M/s.Indian Garnet Sand Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu

ORDERThe writ petition is directed against the order of the secondrespondent dated 23.10.2009, by which the second respondent grantedmining lease for garnet to an extent of 2.08.0 hectares in AppanallurVillage, Thottiam taluk, Trichy District in favour of the fourthrespondent for a period of 20 years. The relevant survey numbers andextent as per the order reads as follows:VillageS.F.No.ExtentAppanallur57/10F0.11.558/8E10.14.558/8E40.05.558/8E50.17.559/1E0.28.559/1F0.16.059/3C0.07.559/2E0.82.059/3A0.25.5Total2.08.02. The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Actcarrying on the business of mining of garnet sand in patta andGovernment lands, has applied for the grant of mining lease forgarnet sand in the said village and Poolancheri village in TrichyDistrict in the year 1996. After making necessary survey andobtaining a report from the Geologist, no lease was granted andhence, the petitioner approached this Court earlier and there was adirection to consider the application of the petitioner and eventhereafter, the application was not considered which resulted infiling a contempt application and when the contempt application waspending, the first respondent returned the application of thepetitioner. a) In the said contempt application, on filing a sub-applicationby the petitioner, the order of return was set aside and this Courtdirected the first respondent to grant lease. It is stated thatagainst the said order, the first respondent filed an appeal beforethe Division Bench, which directed the respondents to consider theapplication of the petitioner and pass orders. It was, thereafter,on 16.8.2005, the lease was granted, under which the petitionercommenced the mining operations. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ b) It is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent is arival company, against whom certain complaints were given and publicinterest litigations were filed on the basis that the 4th respondentwas disturbing the lawful mining operations of the petitioner invarious places like, Tuticorin and Trichy. The petitioner hasrealized that the 4th respondent applied for mining operations in theland to an extent of 2.07 hectares in Appanallur village and 2.08.5hectares in Poolancheri village in Trichy District and the saidapplications were hurriedly considered by the second respondent, whogranted the clearance in respect of Appanallur village lands.c) It is stated that the mining plan has been approved by thethird respondent and the lease is yet to be granted by the DistrictCollector, who has to execute the lease deed. In thosecircumstances, the petitioner made a representation to therespondents stating that if the 4th respondent is granted mining leasein the adjacent land, there would be every possibility for the 4threspondent to interfere with the mining operations of the petitionerwhich may result in law and order problems. d) Even though such a representation was made by the petitioner,the first respondent without adhering to the provisions of the Minesand Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,1957 and the MineralConcession Rules,1960 granted clearance to the 4th respondent inrespect of the non-garnet areas overlapping three private landsbelonging to the petitioner. It is stated that in respect of thelands, there has been some dispute regarding ownership with oneM/s.Beach Minerals Company which has taken over the 4th respondentwith an ulterior motive to prevent the lawful mining operations ofthe petitioner. e) It is stated that the 4th respondent has artificially divertedthe water flow of the river course into their patta land and inrespect of 201.65.5 hectares mining lease was granted in favour of the sister concern of the petitioner, by name, M/s. SouthernEnterprises in Thottiyam and Musiri taluk, Trichy District. 3. The grant of lease in favour of the 4th respondent ischallenged on the ground that the application filed by the 4threspondent for 1.05 hectares is not maintainable since the minimumarea must be 2 hectares and the garnet sand is not available in 1.05hectares. It is also the complaint of the petitioner that the mininglease granted in favour of the 4th respondent is relating to the landswhich are well within the boundaries of the lands in respect of whichlease was granted to the petitioner and there is absolutely no scopefor the deposit of garnet sand far away from the water course andtherefore, the second respondent should have rejected the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application. The impugned order of lease which has been passedagainst the law in favour of the 4th respondent is challenged by thepetitioner on the ground that the first respondent has failed toconsider and give reasons to differ with the findings of the thirdrespondent,the competent authority and that the lease has beengranted in gross violation and without consideration of the validobjection raised and as per the Mining Rules, before passing theimpugned order, it has to be ascertained that the safety distance of7.5 metres is provided from the adjacent patta lands, that the mininglease has been granted in respect of 2.08 hectares of lands, abettingthe river which is under the control of Public Works Department. Nosafety distance of 50 metres has been provided in the river bank asper the Rules, that there is no possibility of existence of garnetoutside the river bank, that the mining lease has been granted by thefirst respondent against the finding of fact that no garnet sand isavailable and that the inclusion of non-mineral area is to cover theminimum area of 2 hectares against the provisions of law, apart frommany other grounds. