[2023] 12 S.C.R. 277 : 2023 INSC 824
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER
v.
M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF
BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 8238 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
[SANJIV KHANNA* AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
Issue for consideration: Intra-court appeal preferred by the
State of West Bengal before the High Court was dismissed with
the direction to the Appellant No. 2 – Joint Secretary, Department
of Industries, Commerce and Enterprises, West Bengal or any
authorised officer to execute a mining lease in favour of the
Respondent No. 2, sole proprietor of Respondent No. 1 - M/s.
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih.
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
– s. 10-A – Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Amendment Act, 2015 – Concession Rules, 2016 – r.61 and
Proviso – Directions issued to the government of West Bengal
to execute a mining lease in favour of respondent no.1-M/s.
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih:
Held: It is the stand of the appellants – State of West Bengal,
that they are owners of 20.87 acres of the land in question and to
this extent, they have no difficulty in executing the mining lease –
This being the stated stand, which has also been affirmed, there
should be no difficulty in granting of mining lease for the said area
to the Respondent No. 1-M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih – So, it is directed that the government of West Bengal
will execute a mining lease for 20.87 acres of land in favour of the
Respondent No. 1 – The claim of the Respondent No. 1 towards
the balance area for the grant of mining lease will be treated as
rejected and dismissed. [Paras 20 and 22]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 – sub-section (1) to Section 10-A Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 – Object
and purpose of amendment – Application of exceptions or the
saving clauses in three kinds of situations:
* Author
278 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
Held: The object and purpose of the Amendment Act, 2015 is
to ensure that allocation of mineral resources is done through
auctioning – This is the reason why sub-section (1) to Section 10-A
of the MMDR Act, 1957 mandates that all applications received
prior to 12.01.2015 shall become ineligible – The exceptions or
the saving clause applies to three kinds of situations specified in
sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 – The first
category is where an application has been received u/s. 11-A of the
MMDR Act,1957 – The second category is where a reconnaissance
permit or a prospecting licence has been granted the permit holder
or the licensee has the right to obtain a prospecting licence followed
by a mining lease and the State Government is satisfied that the
permit holder or the licensee has complied with the requirements
specified in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section
(2) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 – The reason for
protecting this class of cases is on account of the fact that they
had altered their position by spending money on reconnaissance
operations or prospecting operations – Accordingly, the principle
of legitimate expectation is applied – The third category is where
the Central Government had already communicated their previous
approval or the State Government had issue Letter of Intent for
grant of mining lease before coming into force of the Amendment
Act 2015 – The raison dêtre, it is observed therein, is that certain
rights had accrued to these applicants inasmuch as all necessary
procedures and formalities had been complied with and only formal
lease remains to be executed. [Para 14]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 –
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment
Act, 2015 – A Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was issued by
the Deputy Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department,
West Bengal for Dolomite mining in favour of Respondent No.
1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih in respect
of 76 acres of land, subject to certain conditions – Whether
approval of the Central Government required or not:
Held: Though in the present case, post notification No. S.O. 423(E)
dated 10.02.2015, Dolomite was notified as a minor mineral and
hence, the approval of the Central Government was not required
for the reason that the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was hedged
with pre-conditions, including the requirement to submit consent
letters of the owners of the land in question (Raiyats) before the
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 279
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL
(MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER
execution of the lease deed, or there was to be a stipulation that
a condition to this effect would be incorporated in the draft lease
– Therefore, the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 is provisional, and
is subject to fulfilment of the conditions therein. [Para 16]
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – sub-section (10) to
section 2 and sub-section (2A) to section 4 – Raiyat Land –
Meaning – Rights of Raiyat in respect of land:
Held: Raiyat land is to be used for cultivation, etc., and not for
mining – Once the mining activity is undertaken, the Raiyats will not
be able to use the land – In terms of sub-section (10) to Section 2
of the WBLR Act, 1955, a Raiyat means a person or an institution
