUTTI GOLDMINES CO. LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 543 (h) “prospecting operations” means any operations undertaken for the purpose of exploring, locating or proving mineral deposits;” A

#15. Normally, after reconnaissance is done, a party would determine which is the best part of the huge area fit for prospecting to determine with greater exactitude the location of mineral deposits. Thus, PL is granted for an area which is much less than that of the RP area. During prospecting, invasive methods can be used to the extent allowed under law for determining the extant mineral deposits and whether they can be exploited commercially.

#16. After prospecting is done, comes the stage of grant of mining lease. ‘Mining lease’ and ‘mining operations’ are defined in sub- sections (c) and (d) of Section 3 of the Act respectively. The same read as under: “(c) “mining lease” means a lease granted for the purpose of undertaking mining operations, and includes a sub-lease granted for such purpose; (d) “mining operations” means any operations undertaken for the purpose of winning any mineral;”

#17. Investments during reconnaissance or prospecting are very large. These are not small investments. Therefore, a person who had conducted reconnaissance is given preference for grant of PL and a person who had conducted prospecting is given preference while being considered for grant of ML. In this behalf we may refer to Section 11 (1) of the Act which reads as follows: “11. Preferential right of certain persons.- (1) Where a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land, the permit holder or the licensee shall have a preferential right for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, in respect of that land over any other person: B C D E F Provided that the State Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee, as the case may be,- G (a) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations, as the case may be, to establish mineral resources in such land; H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. (b) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the reconnaissance permit or the prospecting licence; (c) has not become ineligible under the provisions of this Act; and (d) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, within three months after the expiry of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence, as the case may be, or within such further period as may be extended by the said Government.”

#18. The purpose of the aforesaid Section is that in view of the money, effort and time spent in undertaking reconnaissance or prospecting operations and preparation of detailed reports of the mineral discoverable or likely to be discovered pursuant to such operations, such RP or PL holder would get a preferential right for undertaking the next stage of operations.

#19. Section17A of the Act reads as follows: “17A. Reservation of area for purposes of conservation.- (1) The Central Government, with a view to conserving any mineral and after consultation with the State Government, may reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease and, where it proposes to do so, it shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such area will be reserved. (1A) The Central Government may in consultation with the State Government, reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease, for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through a Government company or corporation owned or controlled by it, and where it proposes to do so, it shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such area will be reserved.] (2) The State Government may, with the approval of the Central Government, reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease, for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through a Government company or A B C D E F G H M/S. GEOMYSORE SERVICES (I) PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. M/S. HUTTI GOLDMINES CO. LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 545 corporation owned or controlled by it and where it proposes to do so, it shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such areas will be reserved. (3) Where in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1A) or sub-section (2) the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, undertakes prospecting or mining operations in any area in which the minerals vest in a private person, it shall be liable, to pay prospecting fee, royalty, surface rent or dead rent, as the case may be, from time to time at the same rate at which it would have been payable under this Act if such prospecting or mining operations had been undertaken by a private person under prospecting licence or mining lease.”

#20. Though, in this case we are dealing mainly with Section 17A(2), we feel that it would be appropriate to analyze the provisions of the various parts of Section 17A of the Act. Under Section 17A(1), the Central Government has the power to reserve any area to conserve any mineral. The Central Government has to exercise this power after consultation with the State Government. There is, however, one caveat, which is, that if a PL or ML for the said area is held by any person then the Central Government cannot reserve the area. Under sub-section (1A) of Section 17A, the Central Government has similar power to reserve areas for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through Government companies, but again, such areas should not have been held under any PL or ML. As far as Section 17A(2) is concerned, this provision gives power to the State Government to reserve an area not held under a PL or ML for prospecting or mining by State Government owned companies. However, this can be done only with the approval of the Central Government and the area so reserved should be notified in the official gazette along with the mineral and minerals for which the area has been reserved. Though we are not directly concerned with sub-section (3) of Section 17A of the Act in this case, the said sub- section provides that where the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, undertakes prospecting or mining operations in any area in which mineral vests in the private person, then the Central Government or the State Government concerned shall be liable to pay prospecting fee, royalty, surface rent, dead rent etc.. A B C D E F G H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. A

#21. We may also, at this stage, refer to Section 2 of the Act, which reads as follows: “2. Declaration as to the expediency of Union control. – It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent hereinafter provided.” CONTENTIONS

#22. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, submitted that Section 17A(2) of the Act empowers the State Government to reserve any area not held under PL or ML for any State Government undertaking. However, this is subject to the prior approval of the Central Government. It is his contention that the State Government cannot reserve an area (not held under a PL or ML) without obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government. He further submits that the Central Government, while considering the request of the State Government, has to apply its mind independently and while dealing with the request, it can take into consideration the mineral policy. Therefore, according to him, the High Court erred in holding that the Union could not take into consideration the parameters set out in the mineral policy. According to him, the absence of the words ‘reconnaissance permit’ from Section 17A(2) of the Act only indicates that whereas for those areas for which PL or ML has been granted, there is an absolute bar, but where only RP is granted, there is no bar and the State Government can, with the approval of the Central Government, reserve that area.