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it isstated that the writ petition is not maintainable since thepetitioner has got a right of revision before the Central Governmentagainst the order of the second respondent as per section 30 of theMines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1956 read withthe Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. That apart, on merits, it isstated that the 4th respondent made an application on 17.1.2002 to theGovernment through the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli for mininggarnet sand from the patta land measuring an extent of 1.07.5hectares in S.F.Nos.59/2E and 59/3A of Appanallur village, ThottiumTaluk, Trichy District for a period of 30 years and subsequently, anorder was passed under section 26(1) of the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 (in short, "the Act")rejecting the application on the ground that the minimum requiredarea for mining lease is 2.00.0 hectares as per Rule 22D of theMineral Concession Rules, 1960. a) It is stated that the 4th respondent acquired additionalextent of lands to cover the required 2 hectares of land andthereafter, sought for the grant of mining lease to the total extentof 2.08.0 hectares of patta lands in S.F.Nos.57/10F, 58/8E, 58/E4,58/8E5, 59/1E, 59/1F, 59/3C, 59/2E and 59/3A in Appanallur village,Thottium Taluk, Trichy District. It is, after spot inspection and onthe recommendations of the third respondent-District Collector, thesecond respondent by a communication dated 29.5.2009, informed hisdecision for the grant of mining lease for garnet sand and requiredthe 4th respondent to furnish the mining plan for approval by theGovernment of India, through Indian Bureau of Mines. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ b) Thereafter, the 4th respondent prepared the mining plan andsubmitted the same for approval by the Controller of Mines (SouthZone), Indian Bureau of Mines, Bangalore, who, after inspection,approved the plan on 13.10.2009. It is stated that the Government byG.O.Ms.No.133, Industries Department dated 4.5.1998 delegated thepowers to the second respondent for the purpose of granting mininglease in respect of the patta lands for major minerals, by virtue ofthe powers under section 26(2) of the Act, 1957 and it was,thereafter the second respondent under the impugned order dated23.10.2009, granted the mining lease to the 4th respondent in respectof 2.08 acres in S.F.Nos.57/10F, 58/8E, 58/8E4, 58/8E5, 59/1E, 59/1F,59/3C, 59/2E and 59/3A in Appanallur village, Thottium Taluk,Tiruchirapalli District for the period of 20 years. c) Thereafter, the third respondent required the 4th respondentto remit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards security deposit and Rs.4160/-towards surface rent and also to furnish non-judicial stamp papers tothe value of Rs.45,960/- for the execution of lease deed and toproduce bank guarantee for Rs.1 lakh. It is stated that the 4threspondent complied with all the requirements and the lease deed asper the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 also came to be executedbetween the District Collector/third respondent and the 4th respondenton 27.10.2009 and registered as document No.3132 of 2009 in theoffice of the Sub-Registrar, Musiri and upon execution of the leasedeed, the 4th respondent has commenced the mining operations from2.11.2009. d)It was, suppressing the above facts, the petitioner filed thewrit petition and obtained an ex parte order in this Court on8.12.2009 by giving false information as if the District Collectorwas yet to execute the lease deed. It is stated that V.V. Minerals,Beach Minerals and the 4th respondent are different entities and the4th respondent was constituted as a company in the year 2002 andMr.S.Sukumar and Tmt.S.Kalaiarasi, who were holding the management ofthe 4th respondent have not continued and stepped down and the presentmanagement assumed charge and is running the management of thecompany. e) It is stated that M/s.Beach Mineral Sands Company is not thesister concern of the 4th respondent. While the application was madein the year 2002 by the 4th respondent, it was on 29.5.2009, onlyafter seven years, the second respondent approved the precise areaclearance. The mining plan has to be approved by the Controller ofMines, Bangalore, Indian Bureau of Mines and not by the DistrictCollector who is not the authority. It is stated that the leasegranted to the petitioner is in respect of Government poramboke landbearing S.F.Nos. 55,60 and 61 measuring 7.02.0 hectares, whereas the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ permission granted to the 4th respondent is relating to patta landsand the distance between the petitioner’s lands and the patta landsof the 4th respondent is 25 metres and there is a bund at a height of12 ft. in between the patta lands of the 4th respondent and the lease-hold poramboke lands of the petitioner and the bund is strengthenedand supported by stones and there is absolutely no possibility forthe 4th respondent to prevent the right of mining by the petitionerand there is no overlapping of the lands of the petitioner. f) It is stated that the 4th respondent originally applied formining garnet in the lands to an extent of 1.07.5 hectares on17.1.2002 and that was not considered for the reason that it was lessthan the minimum extent as required under Rule 22D of the MineralConcession Rules, 1960 and therefore, a notice was issued under Rule26(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules to comply with the requirementsand thereafter the 4th respondent acquired additionally the pattalands to an extent of 1.00.5 hectares of patta land inS.F.Nos.57/10F, 58/8E1, 8E4, 8E5, 59/1E, 1F and 3C in Appanallurvillage and fulfilled the minimum area requirement and the mininglease was then granted to the 4th respondent by the second respondentafter going through the entire records based on the orders of theIndian Bureau of Mines, Bangalore. g) It is stated that there are various inherent reasons such as,high tide, cyclone, heavy rain flow and other natural calamities etc.which may promote the deposit of minerals in the lease hold land ofthe 4th respondent and the lease was granted for 20 years and not for25 years. It is stated that various litigations stated by thepetitioner with regard to the sister concerns which relates to VembarVillage, Tuticorin District. It is stated that necessary safetydistance has been left out and it is only the petitioner who wants tocreate a monopoly and with that view, the present writ petition hasbeen filed. 