ZENITH MINING PVT. LTD. Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition challenge has been made to the Order Dated 17.7.2000 passed by the Government of Orissa, Department of Steel and Mines in rejecting the representation of the Petitioner dated 6.2.1999 regarding renewal of mining lease period from 10 years to 20 years as per the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: One Mrs. D.K. Baipandya was granted mining lease for a period of 30 years in respect of an area of Ac.438.97 at Bonai in the district of Sundargarh in the year 1943. While the said lease was continuing, on 14.10.1957 a circular was issued by the Government of Orissa in the Department of Mines & Fuel wherein it was categorically stated that the date of commencement of mining lease will be the date of commencement of execution of the formal instrument of lease & not the date of the Government order sanctioning the lease. After the expiry of the lease period, the State Government declined to renew the lease. Therefore, OJC No. 1664 of 1981 was filed challenging the rejection order of the State Government to renew the mining lease. In the said Writ Petition, this Court directed the State Government to look into the grievance of the Petitioner & decide the matter afresh. Despite the direction of this Court, the State Government rejected the renewal application without giving an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, another Writ Petition i.e. OJC No. 201 of 1990 was filed & a direction was given to the parties to rectify the deficiencies in the application within a stipulated time & direction was also given to the State Government to make appropriate move to the Central Government for renewal of the lease period. In pursuance of the said direction given by this Court on 11.7.1991 in OJC No. 201 of 1991, the State Government allowed the renewal of the lease on 29.10.1991. The formal sanction of the State Government for renewal of the lease was made on 29.10.1991 & the lease deed was executed in favour of Smt. Baipandya for mining of manganese ore for a period of 10 years with effect from 2.8.1996. As such, she started mining operation in the area. During the mining operation, it was found that apart from manganese are, iron ore also existed in the lease hold area of the Petitioner. Accordingly the State Government included iron are in the lease deed dated 2.8.1996 by way of supplementary lease deed dated 13.8.1998. The present Petitioner applied for transfer of the mining lease area held by Smt. Baipandya in its favour. The lease was transferred in favour of the present Petitioner in accordance with the rules. The present Petitioner became the lessee. After the lease was transferred in favour of the Petitioner, it made a representation before the State Government seeking correction of lease period in the lease deed dated 2.8.1996 from 10 years to 20 years as Ordinance 2 of 1994 was promulgated by bringing amendment to Section 8 of the Act. As per the said amendment, the maximum period for which mining lease may be granted was proposed to be not exceeding 30 years which was earlier confined to 20 years only. The minimum period of lease was changed to not less than 20 years which was earlier 10 years. Thus, as per the said amendment to Section 8 of the Principal Act, all the mining leases executed thereafter are to be given minimum for a period of 20 years.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the action of the State Government is discriminatory as the State Government though corrected the lease period from 10 years to 20 years in the case of M/s. Narayani and Sons did not consider the case of the Petitioner who is similarly situated and the Petitioner being the lessee is entitled to the benefit of the amended provision of Section 8 of the Act as it has only stepped into the shoes of the original lessee after the lease being duly transferred.