The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4950 of 2024 ----- Rang Nath Singh, aged about 66 years, Son of Triloki Nath Singh, Resident of Village-Masnodih, P.O.-Masnodih, P.S.- Markachcho, District-Koderma. … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, P.O. and P.S.- Versus Koderma, District-Koderma. 3. The District Mining Officer, Koderma, P.O. and P.S.- Koderma, District-Koderma. … … Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner For the Respondent : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate : Mr. Sahja Nand Saraswati, Advocate : Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II ------ Order No. 03/Dated 10th September, 2024 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J. Prayer 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction upon the respondents to extend the period of mining lease granted to the petitioner in terms of the order contained in Memo No. 569 dated 19.05.2016 issued under signature of the Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma, in respect to the land being Plot No. 242 (Part) and 243 (Part), measuring an area 2.35 acres of land situated under Mauza- Purnadih within District-Koderma, by giving the benefits of the period elapsed with effect from 20.02.2013 to 26.05.2016 during 1 W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 which the matter concerning to renewal of the aforesaid lease of the petitioner remain pending. Brief facts of the case 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read as under:- It is the case of the petitioner that initially in respect to Plot No 242 (Part) and 243 (Part), comprising for an area of 2.35 acres of land situated under Mauza-Purnadih, P.S.- Markachcho, District-Koderma, a mining lease for stone was granted to the petitioner for the term of 10 years with effect from 07.04.2003 to 06.04.2013. 3. Before expiry of the term of the aforesaid lease, the application for further renewal of lease in question was submitted by the petitioner and after completion of all the legal formalities the lease was renewed further for the term of 10 years with effect from 07.04.2013 to 06.04.2023. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the order sanctioning the mining lease was issued on 19.05.2016 under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma and the order was communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 569/M dated 19.05.2016 issued under signature of the Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma. 5. The petitioner completed all the formalities and, thereafter, the lease was executed on 26.05.2016 and in the 2 W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 said deed the period of the lease was mentioned with effect from 07.04.2013 to 06.04.2023. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that renewal application was filed on 21.12.2012 which was within time
Decision
but the matter could not be disposed of and due to efflux of time under the deeming provisions, the application of the petitioner stood deem rejected against which the petitioner moved before the Revisional Authority and the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma for passing reasoned order, but even then no any order was passed. 7. Subsequently, the petitioner again moved before the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, in Rev. Case No. 173 of 2014 and the said case remain pending for about two years and finally on 10.02.2016 the aforesaid revision was disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner to pass speaking order and also directed to ensure that no mining is done in the occupied area during the pendency of the renewal application. 8. The case of the petitioner is that before expiry of the earlier term lease in question on 06.04.2013, the petitioner had applied for further renewal on 21.12.2012, but the order sanctioning mining lease was passed on 19.05.2016 and the lease deed was executed on 26.05.2016 whereunder the period has been shown with effect from 3 W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 07.04.2013 to 06.04.2023 and at the same time in the order sanctioning mining lease it was also mentioned that the lease is being renewed with effect from the date of expiry of the earlier term as 07.04.2013 to further 10 years i.e. upto 06.04.2023, whereas after expiry of the earlier term of lease in question on 07.04.2013, till 19.05.2016 the mining activities of the petitioner remain non-operational and even the direction was made by the revisional authority for ensuring no mining activities for the area occupied by the petitioner during pendency of the renewal application. 9. The petitioner had already paid the amount of dead rent for the period from 07.04.2013 to 06.04.2023 irrespective of the mining activities of the petitioner remain non- operational. 10. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition with a prayer to give the benefits of the period elapsed with effect from 20.02.2013 to 26.05.2016 during which the matter concerning to renewal of the aforesaid lease of the petitioner remain pending. 11. It is evident that admittedly the lease to carry out the mining operation has been granted by order as contained in Memo No. 569/M dated 19.05.2016 issued under signature of the Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma. 12. The petitioner has accepted the aforesaid decision as contained in Memo No.569/M dated 19.05.2016 and has 4 W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 started carrying out the mining operation without any demur. 13. But, after end of the period of lease by virtue of the order of renewal dated 19.05.2016, has come to this Court seeking a direction by way of issuance of mandamus to extend the period of mining lease. Submission made on behalf of the Petitioner 14. Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the grievance of the writ petitioner is that the permission was to be granted from 20.02.2013 by way of renewal but it was renewed with effect from 26.05.2016 and, as such, for the period from 20.02.2013 to 25.05.2016, even though there is no laches on the part of the writ petitioner, he has been made to suffer and, as such, the aforesaid period is to be added to the lease period as per the decision taken by the authority in Memo No. 569/M dated 19.05.2016 by extending the said period by further three years. 