5. After the said counter affidavit was filed by the 4threspondent wherein the 4th respondent has stated that the thirdrespondent-District Collector has already executed the lease deed on27.10.2009, the petitioner filed M.P.No.2 of 2010 for amendment ofthe prayer so as to include the lease deed dated 27.10.2009 executedby the third respondent-District Collector in favour of the 4threspondent consequent to the impugned order of the second respondentdated 23.10.2009. In this miscellaneous petition, the 4th respondentin the writ petition filed a counter affidavit stating that themining lease application of the 4th respondent has satisfied all theconditions required for the grant of mining lease in respect of thearea applied for. The 4th respondent has also denied the various https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allegations raised by the petitioner in the reply affidavit. It isstated in the mining plan approved by the Controller of Mines (SouthZone), Indian Bureau of Mines, Bangalore that the minable reserveestimated in the applied area is 1,75,216 tonnes. It was onlyafter considering the same, the second respondent granted the lease. The approved mining plan is the sine quo non for granting mininglease which has been followed in this case and therefore, it isstated by the 4th respondent that the petitioner cannot challenge thesubsequent lease deed dated 27.10.2009. 6. Mr.V.Shanmugam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,while referring to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulations) Act, 1957, especially section 5 readwith rule 22D of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, would submitthat when the minimum area required for mining lease is 2 hectares,since the 4th respondent admittedly filed application for mining leasein respect of 1.07.5 hectares, that application ought to have beenrejected for the entire extent and the action of the 4th respondent insubsequently purchasing some other extent of land to make it as ifthe mining lease was sought for 2 hectares of land is not correct andaccording to him, it would amount to violation of the rules. It issubmitted that when the application for mining of lesser extent ofland was rejected and no lease was granted for more than 2 hectares,it is not open to the 4th respondent to claim that he is entitled togo for mining operations in respect of 2.08.0 hectares. It is hiscontention that the construction of the rules should be made in thesense that if an application is made for a minimum extent of land, itmust be proved that the entire extent of land of minimum requirementcontains the minerals. It is his submission that the mere existenceof alternative remedy is not a rule of law and it is a rule ofdiscretion, by relying upon the judgment in Voltas Volkart EmployeesUnion vs. Voltas Limited [2000(1) CTC 184]. 7. On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr.V.Sanjeevi,learned counsel for the 4th respondent that in the absence ofviolation of the principles of fundamental rights, natural justice orfor want of jurisdiction, the proper remedy for the petitioner is tofile a revision which is available as per section 30 of the Act. Hewould refer to the judgment in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar ofTrade Marks, Mumbai [AIR 1999 SC 22] Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian OilCorporation Ltd., [(2003) 2 SCC 107], N.Narayanan vs. Securities andExchange Board of India (SEBI) [2009 (8) MLJ 960] and State of Goavs. M/s.A.H.Jaffar and Sons [AIR 1995 SC 333] to substantiate hiscontention that the facts are not admitted and under the disputed factual position, the writ petition would not lie. He would alsorefer to the merits of the case and referring to section 5(2)(a) ofthe Act dealing with the availability of minerals in the land in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ question, his contention is that the quantity may be less or more andit is not necessary that every part of the land should have theminerals in entirety especially when the variation is a natural one. It is his submission that the documents which are relied upon by thepetitioner are all relating to the period in which the permission wasgranted. It is his submission that the provisions of Rule 22(4) havebeen fully complied with by the 4th respondent and according to him,under rule 26(3) any mistake can be rectified and omission can besupplied. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned counsel for the respondents and perused the entire recordsand given my anxious thoughts to the issue involved in this case. 9. Pursuant to the impugned order of the second respondent dated23.10.2009, the lease deed was executed in favour of the 4threspondent in the writ petition on 27.10.2009 for a period of 20years in respect of 2.08.0 hectares for mining the land and it is notin dispute that the 4th respondent, pursuant to the lease, is carryingon the mining operations. Admittedly, the impugned mining lease hasbeen granted to the 4th respondent in respect of his patta lands. 10. The complaint of the petitioner, however, is that he hasbeen the mining operator in respect of Government Poramboke landswhich are stated to be situate adjacent to the patta lands of the 4threspondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned orderof granting quarry lease and licence in favour of the 4th respondentis against the Act as well as the Rules, whereas it is the case ofthe 4th respondent that the writ petition itself is filed by thepetitioner who is a rival operator of mining in poramboke lands onlyto prevent the 4th respondent from carrying out the terms of the leasesomehow or other. 