The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2335 of 2020 ---- Agarwal Minerals Industries represented through its partner Deepak Kumar Agarwal, son of Om Prakash Agarwal, resident of Ranchi Road, Redma, PO PS Redma, Daltonganj, District Palamau. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Yojana Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. 3. The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Yojana Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Director (Geology), Directorate of Mines, Government of Jharkhand, Yojana Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi. 5. The District Mining Officer, Palamau. … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
---- CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J. For the Petitioner : For the Respondents : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG ---- Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate ---- 06/ 19.09.2023 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following (Per Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.):-
Decision
O R D E R 1. By filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter No.1104/M dated 22.07.2020, which is Annexure 13 to the writ petition, issued by the District Mining Officer, Palamau, whereby Letter of Intent dated 14.03.2018 issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision contained in Memo No.876 dated 02.07.2020, which is Annexure 12 to the writ petition, issued by the Deputy Director, whereby the respondent-District Mining Officer, Palamau has been advised that in view of Amended 9(1)(ka) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2019, the leasehold of land for mining of Minor Minerals, except sand is to be through auction. Petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus upon the respondents to execute the mining lease in favour of the petitioner. 2. The facts relating to filing of the writ petition have been described in chronological manner as hereunder. The land in question is recorded as raiyati land. The mukhia of the village vide memo No.17 dated 08.04.2017 certified that the villagers have no objection if the leasehold land is granted for -: 2 :- mining purpose. On 20.04.2017, the Divisional Forest Officer, Medininagar certified that the land in question is beyond the minimum safety distance from forest boundary line. The petitioner allegedly established a mineral based industry in the backward district of Palamau and on 30.01.2018 all consent and permissions have been communicated to the District Mining Officer. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau on 14.03.2018 issued a Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner for grant of mining lease for stone and marble over an area of 3.10 acres situated in Mouza Hisra, Police Station Chainpur (Ramgarh), Thana No.89, Khata No.14 and 73, Plot No.339(P), 342(P), District Palamau and the same was communicated to the petitioner on the same day. A mining plan was also approved under Rule 34D of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, whereafter petitioner applied for environmental clearance and the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand has granted Environmental Clearance to the petitioner, but lease was not executed in his favour. Petitioner also served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 14.01.2020. Matter was, thereafter, referred to the Department of Mines and Geology. In the meantime, there has been an amendment in the Rules and by virtue of said amendment, under the provisions of Rule 9(1)(ka) under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, lease for mining purpose can only be granted on holding a proper auction. Thereafter, the impugned communications were issued in respect of the petitioner and petitioner was denied execution of the lease deed in its favour. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since Letter of Intent has been issued in favour of the petitioner, it is the duty of the State to execute mining lease. However, we are of the opinion that mining of minerals in the State should be done for welfare of the people. In the economic process of mining activity, all persons interested, having requisite technology and qualification should be granted appropriate and equal opportunity for participating in the process of selection of licencee/leaseholder. In this case, largesse has been granted in favour of the petitioner. It is not known on what ground Letter of Intent was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the action of the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau was nothing but granting of a largesse in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, issuance of Letter of Intent itself would not give a right to the petitioner of entering into a lease agreement for -: 3 :- mining of minor minerals on the site in question. The amendment has been made even prior to, though after the issuance of Letter of Intent, by then the lease agreement has not been entered into. 4. The definition of Letter of Intent as provided in Rule 2 (29) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 reads as under: - 2. … (29) “ ” ” 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. versus Maha Laxmi Mingrate Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd. & Others reported in (1996) 10 SCC 405 at paragraph 7 thereof has held as under: - 7. … The Letter of Intent merely expressed an intention to enter into a contract. If the conditions stipulated in the Letter of Intent were not fulfilled by Respondent 1, and if the conduct of Respondent 1 was otherwise not such as would generate confidence, the appellant was entitled to withdraw the Letter of Intent. There was no binding legal relationship between the appellant and Respondent 1 at this stage and the appellant was entitled to look at the totality of circumstances in deciding whether to enter into a binding contract with Respondent 1 or not. 6. Considering the facts of the case and the legal position, we are of the opinion that the respondents have acted in right direction. There is no merit in the writ petition nor there exists any justification to issue writ of certiorari or a mandamus directing the respondents to execute lease agreement in favour of the petitioner. 7. 8. This writ petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Urgent certified copies of this order shall be issued as per the Rules. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) Kumar/Cp-02 (Ananda Sen, J.)