15. The reference of some of the orders has been made wherein while disposing of the writ petition, the authorities have been directed to consider the case of the parties concerned as per the judgment passed in the case of M/s. R.P.Singh Stone Works v. The State of Jharkhand and Others [W.P.(C) No.5362 of 2022]. 5 W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 16. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that direction may be passed upon the respondents to extend the period of mining lease granted to the petitioner in terms of the order contained in Memo No. 569 dated 19.05.2016. Submission made on behalf of the Respondent 17. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General-II, appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has submitted that the present writ petition is of the year 2024 seeking therein a direction which pertains to the year 2013. 18. It has been contended that the argument which has been advanced that the delay in not renewing the lease from 20.02.2013 to 25.05.2016 is attributed to the State but the same cannot be said to be proper for its consideration, reason being that if that be so, then why the writ petitioner waited upto the year 2024, i.e., after lapse of the period of lease, rather, the petitioner ought to have approached this Court immediately after renewal of the lease as was granted vide order dated 19.05.2016 as contained in Memo No.569/M. But, he has accepted the said renewal and when the said period has lapsed, thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed. 19. It has further been submitted that the reason for filing the present writ petition is that there is embargo in renewal by virtue of amendment having been incorporated 6 W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 in Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (amended in the year 2017) as per the provision as contained under Section 9 thereof. Consideration 20. Heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the pleading made in the writ petition as also the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 21. The undisputed fact in this case is that the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner to carry out the mining operation. Before expiry of the period of lease, the application was filed by the petitioner for its renewal from 20.02.2013. The aforesaid application has been decided by the authority by virtue of memo No.569/M dated 19.05.2016 by which the lease was renewed for a period of 10 years from the date of expiry of the earlier period of lease. 22. The petitioner has accepted the aforesaid decision as contained in Memo No.569/M dated 19.05.2016 and has started carrying out the mining operation without any demur. 23. But, after end of the period of lease by virtue of the order of renewal dated 19.05.2016, has come to this Court seeking a direction by way of issuance of mandamus to extend the period of mining lease. 7 W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in M/s. R.P.Singh Stone Works v. The State of Jharkhand and Others (Supra). 25. Before proceeding to examine the factual aspect as available in the present case, this Court needs to go through the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid case. 26. The factual aspect which has been discussed, needs to be referred herein which is available at paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment, for ready reference, paragraph-3 is being referred here in :- “3. Briefly states the facts reveal that initially in respect to Plot No.448 (Part), 450 to 453 measuring an area of 7.60 acres of land situated under Mouza- Banskol within the District Sahebganj, a mining lease for stone was granted to the petitioner in the year 2002 for a period of 10 years which was effective from 07.09.2002. The petitioner consequent to the execution of the lease deed had started mining activities and prior to expiry of the lease deed had made an application within time on 27.04.2012. According to the petitioner all the necessary documents were submitted save and except the consent letter of Ministry of Environment and Forest and the Royalty Clearance Certificate. However, since there was a deemed rejection of the said application, the petitioner had preferred a revision application being Revision Case No.257 of 2012 and it was disposed of on 23.07.2015 by setting aside the deemed rejection and directing the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj to examine the issue and 8 W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 pass a necessary order on merit. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj after perusing the documents submitted by the petitioner and in terms of the order dated 23.07.2015 passed in Revision Case No.257/12 had ordered for renewal of the lease which was valid upto 06.09.2022.” 27. It is evident from the factual aspect that the revisional authority, while disposing of the revision being Revision Case No.257 of 2012 vide order dated 23.07.2015 has set aside the deemed rejection order with a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner Sahebganj to examine the issue and pass necessary order on merit. 28. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, after perusing the documents submitted by the petitioner and in terms of order dated 23.07.2015 passed in Revision Case No.257 of 2012, had ordered for renewal of the lease which was valid upto 06.09.2022. 29. Now adverting to the fact of the present case, it is evident from paragraph 9 of the pleading made in the writ petition that the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, in Revision Case No.173 of 2014 has kept the matter pending for two years and on 10.02.2016, the aforesaid revision was disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner to pass speaking order as also to ensure that no mining is done in the occupied area during the pendency of the renewal period. 9 W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 30. It is, thus, evident that the factual aspect which was the subject matter in the order passed by the Coordinate Bench that the Mines Commissioner – the Revisional Authority, has passed the order quashing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and in terms thereof, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order for renewal of the lease. 31. The factual aspect of the present case, therefore, is quite different to that of the fact governing the case of M/s. R.P.Singh Stone Works v. The State of Jharkhand and Others [W.P.(C) No.5362 of 2022]. 