11. On the admitted fact of execution of lease deed in favour ofthe 4th respondent in respect of 2.08.0 hectares in S.F.Nos.59/3A,etc. in Appanallur village, Thottiyam taluk, Trichy District, theissues to be decided are, as to whether the present application inwhich the lease has been granted is maintainable, particularly whenan application made earlier by the 4th respondent on 17.1.2002 formining a lesser extent of land of 1.07.5 hectares in the same landwas rejected, that too, after the rule 22-D came to be introduced byway of amendment in the year 2003, stipulating the minimum extent ofland required for mining shall be 2 hectares and whether the impugned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order passed granting the mining lease after the 4th respondentfulfilling the requirement of minimum extent of land by acquiring theadjacent lands is valid or not. 12. Before going into this aspect, since the 4th respondent hasraised a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the writpetition on the basis of availability of alternative remedy of filinga revision, it is necessary to traverse to the said jurisdictionissue first which requires a reference to various provisions of Minesand Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 and the MineralConcession Rules, 1960. 13. It is true that at the time when the 4th respondent appliedfor permission to quarry garnet sand on 17.1.2002, there was nocondition in existence to the effect that the lands in respect ofwhich quarrying operation was sought for, should be more than 2hectares. When the proposal was pending, rule 22-D of the MineralConcession Rules, 1960 came to be introduced with effect from10.4.2003 stipulating 2 hectares as minimum extent of land in respectof mining of beach sand or other placers and the said rule 22-D isas follows:“Rule 22D. Minimum size of the mining lease.- Minimumarea for grant of mining lease shall not be less than-(a) One hectare, in respect of small deposits (notfragmented portions of larger ones), shallow in nature,isolated and not exceeding more than 200 metres in strikelength. These deposits are small by virtue of eitherorigin or mode of emplacement or dislocation due togeological disturbances.Small deposits shall also include float deposits(transported) formed due to mechanical weathering anddeposition, alluvial or eluvial placers (buried orotherwise), which generally have peculiar configurationsexcepting beach sands or placers;(b) Two hectares, in respect of beach sands orplacers.Beach sands or placers are mono or multi-mineralconcentrations, including the dunes occurring on and offthe coastal shore line.These deposits are the products of ebb and flow oftides, waves and inshore currents, and at places semi-consolidated to consolidated in nature; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (c) Four hectares, in respect of all mineral depositsother than those specified under clauses (a) and (b):][Provided that in the case of renewal of mining lease,the restrictions of minimum area for grant of mining leaseshall not be applicable.]” 14. Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 is as follows:“Rule 26. Refusal of application for grant and renewalof mining lease.-(1) The State Government may, after giving anopportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recordedin writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse togrant or renew a mining lease over the whole or part of thearea applied for.(2) An application for the grant or renewal of amining lease made under rule 22 or rule 24A, as the casemay be, shall not be refused by the State Government onlyon the ground that Form I or Form J, as the case may be, isnot complete in all material particulars, or is notaccompanied by the documents referred to in sub-clauses(d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of clause (i) of sub-rule 22.(3) Where it appears that the application is notcomplete in all material particulars or is not accompaniedby the required documents, the State Government shall, bynotice, require the applicant to supply the omission or, asthe case may be, furnish the documents, without delay andin any case not later than thirty days from the date ofreceipt of the said notice by the applicant.”15. While sub-rule (1) of Rule 26 enables the State Governmentto give opportunity if it is decided to refuse to grant mining leaseas enumerated above, rule 26(3) enables the Government to ask formore particulars if the application is bereft of certain informationgiving 30 days’ time. It is seen that based on the said powers,there was some correspondence between the Government and theDepartment of Geology and Mining on the point as to whether theentire extent of 2 hectares of land should contain the trace ofminerals applied for, when the 4th respondent purchased additionalland and gave particulars so as to make the total extent of land as2.08.0 hectares. In the communication of the Director of Geologyand Mining to the first respondent dated 31.3.2006, it was clarifiedthat it is not absolutely necessary that the entire applied areashould contain the minerals applied for mining and it is sufficientif traces of minerals or barren are available which would not affectthe eligibility of the area for the grant of mining lease. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16. It appears that a question was raised during the course ofpendency of the above said proceedings and certain clarificationswere called for regarding the contradiction between the report of theDistrict Collector and the report of the Commissioner of Geology andMining, and the Government wanted to find out as to whether themining lease in patta land, if granted, would affect the Eri. Itwas subsequently after inspection of the area by the AssistantDirector of Geology and Mining, it was found that S.F.Nos.55,60 and61 of Appanallur village, which are all vari poramboke, for whichlicence was granted to the petitioner are situate 25 metres away fromthe patta lands for which the 4th respondent applied for mining leaseand the Eri is about 200 metres away from the said area andtherefore, it was informed that there was no possibility of anyillegal mining by the 4th respondent in the poramboke area comprisedin S.F.Nos.55, 60 and 61, for which mining lease was granted to thepetitioner. The report also states that there is no possibility ofillegal mining by the 4th respondent in the Appanallur Eri and vari. It was based on such report, the second respondent passed theimpugned order on 23.10.2009 after analyzing the entire aspects ofthe matter. The impugned order came to be passed after consideringthe mining plan approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines dated13.10.2009, which is in conformity with the requirements of rule 22(4) of the Mineral Concession Rules,1960 which is as follows:“ Rule 22(4) On