S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE three petitioners, namely, Jitendra Nath Banerjee, Bihari Lal Munka and S.B. Mandal being not satisfied with the common final order No. 56 of 2001 dated 23rd July, 2001 passed by the Director of Mines, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, New Delhi in File Nos. 6(1)/2000 -RC -1; 6(2)/2000 -RC -1 and 6 (3)/2000 -RC -1, have challenged the same. The revision applications as were preferred by petitioners and contesting Respondents in respect to mining lease connected with the files aforesaid were disposed of by common revisional order dated 23rd July, 2001 holding the subsequent lease granted in favour of petitioners without fulfilling the mandatory requirements of the Rules 59 and 60 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (M.C.R. 1960 for short), would be violative of provisions and nullity. The State Government was directed to follow the provisions of Rules 59 and 60 aforesaid and to take steps, in accordance with law, before proceeding further. The consequential letter Nos. 826; 827 and 828, all dated 31st July, 2001 issued by Assistant Mining Officer, Jamshedpur restraining the petitioners from further mining operations, have also been challenged.
(2.) FOR proper appreciation and disposal of the case, 1 have taken the few relevant facts, which are given hereunder. A mining lease of Minor Minerals (Stone) for excavating and despatch for an area of 13.10 acres of land having plot No. 1824, Mouza -Matku, P.S. Ghatsila, district - -East Singhbhum was originally granted on 6th July, 1976in favour of petitioner No. 1, Jitendra Nath Banerjee. It was renewed from time to time and remained valid till 6th July, 2001. Similar mining lease for escavating and despatching minor minerals (stone) was granted in favour of petitioner No. 2, Bihari Lal Munka on 2nd July, 1978 for an area 12.88 acres in the same Mouza - Matku having Plot No, 1824 (Part) and 1733 which was renewed from time to time. It was lastly renewed on 3rd July, 1992 for a smaller area of 8.75 acres for a period of ten years upto 2nd July, 2002. In the same manner, an area of 8.5 acres in the same Mouza -Matku with Plot No. 1895 (Part), a lease for escavation and despatch minor minerals (stone) was granted in favour of petitioner No. 3, S.B. Mandal on 9th February, 1988 which was renewed from time to time and expired on 9th February, 1998. During the period the mining lease aforesaid were subsisting, on an application received, the Mining Officer, Jamshedpur, vide letter Nos. 824/M, 824/M, and 825/M, all dated 10th July, 1996 intimated the petitioners that the mineral of the lease area is a major mineral. A report, in this regard, was obtained from the Deputy Director (Zeology), Singhbhum who affirmed that the minerals escavated by petitioners from the area is Magnasium Silicate commonly known as Pyroxenite. The petitioners were prohibited from mining and asked to remain present in the lease hold area on a day for collection of extracted minerals for examination by zeology Department. The petitioners preferred Appeal Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1996 respectively before the Deputy Director, Mines, Ranchi who admitted the appeals and vide order dated 19th July, 1996 directed the Mining Officer, Jamshedpur not to stop mining. In pursuance of the said order, the District Mines Officer, vide letters all dated 25th July, 1996 allowed the petitioners to continue mining operations but prohibited them from despatching minerals on escavation. Again the petitioners preferred appeals before the Deputy Director, Mines against the aforesaid orders all dated 25th July, 1996, wherein the Deputy Director, Mines vide order dated 26th July, 1996 allowed the petitioners to extract and despatch minerals during the pendency of the appeals. The appeals were finally disposed of by the Deputy Director, Mines, Ranchi on 5th November, 1996 holding the minerals, in question, not defined under the first schedule of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation Development) Act, 1957 or under Sections 4(3); 5 (1) and (2) and 8(2) of the Act, 1957. The petitioners were asked to file fresh applications for mining lease of Magnasium Silicate (Pyroxenite) within 90 (ninety) days and the District Mining Officer, Jamshedpur, in the meantime, was directed to allow the petitioners to continue mining and despatch of minerals and to obtain undertaking from petitioners that they will abide by the decision of the Government of Bihar regarding payment of royalty etc. The petitioners in pursuance of aforesaid order of Deputy Director of Mines, Ranchi dated 5th November, 1996 expressed their willingness to obtain fresh mining lease for the lease hold area. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum also vide its letter No. 1336 dated 11th November, 1996 directed the petitioners to apply for mining lease of major minerals, namely, Magnasium Silicate (Pyroxenite, if they are interested. The petitioners, on the one hand, applied for grant of fresh mining lease of Magnasium Silicate (Pyroxenite), while on the other hand, preferred writ petition, CWJC No. 4187, 4188 and 4189 of 1996 (R) for a declaration that Section 2 of Act, 1957 has denuded the State Legislature of the legislative power with respect to Mines and Mineral development and the entire legislative fields taken over by the Parliament. Further declaration was sought for that the petitioners hold a valid existing lease and the letter dated 5th December, 1996 issued by the District Mining Officer, as per the order of the Deputy Director, Mines is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petitions were dismissed by a Division Bench, vide common judgment dated 22nd April, 1997 with observations that the writ petitions shall not come in the way of the petitioners to pursue their applications for grant of mining lease in respect of the new minerals and the authorities were directed to process the applications and pass final order in accordance with law. Thereafter, fresh applications of petitioners for grant of mining lease for minerals, Magnasium Silicate (Pyroxenite) were processed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum and vide letter Nos. 4008; 4009 and 4010, all dated 14th November, 2000, the said Deputy Commissioner informed the petitioners the decision to grant mining lease in their favour as per Map of the area enclosed therein. The District Mining Officer, Jamshedpur by his letter Nos. 1325, 1326 and 1327 all dated 22nd November, 2000 also informed the aforesaid facts and asked the petitioners to submit ten copies of lease deed with security money which the petitioners submitted by 30th November, 2000.
(3.) THE 7th Respondent, Narendra Singh, proprietor of M/s. Bharat Mining Company also claimed for execution of lease in this favour. Similar application was preferred by 8th Respondent, P.K. Adityadev. The 7th Respondent by letter dated 4th December, 2000 informed that M/s. Bharat Mining Company has already preferred a revision application before the Ministry of Mines, Government of India on 27th November, 2000, so he requested the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum not to take further action. It appears that the Government of India, in the meantime, approved the action taken by the State authority for grant of mining lease in favour of petitioners. On the revision application preferred by the Respondents, the Government of India called for comments from the Secretary, Government of Jharkhand submitted with its stand that the petitioners have been rightly granted mining lease. Formal lease were executed in favour of petitioners on 25th June, 2001. In the revision applications, registered in File Nos. 6 (1)/2000 -RC -1; 6(2)/2000 -RC -1 and 6 (3)/2000 -RC -1, the petitioners were impleaded as parties and on hearing the applications under Section 30 of the Act, 1957 read with Rule 55 of MCR, 1960, they were disposed of by common impugned Order No. 56 of 2001, dated 23rd July, 2001. The competent authorities held that the mining lease for minor minerals having terminated the provisions of Rules 59 and 60 of MCR, 1960 are attracted in the case and the mandatory requirements of aforesaid Rules 59 and 60 having violated, the fresh lease granted in favour of petitioners were held to be nullity and void. The State Government was directed to follow the provisions of Rules 59 and 60 of the MCR, 1960 and take other steps, in accordance with law, before proceeding further.;