holding land for any purpose whatsoever – However, the rights
of Raiyat in respect of the land in terms of sub-section (2A) to
Section 4 of the WBLR Act, 1955 does not permit any other person
to quarry sand from his holding, dig or use, or permit any person
to dig or use, earth or clay of his holding for the manufacture of
bricks or tiles except with previous permission in writing of the State
Government – In case of breach of the condition, the prescribed
authority may, after giving notice and opportunity to a Raiyat to
show cause, can levy a monetary penalty. [Para 17]
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – s. 4B – Preservation
of character of land:
Held: Section 4-B of the WBLR Act, 1955 stipulates that every
Raiyat holding any land shall maintain and preserve such land in
a manner that the area is not diminished or its character is not
changed or the land is not converted for any purpose other than
the purpose for which it was settled or previously held except
with the previous permission of the Collector in writing. [Para 17]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
– West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – s. 14 Y – A Grant
Order dated 16.07.2015 was issued by the Deputy Secretary,
Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal for
Dolomite mining in favour of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih in respect of 76 acres of
land, subject to certain conditions, including the requirement
to submit consent letters of owners of the land in question
(Raiyats) – Another stipulation mentioned therein was the need
for permission u/s. 14-Y of the WBLR Act, 1955 for holding
the required land and furnishing of Conversion Certificate for
280 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
plots of land from the appropriate authority in terms of s.4-C
of the WBLR Act, 1955:
Held: The controversy relating to Section 4-C of the WBLR Act,
1955, cannot simply be decided on the basis of Memo No. V/
RTI/775/15 dated 06.03.2017 issued by the Deputy District Land
and Land Reforms Officer, Purulia, that as per the revenue records
the land was recorded as ‘Dungri’ – The reason is that Raiyat land
is not for mining – Thus, a contradiction arises, as the grant of
Raiyat land and the classification of the same land as ‘Dungri’ is
contradictory – Further, whether the consent letter of the owners
of the land in question (Raiyats) obtained by the Respondent No.
1still hold good, would be relevant as there could be a change of
hands on account of transfer, inheritance, etc – Connected with
this are the legal issues – First, whether the Respondent No. 1
had altered its position post the issue of the Grant Order dated
16.07.2015, but before enforcement of the Concession Rules, 2016,
to get the benefit of Rule 61 of the Concessions Rules, 2016? – It is
necessary to ascertain the facts and then alone one can adjudicate
and decide the question whether the Respondent No. 1 is entitled
to the benefit of the proviso to Rule 61 of the Concession Rules,
2016 – This has not been verified and ascertained – An issue
would arise on whether the application filed by the Respondent
No. 1 way back in 1998 would still hold good as at the time, when
the application was filed, approval of the Central Government
was required – Another difficulty is that WBMDTCL has not been
impleaded as a party, though it was always contesting the claim
made by the Respondent No. 1 – However, these issues are not
being examined in the light of the directions issued – Further, that
the remand order cannot be passed at this distinct point of time.
[Paras 18 and 19]
Bhushan Power and Steel Limited v. S.L. Seal, Additional
Secretary (Steel and Mines), State of Odisha and Others,
(2017) 2 SCC 125:[2016] 11 SCR 149; Bhushan Power
and Steel Limited and Others v. State of Orissa and
Another, (2012) 4 SCC 246:[2012] 5 SCR 16; Sandur
Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka,
(2010) 13 SCC 1:[2010] 11 SCR 240; Bhushan Power
and Steel Limited v. Rajesh Verma, (2014) 5 SCC
551:[2014] 5 SCR 493; Rishi Kiran Logistics Private
Limited v. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust
and Others, (2015) 13 SCC 233:[2014] 5 SCR 411;
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 281
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL
(MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER
Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited v.
Maha Laxmi Mingrate Marketing Service Private Limited
and Others, (1996) 10 SCC 405:[1996] 6 Suppl. SCR
368; Thressiamma Jacob and Others v. Geologist,
Department of Mining and Geology and Others, (2013)
9 SCC 725:[2013] 7 SCR 863 – referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAL NO.8238 OF
2022
[From the Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2018 of the High Court
at Calcutta in FMA No.1458 of 2017]
Anand Grover, Sr. Adv., Ms. Mantika Haryani, Shreyas Awasthi, Ms.
Astha Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Respondent in Person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
This appeal, by way of special leave, takes exception to the judgment of
the division bench of the High Court of Calcutta, whereby the intra-court
appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal and Others in F.M.A. No.
1458 of 2017 with CAN No. 6596 of 2017 has been dismissed with the
direction to the Appellant No. 2 – Joint Secretary, Department of Industries,
Commerce and Enterprises, West Bengal or any authorised officer to
execute a mining lease in favour of the Respondent No. 2 – Dinesh
Agarwal, sole proprietor of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih.