receipt of the application for the grant ofa mining lease the State Government shall take decision togrant precise area for the said purpose and communicatesuch decision to the applicant. On receipt ofcommunication from the State government of the preciseareas to be granted, the applicant shall submit a miningplan within a period of six months or such other period asmay be allowed by the State Government, to the CentralGovernment for its approval. The applicant shall submitthe mining plan, duly approved by the Central Government orby an officer duly authorised by the Central Government, tothe State Government to grant mining lease over that area.”17. In fact, as per rule 22(4), the mining plan is to beapproved by the competent authority, viz., the Indian Bureau ofMines. Once the approval is granted, the same would be available forthe duration of lease period, which means that the said authority hasdecided about the viability of mining operations based on theapplication made by the 4th respondent which has been forwarded alongwith the approved plan. Rule 22(6) is as follows:“Rule 22(6) The mining plan once approved shall bevalid for the entire duration of the lease: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Provided that any modification or modifications of themining plan shall be approved by the competent authorityand such approval of the modified mining plan shall remainvalid for the balance duration of the mining lease.”Then, the mining lease is granted by the State Government or thesecond respondent, on delegation of powers. 18. Section 5(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development andRegulations) Act, 1957,is as follows:"5.Restrictions on the grant of prospecting licences ormining leases.-(1) xxxxx(2) No mining lease shall be granted by the StateGovernment unless it is satisfied that-(a) there is evidence to show that the area forwhich the lease is applied for has been prospected earlieror the existence of mineral contents therein has beenestablished otherwise than by means of prospecting sucharea; and (b) there is mining plan duly approved by theCentral Government, or by the State government, in respectof such category of mines as may be specified by the CentralGovernment, for the development of mineral deposits in thearea concerned."The above said section only puts an embargo on the State Governmentthat before issuing mining lease the State Government should satisfyabout the evidence of existence of mineral contents and the miningplan that has been approved. On the facts of the present case, havingsatisfied that the mining plan has been duly approved by theauthority competent, the impugned order granting permission has beenpassed by the second respondent, the Commissioner of Geology andMining by exercising the delegated powers from the Government. 19. Section 30 of the Act enables the Central Government torevise such orders made by the State Government or other authorityexercising the powers in respect of minerals other than minorminerals. The said section 30 is as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "30. Power of revision of Central Government.- TheCentral Government may, of its own motion or on applicationmade within the prescribed time by an aggrieved party,revise any order made by a State Government or otherauthority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by orunder this Act with respect to any mineral other than aminor mineral."20. The filing of such revision to the Central Government andthe procedures to be followed are contemplated under rules 54 and 55of the Minor Concession Rules, 1960 which are as follows:"54. Application for revision.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any order made by theState Government or other authority in exercise of thepowers conferred on it by the Act or these rules may,within three months of the date of communication of theorder to him, apply to the Central Government in triplicatein Form N, for revision of the order. The applicationshould be accompanied by a Bank Draft for five thousandrupees on a nationalised bank in the name of 'Pay andAccounts Officer, Department of Mines' payable at New Delhior through a treasury challan for five thousand rupeesunder the Head of Account – 0853 – Non-ferrous Mining andMetallurgical Industries-102 Mineral Concession Fees, Rentsand Royalties:Provided that any such application may be entertainedafter the said period of three months if the applicantsatisfies the Central Government that he had sufficientcause for not making the application within time.(2) In every application under sub-rule (1) againstthe order of a State Government refusing to grant aprospecting licence or mining lease was granted in respectof the same area or for a part thereof, shall be impleadedas party.(3) Along with the application under sub-rule (1), theapplicant shall submit as many copies thereof as there areparties impleaded under sub-rule (2).(4) On receipt of the application and the copiesthereof, the Central Government shall send a copy of theapplication to each of the parties impleaded under sub-rule(2) specifying a date on or before which he may make hisrepresentations, if any, against the revision application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

55. Orders on revision application.- (1) On receipt of an application for revision underrule 54, copies thereof shall be sent to the StateGovernment or other authority and to all the impleadedparties calling upon them to make such comments as they maylike to make within three months from the date of issue ofthe communication, and the State Government or otherauthority and the impleaded parties, while furnishingcomments to the Central Government shall simultaneouslyendorse a copy of the comments to the other parties.(2) Comments received from any party under sub-rule(1) shall be sent to the other parties for making suchfurther comments as they may like to make within one monthfrom the date of issue of the communication and the partiesmaking further comments shall send them to all the otherparties.(3) The revision application, the communicationscontaining comments and counter-comments referred to insub-rules (1) and (2) shall constitute the records of thecase.