32. Herein, the factual aspect which is admitted on behalf of the petitioner that by virtue of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, in terms of the observation made by the Revisional Authority, the lease was renewed vide order dated 19.05.2016 as contained in Memo No.569/M which the writ petitioner has willingly accepted and has carried out the mining operation in terms of the said order of renewal. 33. The petitioner, thereafter, has approached this Court by filing the writ petition after lapse of the period of lease in a situation where law does not permit for renewal as per the amendment incorporated by way of insertion after the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India & Others 10 W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 reported in 2014(6) SCC 590 as contained in Section 9(ङ) and 9(च) in the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 amended in the year 2017, for ready reference the aforesaid provisions are being referred herein :- “9(ङ) सरकारी ्ቌे्ቔ एवं 05.00 हे0 ्ቌे्ቔ से अधिक के रै यती ्ቌे्ቔ पर ्ቚा् वैसे आवेदन प्ቔ धिसमें इस अधिसूचना धनर्गत होने की धतधि से पूवग झारख्ቄ लघु खधनि समनुदान धनयमावली, 2004 के धनयम 11 अंतर्गत Letter of Intent (आशय का प्ቔ) धनर्गत हो चुका है, उसे इस अधिसूचना के धनर्गत होने की धतधि से 180 धदनों के अंदर पयागवरण ्ቭीकृ धत एवं खनन योिन अधनवायग रूप से समधपगत करना होर्ा, अ्िा उनका आवेदन ्ቭतः अ्ቭीकृ त हो िाएर्ा। 9(च) सरकारी ्ቌे्ቔ एवं 05.00 हे0 ्ቌे्ቔ से अधिक के रै यती ्ቌे्ቔ पर ्ቚा् खनन पटे को िो करकामेव व एवं पयागवरणीय ्ቭीकृ धत खनन योिना ्ቚा् नही राहत वैसे खर कालधतरोधहत हो र्ये हो, उनके प्ሾे की अवधि प्ሾा ्ቭीकृ धत/नवीनीकरण की धतधि से 31 माचग, 202216 तक के धलए अवधि धव्ቜाररत मानी िाएर्ी, बशते धक अधिसूचना की धतधि के पूवग खनन प्ሾा की अ्ቭीकृ धत/र्ቌ/्ቤयर्त होने का आदेश, नहीं पाररत धकया र्या है, पर्ቌु वैसे खानन प्ሾे पर कोई खनन तब तक नहीं धकया िा सके र्ा, िब तक खनन हेतु आव्ብक पयागवरणीय ्ቭीकृ धत/वन एवं पयागवरण धवभार् की ्ቭीकृ धत/खनन योिना ्ቭीकृ धत ्ቚा् नहीं हो िाता है। आवेदक को सभी वांधित अनाप्ቈी 180 धदनों के अंदर समधपगत कना होर्ा।“ 34. It is evident that the provision of deemed renewal has been done away from the statutory provision which was initially till 31.03.2020 and subsequently by virtue of the amendment, the said period was extended up to 31.03.2022. 35. The provision as inserted by way of amendment in the Rule 2004 amended in 2017, has statutorily 11 W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 commanded the authority that on or after 31.03.2022 the mining operation will only be allowed to be carried out by virtue of auction and not renewal. 36. The other fact which is different to the facts of W.P.(C) No.5362 of 2022 is that the petitioner, has accepted the order of renewal up to 06.04.2023 vide order dated 19.05.2016 without any protest and, thereafter, on expiry of the period of renewed lease, he has directly approached this Court by filing writ petition after lapse of about 11 years since even accepting the prayer of the petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition, the cause of action in favour of the writ petitioner will be said to be arisen in the year 2013 or 2016. 37. Fur, there is no pleading or it is not the case of the writ petitioner that any litigation or any representation was made before the authority for modifying the order dated 19.05.2016 for renewal of the lease by shifting the period commencing from 07.04.2016 or for extending the period for three years. 38. The reference of the settled position of law is required to be made that a judgment is having no universal applicability, rather, its applicability is to be tested on the basis of factual aspect governing each and every case individually, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. 12 W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75 for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted herein under:- “47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. “The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.” 39. This Court, is of the view after going through the order passed by the Coordinate Bench wherein there is no adjudication of the right of the parties, save and except, the liberty was granted to the writ petitioner to file representation. 40. The question of consideration of representation will only come if there is any legal vested right said to be available, but herein, as per the insertion in the statutory provision by way of amendment, when there is no provision to renew then how can it be said that the writ petitioner is having vested legal right for consideration of the issue, even if there is any laches on the part of the State. 41. This Court is exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is settled that the said power can only be exercised either in two 13 W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 occasions, if there is infringement of fundamental right or if there is violation of legal vested right. 42. “Vested right” has been defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh [(2014) 13 SCC 583] at paragraph 11, 12 and 13, which read hereunder as:- “11.The word “vested” is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) at p. 1563, as: “Vested.—fixed; accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the character or given in the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. Rights are ‘vested’ when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute ‘vested rights’.” 12. In Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at p. 1397, “vested” is defined as law held by a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right; vested interest. 13. Thus, vested right is a right independent of any contingency and it cannot be taken away without consent of the person concerned. Vested right can arise from contract, statute or by operation of law. Unless an accrued or vested right has been derived by a party, the policy decision/scheme could be changed. 43. Further, so far as the question of taking away the vested right is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the proposition in the case of Chairman, Railway Board and Others v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Others, 14 W.P.(C) No.4950_2024 reported in (1997) 6 SCC 623 at paragraph-24, which reads hereunder as :- “24. In many of these decisions the expressions “vested rights” or “accrued rights” have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc., of the employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We are unable to hold that these decisions are not in consonance with the decisions in Roshan Lal Tandon