2. The facts are rather chequered, albeit are required to be noticed
in detail. On 07.08.1985, West Bengal Mineral Development and
Trading Corporation Limited1
had filed an application for grant of long
term mining lease for Dolomite, Limestone and Quartzite at the plots
in Mouza - Khariduara, Kumari and Boch. An application was also
filed by WBMDTCL for grant of long term mining lease for Iron Ore,
Manganese and Fireclay at the plots in Mouza - Khariduara, Kumari,
Boch and Kangametya. Grant Order dated 07.04.1986 was issued
in favour of WBMDTCL by the Assistant Secretary, Commerce and
Industries Department, Mines Branch, West Bengal.
1 For Short,’ WBMDTCL’.
282 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
2.1 On 06.03.1998, Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih. had filed an application before the
Mining Officer-in-charge, Purulia Zone, Directorate of Mines and
Minerals, West Bengal, for the grant of a mining lease for the
purpose of extracting Dolomite at Mouza - Khariduara, Kumari
and Boch, in 76 acres of land.
2.2 The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih filed Writ Petition No. 7808 (W) of 2001 before the High
Court of Calcutta, seeking disposal of their application for grant
of mining lease. The High Court vide order dated 13.06.2001,
directed the State authorities to dispose of the application of
Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih at an early date and in accordance with law.
2.3 The Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department,
West Bengal, vide order dated 13.03.2003, rejected the
application of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih, on the ground of non-availability of land
in view of the previous application of WBMDTCL. By another
order dated 26.03.2003, the Joint Secretary, Commerce and
Industries Department, West Bengal reiterated that the mining
application of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih overlaps with the area applied for in
the previous application by WBMDTCL. The application of
the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih was accordingly rejected.
2.4 Aggrieved, the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih had filed Writ Petition No. 7505 (W)
of 2003 in the High Court of Calcutta challenging the orders
passed by the Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries
Department, West Bengal, dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003.
During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the Joint
Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal,
reviewed the aforesaid orders and passed a fresh order dated
13.10.2006 for apportionment of land between WBMDTCL and
the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih. This order states that two hearings were held
on 24.05.2006 and 19.06.2006 to review the matter, and
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 283
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL
(MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER
thereupon at the hearing dated 19.06.2006, in the presence of
the representatives of WBMDTCL and the Respondent No. 1 -
M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, it was agreed
that Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih will be granted the whole of the mining area of 76
acres, and the lease for the rest of the area will be granted in
favour of WBMDTCL. No other reason has been stated and
indicated in the said order. Thus, the orders dated 13.03.2003
and 26.03.2003 rejecting the application of the Respondent
No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih were
recalled. Consequently, the Letter of Intent dated 26.10.2006
was issued in favour of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih for an area of 76 acres of land
subject to fulfilling/submission of various documents, including
approval of the Mining Plan duly approved by the Chief Mining
Officer, Asansol and Clearance Certificate from the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of India.
2.5 However, the order dated 13.10.2006 was cancelled or revoked
vide order dated 03.12.2010 by the Joint Secretary, Commerce
and Industries Department, Mines Branch, West Bengal, inter
alia, recording that this order was passed without ascertaining
the exact position of the land and in ignorance of the fact that
the rejection orders dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003 had
already been challenged before the High Court in Writ Petition
No. 7505 (W) of 2003. The authorities had not ascertained the
status of the case. The order of cancellation or revocation dated
03.12.2010 was not challenged by the respondents.
2.6 This order dated 03.12.2010 was also not brought to the notice
of the High Court, when the Writ Petition No. 7505 (W) of 2003
was disposed of ex-parte vide order dated 25.03.2014 by relying
upon the supplementary affidavit filed by the Respondent No.
1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, which had
referred to the recalled order dated 13.10.2006. This order of
the High Court states that a decision as to whether a lease
or licence to be granted in favour of the Respondent No. 1 -
M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih shall be taken
within a period of eight weeks and Respondent No. 1 - M/s.
284 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih would be accordingly
informed. It was made clear that the decision as to the grant
will be on the basis of the law and the rules applicable at the
time of consideration.