(4) After considering the records referred to in sub-rule (3), the Central Government may confirm, modify or setaside the order or pass such other order in relationthereto as the Central Government may deem just and proper.(5) Pending the final disposal of an application forrevision, the Central Government may, for sufficient cause,stay the execution, of the order against which any revisionapplication has been made." 21. It is relevant to point out that a detailed procedure hasbeen established by the rules including the period of limitationwithin which such revision can be filed. In fact, the CentralGovernment as a revisional authority has the power to stay theexecution of the order against which the revision has been made.Therefore, the revisionary power of the Central Government to revisethe order of the State Government regarding the grant of licence forminerals other than minor minerals being regulated by the statute andthe same is to be exercised in the manner known to law, certainly, itis not open to the petitioner to state that he would by-pass therevisional authority on any other grounds. 22. The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble First Bench of thisCourt in Voltas Volkart Employees Union vs. Voltas Limited [2000(1) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CTC 184] on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for thepetitioner has no application to the facts of the case. First ofall, that was a case under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments(National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 in the context of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and particularly, section 9-A whichdeals with the conditions of service relating to declaration ofholidays on the factual backdrop that the holidays already inexistence were restricted and an issue was raised by the Union on theground that it would alter the service conditions and could not begiven effect to without notice and the management raised thequestion of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground ofavailability of alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act.In that case, there was a violation of statutory provision whichresulted in the consequential violation of the principles of naturaljustice, especially when the accustomed holiday for Good Friday wassought to be taken away along with the wages for that day, and insuch circumstances, the Hon’ble First Bench of this Court consistingof K.G.Balakrishnan,CJ. (as His Lordship then was) andK.P.Sivasubramaniam,J. has held that it is not reasonable to expectthat the Union shall raise an industrial dispute in thosecircumstances. The relevant portion of the judgment in that regardis as follows:"21. The last issue which remains to be considered isthe question of maintainability of the writ petition. As aresult of the finding that there is non-compliance ofSection 9-A of the Act, it follows that there is grossinfringement of a statutory provision and also theconsequential violation of principles of natural justicewhich should be sufficient to eliminate the objections onthe ground of alternative remedy, vide the judgment of theSupreme court in Whirlpool Corpn. vs. Registrar of TradeMarks 1998 (8) SCC 1. To the same effect is the judgment ofK.Govindarajan,J., rendered in South Arcot Dist. CentralCo.operative Bank Ltd., Employees Assn. v. DeputyCommissioner of Labour 1998 (III) CTC 143. The submissionthat if the Union was aggrieved, an industrial dispute couldbe raised by the Union, cannot also be countenanced. Thesituation has been brought about by the unilateral action ofthe management and ignoring its statutory obligation underSection 9-A of the Act. The need to remedy the situation isemergent and grave enough from the point of view of theUnion who have not only been deprived of the accustomedholiday for Good Friday, but also are deprived of wages forthat day. As a result of the managements unilateral actionof including Saturdays and Sundays, the employees have lostfive holidays. It would not be reasonable to expect thatthe Union should raise a dispute and await indefinitely for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the ultimate conclusion of the proceedings. Therefore, weare unable to sustain the objection based on alternateremedy."Certainly, the facts and circumstances of the present case can neverbe equated to the one decided by the Hon’ble First Bench as statedabove. 23. The Supreme Court in State of Goa vs. M/s.A.H.Jaffar andSons [AIR 1995 SC 333] has dealt with section 30 of the Mines andMinerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957. In that case, asubmission was made that since the period of limitation prescribedfor the purpose of filing revision under section 30 of the Act hasexpired, the revision might not be entertained, and the Supreme Courtheld that when the grant of lease is regulated by the statute, theproper remedy is either to challenge the lease granted or order notgranting the lease can be only by filing a revision and not by a writpetition, especially when the Central Government is empowered tocondone the delay if it is satisfied that the revision could not bepresented with the time for sufficient cause. The Supreme Court hasspecifically held as follows:"3. The appeal has been argued at length. Sri SirajSait has attempted to support the judgement with industryand precision. But it does not appear necessary to decidewhether the finding recorded by the High Court that theorder of Commissioner being administrative in nature itcould be reviewed by the State Government or it isnecessary to decide whether the Minister could exercise anypower where the grant of lease is regulated by the Statuteas in our opinion the remedy of revision having beenprovided by Section 30 of the Act, the proper course for therespondent was to approach the Central Government and notthe High Court. Learned counsel for the respondentexpressed apprehension that the period for limitationprovided in Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules,1960having expired, the revision might not be entertained. Theproviso to the rule, however, empowers the revisingauthority to condone delay if it is satisfied that therevision could not be presented for sufficient cause withintime. Since the respondent was pursuing its remedy in HighCourt bona fide, it would be sufficient cause to condone thedelay and we trust that the revision if preferred withinfour weeks from today shall not be dismissed as being barredby time." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

