- (1.) This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 2 September 2016 passed by the first respondent, whereby the petitioner's prayer for extension of a mining lease, which expired on 9 May 1994, has been rejected, holding that the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit of the provisions of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'Act, 1957').
(2.) Mr. Bidhan Chandra Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the relevant documents and the provisions of the Act, 1957 and also relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Common Cause Vs Union of India & Ors, 2016 3 AWC 2561 (SC), submitted that, by operation of law, the petitioner is entitled for extension as contemplated under sub-section (6) of Section 8A of the Act, 1957. He placed reliance upon the following conclusions drawn by the Supreme Court in sub paras (i), (ii) and (iv) of para 32, which read thus: "(i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Additionally, a leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015. Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 8A of the amended M.M.D.R. Act. (ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended M.M.D.R. Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period. The provisions of the amended M.M.D.R. Act will therefore not enure to the benefit of such leaseholder. (iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for "first renewal" of the original mining lease, at least twelve months before the original lease was due to expire, and such application has not been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of the unamended and amended Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules. Such leaseholder would have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended M.M.D.R. Act."
(3.) The submission of counsel for the petitioner that by operation of law the lease period stood extended is based on the petitioner's contention that he applied for renewal of his mining lease well within time, i.e. 12 months before the date on which the lease was due to expire. It is not in dispute that unless such a renewal application in Form J appended to the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short, 'Rules, 1960') was made and pending, one cannot get the benefit of the amended provisions of the Act, 1957, in particular Section 8A. In view thereof, yesterday we perused the application purportedly made by the petitioner for renewal of the mining lease on 1 May 1993 and found that the signature of the proprietor made therein and the signatures which appear on the photocopy of the mining lease did not tally. Therefore, we became more curious and careful in examining the said documents. At this stage itself, we make it clear that though the signature on the application did not tally with the signatures on the photocopy of the mining lease placed on record as Annexure-1, we are not drawing any inference only on the basis thereof since counsel for the petitioner today has invited out attention to other signatures of Laxmi Narain Gupta on record, the father of the petitioner, in whose favour the mining lease was executed and who had signed the same which prima facie tally. We, have, therefore, extensively examined the document on the assumption that the signature made thereon is genuine. What we observed while examining the document is that it is a photocopy of a typed copy of Form J which is placed on record as Annexure-2. Form J as appended to the Rules, 1960 is under Rule 24A, whereas the Form J annexed to the writ petition makes reference to Rule 28(1). The petitioner, although has placed this application for renewal on record, he has not placed any acknowledgement thereof of having submitted this application before the concerned authority. The concerned authority as mentioned in the application is the Secretary, Industries-12, Uttar Pradesh Shasan, Lucknow. We do not find any endorsement as such on the application of having been delivered to the Secretary. Mr. Rai, counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the first page of Form J and also to an endorsement thereon, which, according to the petitioner, is of some official in the office of the District Magistrate who, according to the petitioner, received the application on 1 May 1993. When we asked counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner delivered his application in the office of the District Magistrate, he invited our attention to Rule 24A of the Rules, 1960 to contend that an application for renewal of a mining lease is required to be made to the State Government in Form J through such officer or authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf. Though orally he submitted that the District Magistrate was the officer or authority specified by the State Government at the relevant time, he could not and did not place any material in support thereof. Moreover, the so-called acknowledgement, on which he placed reliance, does not bear any rubber stamp of the office of the District Magistrate. Even the signature of the official is not legible. The best document that the petitioner could have produced before this Court in support of his contention that the application was made on 1 May 1993 itself was the document annexed to the application. The application purports to append six documents on record, namely, (1) Treasury Challan no. T10 dated 30.4.93 for Rs. 500/-S.B.I. Allahabad; (2) No Mining Dues Certificate; (3) Affidavit; (4) Income Tax Clearance Certificate; (5) Map of lease area; and (6) A letter certifying the approval of mining plan by I.B.M. Jabalpur for village Dhara, District Allahabad.;