2.7 By the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Joint Secretary,
Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal, the
application filed by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih was rejected inter alia relying
upon the earlier application filed by WBMDTCL. Significantly, this
order mentions that the two rejection orders dated 13.03.2003
and 26.03.2003 were recalled by the Joint Secretary vide his
order dated 13.10.2006. This order also refers to the factum
that the Grant Order dated 07.04.1986 to WBMDTCL for Iron
Ore, Manganese and Fireclay in the plots in question had been
revoked and the application for Long-Term Mining Lease filed
by WBMDTCL for Dolomite and Limestone was rejected by a
common order dated 24.09.2009. The order dated 24.09.2009
has not been placed on record, though it is necessary to
ascertain and know the reasons for cancellation and rejection
in favour of WBMDTCL. WBMDTCL had applied earlier in point
of time, and is a government of West Bengal undertaking. The
order dated 09.07.2014 does indicate that the cancellation
and rejection against WBMDTCL had something to do with
the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih, and possibly the order dated 13.10.2006 in favour
of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih. This is reflected from the reason given in the
order dated 09.07.2014, which states that since the recall
order dated 13.10.2006 was cancelled or revoked vide order
dated 03.12.2010, the rejection orders dated 13.03.2003 and
26.03.2003 were still valid and the application for mining lease
dated 07.08.1985 for Dolomite and Limestone by WBMDTCL still
subsists. Thereupon, reference in the order dated 09.07.2014
is made to sub-section (2) to Section 112
of the Mines and
2 11. Preferential right of certain persons . - (1) Where a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence
has been granted in respect of any land, the permit holder or the licensee shall have a preferential right for
obtaining a prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, in respect of that land over any other
person:
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 285
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL
(MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 19573
, which states
that in cases where the State Government has not notified in
the Official Gazette an area for grant of reconnaissance permit,
prospecting licence for mining lease, and two or more persons
had applied for the permit, licence or mining lease, the person
whose application received earlier in point of time shall have
preferential right for grant of permit, licence or lease over the
Provided that the State Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee, as the case may be, -
(a) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations, as the case may be, to establish
mineral resources in such land;
(b) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the reconnaissance permit or the prospecting licence;
(c) has not become ineligible under the provision of this Act; and
(d) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, within three
months after the expiry of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence, as the case may be, or within such
further period as may be extended by the said Government.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1),where the State Government has not notified in the Official
Gazette the area for grant of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may
be, and two or more persons have applied for a reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or a mining
lease in respect of any land in such area, the applicant whose application was received earlier, shall have a
preferential right to be considered for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as
the case may be, over the applicant whose application was received later:
Provided that where an area is available for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining
lease, as the case may be, and the State Government has invited applications by notification in the Official
Gazette for grant of such permit, licence or lease, all the applications received during the period specified in
such notification and the applications which had been received prior to the publication of such notification in
respect of the lands within such area and had not been disposed of , shall be deemed to have been received
on the same day for the purposes of assigning priority under this subsection.
Provided further that where any such applications are received on the same day, the State Government,
after taking into consideration the matters specified in sub-section (3), may grant the reconnaissance permit,
prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit.
(3) The matters referred to in sub-section (2) are the following:-
(a) any special knowledge of, or experience in, reconnaissance operations, prospecting operations or mining
operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant;
(b) the financial resources of the applicant;
(c) the nature and quality of the technical staff employed or to be employed by the applicant;
(d) the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on the
minerals;
(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section(1), where the State Government notifies in the Official Gazette
an area for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, all the
applications received during the period as specified in such notification, which shall not be less than thirty
days, shall be considered simultaneously as if all such applications have been received on the same day
and the State Government, after taking into consideration the matters specified in sub-section(3), may grant
the reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), but subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the
State Government may, for any special reasons to be recorded, grant a reconnaissance permit, prospecting
licence or a mining lease, as the case may be, to an applicant whose application was received later in preference to an applicant whose application was received earlier:
Provided that in respect of minerals specified in the First Schedule, prior approval of the Central Government
shall be obtained before passing any order under this sub-section.
3 For short, ‘MMDR Act, 1957’
286 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
person whose application was received later. The order states
that WBMDTCL is very much interested in mining Dolomite
and Limestone in the area and has confirmed the said fact in
writing vide letter dated 05.06.2014.
2.8 The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih challenged the order dated 09.07.2014 passed
by the Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department,
West Bengal in Writ Petition No. 21358 (W) of 2014 before
the High Court of Calcutta. This petition was disposed of vide
order dated 10.09.2014 observing that the Joint Secretary, who
had passed the order dated 09.07.2014 had failed to exercise
jurisdiction vested in him as the applications filed by WBMDTCL
had been rejected vide common order dated 24.09.2009 and
were therefore not pending. Direction was issued by the High
Court to grant a long term lease in respect of 76 acres of land
to the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih by observing that the respondent had a Rayati
status and that the remaining land can be given to WBMDTCL.