24. It is no doubt true that the alternative remedy may not be arule of law, but it is a discretion and that is not applicable incases where the statutory lease like that of mining lease which ismore in the form of Governmental contract is regulated by law,especially when such law enables an effective remedy. In WhirlpoolCorporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai [AIR 1999 SC 22],while discussing elaborately about the jurisdiction of the High Courtunder the Constitution of India when an alternative remedy isavailable, it was held that it was a self-imposed restriction on theHigh Court not to entertain a writ petition except under threecontingencies viz., enforcement of fundamental rights, violation ofthe principles of natural justice and where orders are wholly withoutjurisdiction or ultra vires. The Hon’ble Apex Court, having referredto plethora of judgments on the issue ever since from AIR 1950 SC 163(Rashid Ahmad vs. Municipal Board, Kairana), held that in spite ofthe fact that much water has since flown beneath the bridge, butthere has been no corrosive effect. The above said establishedprinciples are elicited in the following paragraphs:"15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the HighCourt, having regard to the facts of the case, has adiscretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition.But the High Court has imposed upon itself certainrestrictions one of which is that if an effective andefficacious remedy is available, the High Court would notnormally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternativeremedy has been consistently held by this Court not tooperate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely,where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcementof any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been aviolation of the principle of natural justice or where theorder of proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or thevires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point put to cut down this cricle of forensicWhirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of theevolutionary era of the constitutional law as they stillhold the field.16. Rashid Ahmad vs. Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950SC 163, laid down that existence of an adequate legal remedywas a factor to be taken into consideration in the matter ofgranting writs. This was followed by another Rashid case,namely, K.S.Rashid & son v. The Income-tax InvestigationCommissioner, AIR 1954 SC 207, which reiterated the aboveproposition and held that where alternative remedy existed,it would be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse tointerfere in a petition under Article 226. This proposition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was, however, qualified by the significant words, "unlessthere are good grounds therefor", which indicated thatalternative remedy would not operate as an absolute bar andthat writ petition under Article 226 could still beentertained in exceptional circumstances.17 to 19. xxxxx20. Much water has since flown beneath the bridge, butthere has been no corrosive effect on these decisions whichthough old, continue to hold the field with the result thatlaw as to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaininga writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, inspite of the alternative statutory remedies, is notaffected, specially in a case where the authority againstwhom the writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdictionor had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legalfoundation." 25. That view has been consistently followed as it is seen inthe judgment rendered in Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil CorporationLtd., [(2003) 2 SCC 107]. Of course, in that case, the Supreme Courtrejected the entertainment of writ petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India on the basis that in contractual mattersrelating to termination of dealership in respect of petroleumproducts for which licence was granted, by following its earlierjudgment in Whirlpool case (cited supra). The relevant portion ofthe judgment is as follows:"7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that theremedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause wasavailable to the appellants and therefore the writ petitionfiled by the appellants was liable to be dismissed isconcerned, suffice to it observe that the rule of exclusionof writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternativeremedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion.In an appropriate case, in spite of available of thealternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise itswrit jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) wherethe writ petition seeks enforcement of any of thefundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure ofprinciples of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders orproceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires ofan Act is challenged. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar ofTrade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1). The present case attractsapplicability of the first two contingencies. Moreover, asnoted, the petitioners' dealership, which is their bread andbutter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that theappellants should have been allowed relief by the High Courtitself instead of driving them to the need of initiatingarbitration proceedings." 