- (1.) Thakur Prasad Sao was granted lease for 500 Acres of land in Ghatkuri Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum effective from 04.02.1954 till 03.02.1974 in respect of iron ore. The partnership firm was formed on 01.04.1955 and after obtaining sanction of the State, lease was transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s Thakur Prasad Sao on 02.01.1967. The lease was renewed for further period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.02.1974 to 03.02.1994. Lease deed was in fact executed on 05.05.1980. The application for 2nd renewal was made on 30.01.1993, which was refused on 01.09.2004 on the ground of alleged violation of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and for failure to furnish certain documents. Lessee went before the Central Government Mines Tribunal which by its final order no. 29 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 quashed the rejection of application for renewal. State Government being aggrieved approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 5765 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2005 refusing to interfere in the order of Mines Tribunal as the State Government has only been directed to decide the renewal matter afresh in accordance with law. The renewal application was again rejected on 02.03.2007. The aggrieved lessee approached this Court in W. P (C) No. 1460 of 2007. The impugned order dated 02.03.2007 . rejecting the renewal application was quashed taking note of the fact that mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rule 1960 has not been complied. State Government was given liberty to deal with the petitioner's application without being prejudiced by any observation made thereunder. The matter was heard by the competent authority under the State Government and has been rejected on 09.02.2015 contained in Memo No. 253, which is Annexure - 7 to the W. P (C) No. 2744 of 2015 and has also been . impugned in the connected writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 1680 of 2015 by the petitioner Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao.
(2.) During pendency of W. P. (C) No. 2744 of 2015, another writ petition, W. P. (C) No. 3921 of 2015 was instituted by M/s Thakur Prasad Sao though its partner Sri Sandeep Sao with a prayer to make a declaration that petitioner's mining lease is deemed to have extended for a period of 50 years from the date of grant or at least until 31.3.2020 in view of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation)Act, 1957 [ as amended by the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,2015]. These three petitions have been heard analogously. It is not out of place to mention here that an objection was taken by the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 2722 of 2015 on the maintainability of W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 preferred by Ramesh Prasad Sao , Son of Thakur Prasad Sao. The question was considered and decided by the order dated 24.11.2015, operating portion of which is quoted herein below: - " In view of the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be labelled as stranger so as to disentitle him to maintain the present writ petition. In so far as, the condition contained in notice dated 01.11.2008 is concerned, I am of the opinion that at this stage the State could not have adjudicated the rights of the parties. The nature of the proceedings before different courts/forums discloses a right in the petitioner to approach this Court challenging action taken by the State. The petitioner is a "person aggrieved". Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner can maintain the writ petition. However, entertaining the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely, M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Mr. K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 6 at this stage submits that the petitioner should not take benefit of this order to interfere with the affairs of the partnership firm. It is clarified that further hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall not prejudice the case of the parties and the parties shall be bound by the declaration in various proceedings pending in different courts".
(3.) This order has not been challenged any further and in that sense it has attained finality. Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1680 of 2015 was given the status of a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. It has, however, been made clear that allowing the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition should not be construed as an expression of opinion by this court on the claim of the petitioner as a partner in the reconstituted partnership firm namely M/s Thakur Prasad Sao. Partnership firm is said to have been reconstituted twice in 2004 and 2010. The dispute between the members of reconstituted partnership firm and the petitioner, Ramesh Prasad Sao is pending in the Civil Court, Chaibasa. Petitioner Ramesh Prasad Sao has also filed W.P. (C) No. 2852 of 2008 in this Court challenging the registration of the reconstitution of the Firm of 2004. In an another proceeding, learned Single Judge of this Court declined to exercise the power under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring inter -se dispute of the above parties for arbitration i.e. in Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2008 and Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2008 vide order dated 8.1.2016. This order is said to be under challenge in S.L.P. Diary No. 12375 of 2016. During the pendency of the these writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause vs. Union of India & others) with Writ Petition(Civil)No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another vs. Union of India & others) vide judgment dated;