The High Court · 2023
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 389 of 2022 incorporated under the Rungta Mines Limited, a Company Companies Act, having its registered Office at 8A, Express Tower, 42A, P.O. & P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, KOLKATA-700017, West Bengal and also office at Rungta Centre, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum its authorized representative Arun Kumar, aged about 52 years, son of Shree Kant Poddar, resident of 31 Jaiswal Colony, Jhanda Chowk, Ramgarh, Ramgarh Cantt, Jharkhand-829122. through … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi 3. The Director Mines, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi 4. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum 5. The District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum … … Respondents With W.P. (C) No. 390 of 2022 incorporated under Rungta Mines Limited, a Company the Companies Act, having its registered Office at 8A, Express Tower, Shakespeare Sarani, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, 42A, P.O. KOLKATA-700017, West Bengal and also office at Rungta Centre, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum through its authorized representative Arun Kumar, aged about 52 years, son of Shree Kant Poddar, resident of 31 Jaiswal Colony, Jhanda Chowk, Ramgarh, Ramgarh Cantt, Jharkhand-829122. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi 3. The Director Mines, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi 4. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum 5. The District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum … … Respondents ---
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- 2 For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to learned Advocate General Order No. 15/Dated 27th July 2023 --- The prayers made in these writ petitions have been extracted in the order dated 16th May 2023 which reads as under: “These are assigned matters by virtue of the order dated 13th May 2023 passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side. 2. In WP(C) No. 389 of 2022 the following prayers have been made: I. An appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to forthwith grant permission to the petitioner to remove for its own benefit 19,364.610 MT of Iron Ore excavated during the currency of the lease i.e. upto 31.03.2020 from Merelgara-Barabaljori Iron & Mn Mines of the petitioner, amongst other items in terms of Rule 12(1) (gg) of the Minerals (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 and in terms of Clause 5 of the Part IX of Form K of Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 within a period of 6 months from the date of grant of such permission. II. For an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) commanding upon to the respondents to issue transit permit/challan in favour of the petitioner for transporting 19,364.610 MT of the Iron Ore so removed in pursuance of the Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Minerals (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016. 3. In WP(C) No. 390 of 2022 the following prayers have been made: I. An appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to forthwith grant permission to the petitioner to remove for its own benefit 1,85,013.530 MT of Iron Ore excavated during the currency of the lease i.e. upto 31.03.2020 from Ghatkuri Iron Mines of the petitioner, amongst other items in terms of Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Minerals (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 and in terms of Clause 5 of the Part IX of Form K of Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 within a period of 6 months from the date of grant of such permission. II. For an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) commanding upon to the respondents to issue transit permit/challan in favour of the petitioner for transporting 1,85,013.530 MT of the Iron Ore so removed in pursuance of the Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Minerals (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016. 4. In WP(C) No. 389 of 2022, the quantity of mineral involved is 19,364.610 MT. In WP(C) No. 390 of 2022, the quantity of mineral involved is 1,85,013.530 MT. 5. I.A. No. 4510 of 2022 in WP(C) No. 389 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking an interim order for staying the tendering process published vide Notice Inviting Tender/e-Auction Notice No.01 of 2023-24. 3 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute as to quantity of mineral which was mined by the petitioner Company before 31st March 2020 when the mining lease has lapsed. 7. In support of the above submission, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Joint Inspection Report and the return filed for the month of March 2019-2020. 8. The learned Advocate General who is assisted by Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, the learned AC to the learned Advocate General has raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to lift the mineral is under consideration before the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. 9. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, the learned AC to the learned Advocate General is seeking three weeks' time for filing a response. 10. Post these matters on 19th June 2023.” 2. As it is appearing from the submission made on behalf of the petitioner in both these writ petitions, now the issue is confining to whether the minerals mined by Rungta Mines Limited before 31st March 2020 can be permitted to be removed by the said Company. 3. We have indicated in the aforesaid order dated 16th May 2023 that in the Joint Inspection Report and the return filed for the month of March, 2019-20, the quantity of iron ore mined in the leasehold area pertaining to W.P. (C) No. 389 of 2022 is 19,364.610 MT. Similarly, the quantity of iron ore mined from the leasehold area in W.P. (C) No. 390 of 2022 is 1,85,013.530 MT. 4. After an adjournment was granted by this Court on 16th May 2023 taking note of the objection raised on behalf of the State of Jharkhand that the applications filed by the Company seeking permission to lift the minerals are under consideration before the Secretary, Department of Mine and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, the matter was posted for 19th June 2023. 5. On 19th June 2023, a statement was made before this Court that hearing before the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand has been concluded. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand in which it is stated that the matter is still under consideration. 4 6. The Company has brought on record series of letters vide Annexure-3, Annexure-7 and Annexure-9 and Annexure-15 in W.P. (C) No. 389 of 2022 and letters vide Annexure-3, Annexure-7 and Annexure-15 in W.P. (C) No. 390 of 2022 to indicate that immediately after expiry of lease on 31st March 2020, it has been pursuing the matter before the appropriate authority. 7. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, we do not find reference of any law or rule under which a lessee is prohibited from removing the minerals mined in the leasehold area. 8. In course of arguments even on repeated query from the Court all that Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned AC to learned Advocate General could point out is that under Rule 12 (1) (gg) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules 2016 a period of six months has been provided for removing the minerals mined from the leasehold area during the lease period. 9. While so, we do not find any reason why an order granting permission to the Company for removing the minerals in respect of which return has been filed and quantity of which has been assessed in the Joint Inspection Report be not passed in the present proceeding. 10. These writ petitions are allowed to the extent that the District Mining Officer at Chaibasa shall issue mining challans on production of evidence of payment of all applicable statutory liability including royalty, payment towards District Mineral Foundation Fund, National Mineral Exploration Trust within a period of one week from production of such evidence. 11. W.P. (C) No. 389 of 2022 and W.P. (C) No. 390 of 2022 are allowed to the aforesaid extent. 12. I.A. No. 945 of 2022 and I.A. No. 7630 of 2022 in W.P. (C) No. 390 of 2022 and I.A. No. 4510 of 2023 in W.P. (C) No. 389 of
Decision
2022 are disposed of. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/Mukul