Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that surviving defects have already been removed.
(2.) Petitioner was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 233.99 Hectare in Karampada Reserve Forest in West Singhbhum district with effect from 10.07.1972 for a period of 30 years (Annexure-1). Twelve month before expiry of the period of lease, it applied for first renewal on 08.07.2001 in terms of Rule 24(A) (1) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, which however, remained pending till Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 was enacted. The Ordinance had come into force with effect from 12.01.2015 before the Amendment Act was passed by the Parliament. Prior to that, on 18.07.2014, Rules 24A(6) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 was amended which provided for deemed extension for a period of two years with effect from 18.07.2014 of such cases pending for first renewal of lease deed where renewal application had been made within time. Petitioner's application for renewal of lease has been rejected by Annexure-19 order dated 01.04.2016 contained in Memo No. 882 passed by the Department of Industries, Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand. Consequent thereto, petitioner has been asked to hand over possession of the lease area to Mines Department by letter no. 445 dated 05.04.2016 (Annexure-20) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, failing which steps would be taken to take possession of the lease hold property by the State Authorities.
(3.) In the background of these relevant facts, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Amarendra Sharan submits that the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner for renewal of lease, is bad in law on the following counts: (i) Section 4(A)(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 1957 confers power on the Central Government which may request the State Government to make premature termination of such mining lease. There is no such request or direction of the Central Government to the State Government in the instant case. (ii) Relying upon the recent judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014 (Common Cause v. Union of India & others) and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 194/2014 (Prafulla Samantra and another v. Union of India & others) dated 04.04.2016 , it is submitted that the petitioner's original lease would be deemed to be extended for a period of 50 years i.e. up to 09.07.2022. Sub Paragraph-iv and vi of Paragraph-32 of the judgment has been relied upon, which is quoted hereunder: Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our conclusions as under: (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 subsections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act. (vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, the regime introduced through sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof, provides for three contingencies where benefits have been extended to leaseholders whose lease period had earlier been extended by a renewal. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period had expired before 12.1.2015, and the leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve months before the leaseholder's existing lease was due to expire, and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire after 12.1.2015, but before 31.3.2030/31.3.2020, the lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where the renewal of the mining lease already extends to a period beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal order. Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating the original lease period as of fifty years. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of the mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Out of the above three contingencies provided under subsections (5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest, would enure to the benefit of the leaseholder. (iii) It is submitted that all statutory clearances have been obtained by the petitioner. Clearance certificate of Indian Bureau of Mines is contained at Annexures-4 to 8 and is extended up to 31.03.2019. Environmental Clearance has also been granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India vide orders contained at Annexure-9 and 10 dated 23.01.2007 and 19.07.2013 respectively. It is further added that only after clarification made for obtaining environmental clearance under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 by the Apex Court in 2004, petitioner applied on 03.01.2006 which was granted on 21.01.2007 and has been extended time to time. It is further submitted that forest clearance has been granted by the competent authority by order contained at Annexure-11 dated 19.05.2005. Petitioner has also complied with the requirements of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (Annexure-12) as per the certificate dated 12.01.2011 issued by the competent authority. It is asserted that the finding recorded in the impugned order relating to violation of terms and conditions of lease and non-obtaining of statutory clearance, is therefore incorrect on the face of record.;