It may be relevant to note here that this order records that the
files relating to the application of WBMDTCL were untraceable.
WBMDTCL was not made a party to the said writ petition.
Notably, the application filed by WBMDTCL, being earlier in
point of time in terms of the applicable rules was to be given
preference, whereas the application filed by the Respondent
No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih was
rejected vide orders dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003. However,
the rejection orders were recalled vide order dated 13.10.2006
and the Letter of Intent dated 26.10.2006 was issued in favour
of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih. Subsequently, the Grant Order dated 13.10.2006
in favour of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih was cancelled and recalled vide order
dated 13.12.2010. This order dated 13.12.2010 was never
challenged and has attained finality. It is during the period
between the order dated 13.10.2006 and the order dated
13.12.2010 that the request/application of WBMDTCL was
rejected and the mining lease cancelled vide order dated
24.09.2009.
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 287
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL
(MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER
2.9 On 10.02.2015, vide notification No. S.O. 423 (E), Dolomite
was notified as a minor mineral, and accordingly henceforth,
fell under the legislative and administrative jurisdiction of the
State Government.
2.10 A Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was issued by the Deputy
Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West
Bengal for Dolomite mining in favour of Respondent No. 1 -
M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih in respect of
76 acres of land, subject to certain conditions, including the
requirement to submit consent letters of owners of the land
in question (Raiyats) before the execution of the lease deed,
or a condition to this effect would be incorporated in the draft
lease. Another stipulation mentioned therein is the need for
permission under Section 14-Y4 of the West Bengal Land
Reforms Act, 19555
for holding the required land and furnishing
of Conversion Certificate for plots of land from the appropriate
authority in terms of Section 4-C6
of the WBLR Act, 1955. It
4 14-Y. Limitation on future acquisition of land by a raiyat.—If at any time, after the commencement
of the provisions of this Chapter, the total area of land owned by a raiyat exceeds the ceiling area applicable
to him under Section 14-M, on account of transfer, inheritance or otherwise, the area of land which is in
excess of the ceiling area shall vest in the State and all the provisions of this Chapter relating to ceiling area
shall apply to such land:
Provided that a person intending to establish a tea garden, mill, factory or workshop, livestock breeding
farm, poultry farm, or dairy, or township in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Town and
Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979, may, with the previous permission, in writing, of the State
Government and on such terms and conditions and in such manner as the State Government may by rules
prescribe, acquire and hold land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him under Section 14-M:
Provided further that if such person, having been permitted by the State Government, does not utilise within
two years of the date of such permission such land for the purpose for which he has been so permitted by
the State Government to acquire and hold it, then, all the provisions of this Chapter relating to ceiling area
shall apply to the area of land which is held in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him under Section
14-M.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “person” includes an individual, a firm, a company, an institution, or an association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.
5 For short, ‘WBLR Act, 1955’.’
6 4-C. Permission for change of area, character or use of land.—(1) A raiyat holding any land may
apply to the Collector for change of area or character of such land or for conversion of the same for any
purpose other than the purpose for which it was settled or was being previously used or for alteration in the
mode of use of such land.
(2) On receipt of such application, the Collector may, after making such inquiry as may be prescribed and
after giving the applicant or the persons interested in such land or affected in any way an opportunity of being heard, by order in writing either reject the application or direct such change, conversion or alteration, as
the case may be, on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
(3) Every order under sub-section (2) directing change, conversion or alteration shall specify the date from
which such change, conversion or alteration shall take effect.
(4) A copy of the order passed by the Collector directing change, conversion or alteration, if any, under subsection (2), or in an appeal therefrom shall he forwarded to the Revenue Officer referred to in Section 50 or
288 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
is also stipulated that the Grant Order and the subsequent
execution of the lease deed are subject to the No Objection
Certificate to be obtained from the Central Government since
Dolomite was a major mineral at the time of the order dated
10.09.2014 passed by the High Court.
2.11 Aggrieved by the conditions and the requirements stipulated in
the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015, the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih filed two Contempt
Petitions in W.P. 21358 (W) of 2014. These contempt petitions
were disposed of, inter alia, observing that the Respondent
No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih was
required to fulfil the conditions, including furnishing of the
Conversion Certificate under Section 4-C of the WBLR Act,
1955 and No Objection Certificate from the Government of
India. The court, therefore, found that there was no wilful, or
contumacious violation of the order dated 10.09.2014. However,
liberty was granted to the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih to question the Grant Order
dated 16.07.2015.