#23. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants adopted the arguments of Mr. Maninder Singh, but she also urged that in view of the huge investments required to be made by the RP holder, it is his legitimate expectation under Section 11 of the Act that he would get the PL. She further submits that HGML had not submitted any application for grant of RP or PL. Therefore, the applications of Geomysore and Deccan being prior in time, should have been considered. She has referred to various provisions of the Act both prior to and after its amendment in the year 2015 to emphasize that the intention of the Government is to encourage private investment in the industry and to ensure that such private investors are not left in lurch after investing huge amount and there is seamless transition from the stage of reconnaissance to prospecting and then to mining. B C D E F G H M/S. GEOMYSORE SERVICES (I) PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. M/S. HUTTI GOLDMINES CO. LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 547

#24. Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka, submitted that it is the State which is the owner of the minerals and keeping in view the federal structure of our country, the Union cannot override the power of the State. According to him, Section 2 of the Act does not empower the Union to reject the claim of the State Government on grounds which are not provided for in the statute itself. He also submits that the judgment rendered by the Karnataka High Court in the first Writ Petition No.39969/39970 of 2010 decided the issues between the parties and that will operate as res- judicata. He submits that in the earlier judgment the High Court had clearly held that the preferential right claimed by Geomysore and Deccan cannot override the power of the State Government under Section 17A(2) of the Act. He submits that the grounds taken in both the orders passed by the Central Government are virtually identical. According to him, since the words ‘reconnaissance permit’ have been omitted from Section 17A(2) of the Act, the Central Government could not have rejected the claim of the State Government on grounds which are directly related to the fact that Geomysore and Deccan had carried out reconnaissance in furtherance of such reconnaissance permit. He further submits that the NMP, 2008 was not binding and has made reference to clause 3.2 of the NMP, 2008, which indicates that what is set out in the policy are the goals and that the Act, the Mineral Concessions Rules and the Mineral Concessions Development Rules will be amended in line with the policy. He submits that these amendments took place in the year 2015 and, therefore, the policy could not have been resorted to by the Central Government to reject the claim of the State.

#25. Mr. C.U. Singh and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of HGML, submit that before Geomysore and Deccan were granted RP, HGML had already done a lot of work in the area. According to them, after the amendment of the Act, now these mines can only be auctioned. Reliance has been placed on Para 160 of Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors2. case. It was urged that the factors taken into consideration by the Central Government while rejecting the proposal of the State Government were not relevant factors. According to them, the right of the State to reserve area under Section 17A(2) flows from the paramount right of the State as owner of the land and minerals. 2(2012) 11 SCC 1 A B C D E F G H 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. A THE ISSUES

#26. There are four main questions which need to be answered: (i) Whether the State Government being the owner of land and minerals can claim that its proposal to reserve such land for exploitation of minerals by its undertakings is virtually binding on the Central Government? (ii) What are the considerations which can weigh with the Central Government while dealing with a request of the State Government for reservation of land under Section 17A(2) of the Act? (iii) Whether Section 11(1) and Section 17A(2) of the Act operate in totally separate spheres and what is the effect of the right of preference granted to RP holder in terms of Section 11(1) of the Act while dealing with a matter under Section 17A(2) of the Act? (iv) Whether, in the present case, the Central Government is justified in rejecting the proposal of the State of Karnataka?

#27. The Act was initially enacted as the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act (for short ‘the MMRD Act’). At that time, there was no Section 17A in the MMRD Act, which was later introduced w.e.f. 10.02.1987. Section 17 of the MMRD Act dealt with those lands in which minerals vested with the State Government. Under sub-section (2), the Central Government was empowered to carry out prospecting or mining operations in any area not already held under any PL or ML. This could, however, be done only after consultation with the State Government concerned. Therefore, Section 17 of the MMRD Act empowered the Central Government to undertake prospecting operations. Vide Act 38 of 1999 the name of the MMRD Act was changed from ‘The Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act’ to ‘The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act’ w.e.f. 18.12.1999. By the same Act, in Section 17 of the Act, the words ‘reconnaissance’ and ‘reconnaissance permit’ were introduced w.e.f. 18.12.1999. Prior to that, there was no concept of reconnaissance. Under the provisions of the Act, prior to the introduction of Section 17A, there was no statutory provision which empowered the State Government to reserve any land. However, under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) there was a provision in Rule 58, empowering the State Government to reserve such lands. After Section 17A was introduced on 10.02.1987, Rule 58 was omitted on B C D E F G H M/S. GEOMYSORE SERVICES (I) PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. M/S. HUTTI GOLDMINES CO. LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 549

13.04.1988. We are pointing out these facts because some of the judgments cited, being prior to introduction of Section 17A, have to be read in the context of Rule 58 of the Rules.

#28. In Amritlal Nathubhai Shah and Others v. Union Government of India and Another 3, this Court held that the State being the owner of the land, was entitled to reserve the land and, therefore, was justified in rejecting the applications of the private parties. This judgment was delivered in the context of Rule 58 of the Rules, as it existed at that time.

#29. In State of T.N. v. M/s Hind Stone and Others 4, the State of Tamil Nadu formulated the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Under Rule 8-C, the right to quarry black granite, a minor mineral, was reserved in favour of the State Government and its Corporations etc.. The validity of this Rule was challenged on various grounds including the ground that the MMRD Act, 1957 did not empower the State Government to make such a reservation. This Court rejected this submission on the ground that the State was the owner of the land and minerals and also that minor minerals vest in the State Government. The Court held as follows: “6. Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other resources constitute a nation’s natural wealth. These resources are not to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation. Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best possible way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in the interest of the nation……………… In the case of minor minerals, the State Government is similarly empowered, after consultation with the Central Government. The public interest which induced Parliament to make the declaration contained in Section 2 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, has naturally to be the paramount consideration in all matters concerning the regulation of mines and the development of minerals. Parliament’s policy is clearly discernible from the provisions of the Act. It is the conservation and the prudent and discriminating exploitation of minerals, with a view to secure maximum benefit to the community. There are clear signposts to lead and guide the