26. As stated above, even in the judgments relied upon by thelearned counsel for the petitioner, it was held that in respect ofthe three celebrated principles, Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia would be exercised, and by applying the said principles to thefacts of the present case, especially taking note of the specificjudgment of the Supreme Court on the issue in State of Goa vs.M/s.A.H.Jaffar and Sons [AIR 1995 SC 333], it is not possible toaccept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner thaton the facts of the present case, the writ petition should beentertained. Therefore, as correctly submitted by the learnedcounsel for the 4th respondent, the writ petition has to be rejectedon the basis of availability of an effective alternative remedy offiling revision which is regulated by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 read with the MineralConcession Rules, 1960, particularly rules 54 and 55 and on thatscore, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 27. As held by the Supreme Court in the decision referred toabove, the proviso to rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960enables the Government to entertain revision even after the expiry ofthree months, if sufficient cause is shown. In the present case, theimpugned order granting permission to the 4th respondent came to bepassed on 23.10.2009 and after making some representation, thepetitioner has chosen to approach this Court on 2.12.2009 and thematter has been pending till date and therefore, it is always open tothe petitioner to show the sufficient cause for the delay in filingrevision. 28. It is true that as submitted by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, by construing various rules, especially rule 22-D, itcan be safely presumed that while considering the availability ofmineral, it is not necessary that the entire extent for which theapplication has been made for mining operation should contain thetraces of mineral. That apart, on construction of rule 26(3) of theMineral Concession Rules, it can be construed that any omission inthe original application filed for mining permission can be suppliedby way of rectification. Apart from that, the rules, especially theconditions with which the mining permission is to be granted containvarious safeguards to protect the neighboring lands whether they areagricultural lands or other mining lands, as in the present case thatthe petitioner doing mining operations in the Government porambokelands is to see that such operations are not affected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

29. On facts, it is found by the authorities that the place ofmining operations to which the petitioner has been granted lease isfar away from the place for which the mining permission has beengranted to the 4th respondent under the impugned order. These are allfacts which are found by the authorities competent under the law,especially when it is the case of the 4th respondent that the miningplan has been duly approved by the authority competent under the Act. Even if the approval of mining plan by the authority competent underthe Act is disputed by the petitioner, the petitioner has got a rightof revision against such approval of mining plan granted by the ChiefController of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, to the ControllerGeneral, Indian Bureau of Mines within a period of 30 days from thedate of granting of such approval for mining plan, and it is open tothe revisional authority to condone the delay, if any sufficientcause is shown, as it is found in rule 22-BB(4) of the Rules, whichis as follows:"22BB.(4) Any person aggrieved by an order made ordirection issued by the Chief Controller of Mines, IndianBureau of Mines, concerning approval of mining plan maywithin thirty days of the communication of such order ordirection, apply to the Controller General, Indian Bureauof Mines for a revision of such order or direction and hisdecision thereon shall be final:Provided that any such application may be entertainedafter the said period of 30 days, if the applicantsatisfies the Controller General, Indian Bureau of Minesthat he had sufficient cause for not making the applicationin time."30. On the facts of the present case, the Controller of Mines(South Zone), Indian Bureau of Mines, Bangalore, Ministry of Mines,Government of India, after inspection of the place of the 4threspondent which are patta lands, approved the mining plan by orderdated 13.10.2009. Thereafter, by virtue of the powers delegated bythe Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.133, Industries (MMA-1)Department, dated 4.5.1998 regarding patta lands for major mineralsunder section 26(2) of the Act, the Commissioner/Director of Geologyand Mining granted the mining lease to the 4th respondent in respectof 2.08.0 hectares in S.F.Nos.57/10F, 58/8E, 58/8E4, 58/8E5, 59/1E,59/1F, 59/3C, 59/2E and 59/3A in Appanallur village, Thottium taluk,Trichy District for a period of 20 years. Therefore, prima facie Iam of the view that there is no statutory violation in grantinglicence to the 4th respondent under the impugned order. In any event,as I have held, the petitioner’s remedy is only by way of revisionunder section 30 of the Act to the Central Government. The above https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ observation has to be necessarily made for the purpose of sustainingthe impugned order till the petitioner exercise its right of revisionunder the above said provision. 31. In such view of the matter, the writ petition standsdismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy offiling revision under the Act. It is made clear that if thepetitioner files such revision, within the period of 10 days from thedate of receipt of copy of this order to the competent authorityunder section 30 of the Act, along with an application for condoningthe delay, it is for the revisional authority to consider the reasonfor such delay, also taking note of the pendency of this writpetition from 2.12.2009 before this Court and pass appropriate orderson merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarKhTo1.The Secretary State of Tamil NaduIndustries DepartmentFort St.George, Chennai 9.2.The Commissioner Geology & Mining DepartmentGuindy Industrial Estate PostGuindy, Chennai 32.3.The District CollectorTrichy District, Trichy.1 cc To Mr.V.Sanjeevi, Advocate, SR.25709.1 cc To Mr.V.shanmugham, Advocate, SR.25585.W.P.No.25116 of 2009 GS(CO)RVL 30.04.2010