SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) Brief facts as set out by the petitioner-company which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issue involved in the present writ petition are being referred as under:- (i) The petitioner-company had applied for Prospecting License (hereinafter referred to as P.L. ) for mining activity. The area for mining lease was approved and demarcated on 24.12.2014. The order for granting P.L. was issued for a period of three years and sanction was granted. (ii) On 12.01.2015, the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the MMDR Act, 2015 ) came into force whereby it was provided that all the pending applications would stand rejected except those which have been saved under Clause (a) to (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 10A, of the MMDR Act as it existed. (iii) A decision was taken by the State Government on 17.10.2015 to cancel all the permissions granted and LoIs issued by the Mining Department for the period from 01.11.2014 to 12.01.2015 on the ground that the same were issued contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Central Government and the State Government. In pursuance thereof, a show cause notice was issued under Section 4A(3) to the petitioner-company on 03.03.2016 proposing to terminate the P.L. issued to it. The petitioner-company submitted its reply to the show cause notice. After receiving the reply, the State Government passed an order on 30.11.2016 cancelling all the LoIs and licenses. (iv) The petitioner-company challenged the cancellation of its P.L. in Revision Petition before the Mines Tribunal, GoI (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) assailing the orders dated 17.10.2015 and 30.11.2016 (supra). (v) A Revision Petition was decided on 19.09.2018 whereby the orders were quashed and the matter was remanded back to the State Government to take up appropriate action as per law. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of M/s. Wonder Cement Limited and the cancellation of P.L. was also quashed. (vi) The State Government did not take any action and petitioner-company filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.8906/2019 which was disposed of by this court vide its order dated 17.05.2019 with the following directions:- upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner and considering the nature of grievance raised and prayer addressed; the State respondents are directed to determine the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented. (vii) The compliance was not made and a contempt petition was filed wherein this Court passed an order on 13.10.2020 to take a decision within a period of 3 days on 15.10.2020. The decision was taken by the respondent-Mining Department upholding its earlier order dated 30.11.2016 maintaining that the P.L. was granted to the petitioner-company in contravention of the guidelines dated 30.10.2014 issued by the Central Government.
(2.) It is after this stage that the matter has come up before this Court.
(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitionercompany has strongly objected to the order passed by the Department dated 15.10.2020 and submitted that the order is absolutely illegal, malafide and arbitrary. It is objected that once the orders dated 17.10.2015 and 30.11.2016 had been quashed and set aside by the Tribunal, the State Government had no authority to revive the order dated 30.11.2016 by the impugned order dated 15.10.2020. It is urged that the arguments, which have been made the basis for reviving the order dated 30.11.2016 were already examined at length by the Tribunal and it was found that the P.L. issued to the petitioner-company cannot be said to be in violation of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as MMDR Act 2015 ). As the MMDR Act 2015 came into force w.e.f 12.01.2015 while the P.L. had been issued to the concerned petitioner-company on 24.12.2014. 3.1 Learned Senior Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner was similar to that of M/s. Wonder Cement Limited whose P.L. had also been cancelled on account of the same having been issued during the period between 01.11.2014 and 12.01.2015. The M/s. Wonder Cement Limited had also approached Tribunal and Tribunal quashed the said order whereafter the Department has granted lease to the M/s. Wonder Cement Limited. Learned Counsel has relied on a letter written by Director, Department of Mines and Geology to the respondents on 04.04.2019 seeking compliance. The case of the petitioner-company also relies on the internal communication wherein recommendation has been made to restore the P.L. of the petitioner-company dated 19.09.2019. 3.2 Learned counsel submits that the order has been passed in-haste and with the only purpose to circumvent the order passed by this court in contempt petition. It is further submitted that in the written submissions filed by the petitioner-company that it had applied for P.L. in the year 2011 and after the complete process was conducted of earmarking the land, demarcating and approving the area that the P.L. was issued. The process was thus completed wayback before the amendment was brought into force on 12.01.2015. It is further submitted that before the termination of P.L., the petitioner had already completed 75% of the prospective operations. 3.3 It is submitted that there has been no application of mind while passing the order dated 15.10.2020 and the selfsame grounds on which the earlier order dated 30.11.2016 was passed, have been reiterated. The provisions which were prevailing prior to amendment allowed the P.L. to be granted to the petitioner-company and there was no violation as per the then existing provisions. The guidelines issued by the Central Government on 30.10.2014 were infact brought into force by the amendment, which was made effective from 12.01.2015. It is submitted that the guidelines were contrary to the then existing procedure laid down under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and therefore there is no case for violation of Rules or Regulations while issuing P.L. to the petitioner-company. The respondents were only required to revive the P.L. by issuing an order and were required to handover the position of the area. The Tribunal nowhere asked the respondents to again take a decision regarding cancellation of the P.L. of the petitionercompany. 3.4 It is submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal was not complied with and the respondents are in contempt as the order impugned dated 15.10.2020 goes against the spirit of the order passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel has also pointed out that in the case of M/s. Wonder Cement Limited, the mining lease was granted consequent upon the order from the Tribunal and the order of this court. Different stand cannot be taken in relation to the petitioner-company. It is further submitted that the order of cancellation which had also been quashed cannot be revived by an executive fiat and the entire intervening period should be treated as a dies non. 3.5 It is further prayed that the petitioner-company be allowed mining lease for the three years period with additional four months for compliance as provided under MMDR Act as the said period pending before revision, writ petition and contempt ought not be counted and affect the right of the petitioner-company. ;