2.12 The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih thereupon preferred Writ Petition No. 20309 (W) of
2016 before the High Court of Calcutta. However, WBMDTCL
was not a party to this writ petition. In the meanwhile, a
clarification was sought by the Deputy Secretary, Commerce
and Industries Department, West Bengal and vide clarification
dated 26.08.2016 issued by the Government of India, Ministry
of Mines, it was clarified that even prior to 10.02.2015, Dolomite
was a Non-Scheduled major mineral, for which prior approval
of the Central Government was not required under sub-section
(1) to Section 5 of the MMDR Act, 1957.
Section 51, as the case may be, and such Revenue Officer shall incorporate in the record-of-rights changes
effected by such order and revise the record-of-rights in accordance with such order.
(5) If the Collector is satisfied that any land is being convened for any purpose other than the purpose for
which it was settled or was being previously held, or attempts are being made to effect alteration in the mode
of use of such land or change of the area or character of such land, he may, by order, restrain the raiyat from
such Act.
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 289
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL
(MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER
2.13 This Writ Petition No. 20309 (W) of 2016 vide judgment and
order dated 12.04.2017 has been allowed inter alia observing
that Dolomite had become a minor mineral with effect from
10.02.2015 and hence prior approval of the Central Government
is not required under Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957. On
the question of requirements under Section 14-Y and 4-C of
the WBLR Act, 1955, it is observed that the land in question is
recorded as ‘Dungri’ as per information provided by the Deputy
District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Purulia vide Memo No.
V/RTI/775/15 dated 06.03.2017 and that the land classified as
‘Dungri’ is only used for the purpose of mining lease and thus,
there is no need for a conversion certificate under Section 4-C
of the WBLR, Act, 1955. The clarification dated 07.04.2016 was
issued by the Additional District Magistrate and District Land
and Land Reforms Officer, Purulia, stating that the Respondent
No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih had
procured a No Objection Certificate in respect of the major
portion of Raiyati land from different owners and that the State
Government itself was the owner of 20.87 acres of land, thus
Section 14-Y of the WBLR Act, 1955 would not be applicable as
the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih has not acquired land in excess ceiling limit prescribed
under Section 14-M of the WBLR Act, 1955.
2.14 This judgment was challenged by the State of West Bengal
in an intra-court appeal being F.M.A. No. 1458 of 2017 with
CAN No. 6596 of 2017 which has been dismissed vide the
impugned judgment dated 04.10.2018. Agreeing with the findings
recorded by the Single Judge, the division bench has held that
the provisions of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession
Rules, 20167
will not be applicable as the Respondent No. 1 -
M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih had made the
application in March 1998, and more so as the Joint Secretary,
Government of West Bengal had passed the order dated
13.10.2006 to grant mining lease. The High Court’s direction
given in Writ Petition No. 21358 (W) of 2014 vide judgment
7 For short, ‘Concession Rules, 2016’.
290 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
dated 10.09.2014 are prior to the enforcement of the Concession
Rules, 2016.
3. We have heard the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State
of West Bengal and the Respondent No. 2 – Dinesh Agarwal, who
has appeared in-person. They have also submitted their written
submissions.
4. We begin our discussion by first referring to Rule 61 of the Concession
Rules, 2016, which reads as under:
“61.Decleration of ineligibility of the pending minor mineral
applications for mining lease including the applications of
reclassified major minerals.- All applications for mining lease of
minor minerals including the reclassified minor minerals vide SO No423 (E) dated 12th February,2015 received prior to the giving-effect
to this rules irrespective of its duration of pendency shall become
ineligible.
Provided that if the applicant has been issued a Grant Order or
Letter of Intent (LoI) or any other Government Order requiring the
alteration of applicant’s position then his mining lease application
may be considered after due compliance of the all the necessary
conditions”
5. An almost corresponding amendment was made to the MMDR
Act, 1957 by incorporating Section 10-A vide Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 20158
, which reads
as under:
10-A. Rights of existing concession holders and applicants.—
(1) All applications received prior to the date of commencement of
the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment
Act, 2015, shall become ineligible.
(2) Without prejudice to sub-section (1), the following shall remain
eligible on and from the date of commencement of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015—
(a) applications received under Section 11-A of this Act;
8 For short, ‘Amendment Act, 2015’.
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 291
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL
(MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER
(b) where before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 a
reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence has been granted
in respect of any land for any mineral, the permit holder or the
licensee shall have a right for obtaining a prospecting licence
followed by a mining lease, or a mining lease, as the case
may be, in respect of that mineral in that land, if the State
Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee,
as the case may be,—
(i) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting
operations, as the case may be, to establish the existence
of mineral contents in such land in accordance with
such parameters as may be prescribed by the Central
Government;
(ii) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions
of the reconnaissance permit or the prospecting licence;
(iii) has not become ineligible under the provisions of this
Act; and
(iv) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence
or mining lease, as the case may be, within a period of
three months after the expiry of reconnaissance permit
or prospecting licence, as the case may be, or within
such further period not exceeding six months as may be
extended by the State Government;
(c) where the Central Government has communicated previous
approval as required under sub-section (1) of Section 5 for
grant of a mining lease, or if a letter of intent (by whatever
name called) has been issued by the State Government to
grant a mining lease, before the commencement of the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,
2015, the mining lease shall be granted subject to fulfilment of
the conditions of the previous approval or of the letter of intent
within a period of two years from the date of commencement
of the said Act:
292 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
Provided that in respect of any mineral specified in the First Schedule,
no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted under
clause (b) of this sub-section except with the previous approval of
the Central Government.
6. Rule 61 of the Concession Rules, 2016 states that all applications for
mining lease of minor minerals including reclassified minor minerals
vide S.O. No. 423 (E) dated 12.02.2015 received prior to giving
effect to the Concession Rules, 20169
, irrespective of its duration of
pendency shall become ineligible. In other words, these applications
are not to be considered. The proviso makes an exception and
states that if an applicant, who had made an application prior to
29.07.2016, had been issued a Grant Order or a Letter of Intent, or
any other order requiring alteration of the applicant’s position, his
application for mining lease may be considered after due compliance
of all necessary conditions. The question is whether the respondents’
case is covered by the exception in terms of the proviso to Rule
61 of the Concession Rules,2016. We have already referred to the
reasoning given by the division bench of the High Court dealing with
the Concession Rules, 2016, and would like to quote the findings
which hold that the proviso would not be applicable to the facts of
the present case. These observations read:
“25. ….Neither such recent policy nor can the provisions of the
West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 can apply
to the application of the writ petitioners made in March, 1998 and
more so as the order of the Joint Secretary to grant lease is dated
13th October, 2006 and that of this Court directing grant of long term
lease is dated 10th September, 2014 are prior to such policy and
prior to the said Rules came into operation. It further appears that
necessary mining plan taking into account the environmental aspect
has been submitted by the writ petitioners and the appellant/State
has raised no grievance in respect thereof.”
7. The policy referred to in the aforesaid paragraph is in terms of the
letter dated 02.02.2018 issued by the Principal Secretary, State of
West Bengal, wherein it is specified that obtaining a Conversion
9 The Concession Rules, 2016 came into effect on 29.07.2016
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 293
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL
(MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER
Certificate is a mandatory condition for the purpose of a mining
lease. Reference in the impugned judgment to the order dated
13.10.2006, or for that matter, the Letter of Intent dated 26.10.2006
is inconsequential as the said orders were recalled and revoked
on 03.12.2010. The orders did not survive and continue to operate
thereafter. Writ Petition No. 7505 (W) of 2003 was disposed of exparte, without noticing that the order dated 13.10.2006 had been
recalled or cancelled, albeit the judgment had directed that the
application for grant of lease would be considered in accordance
with law and the rules applicable at the time of consideration. The
order dated 03.12.2010 was never challenged by the Respondent
No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih and has
attained finality. At best, the case of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih is that the application
dated 06.03.1998 should be considered in accordance with law.
8. The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih has relied upon judgment of this Court in Bhushan
Power and Steel Limited v. S.L. Seal, Additional Secretary
(Steel and Mines), State of Odisha and Others10. In the said case,
the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner therein had made an
application for grant of lease before the State of Odisha for mining
of Iron Ore in an area measuring 1250 acres. The application
was in view of the proposal to set up a steel plant in the district
of Sambalpur, Odisha. The rejection for the grant of the mining
lease to M/s. Bhushan Power and Steel Limited was challenged
in a Writ Petition in the High Court, which was dismissed, but the
appeal preferred before this Court was allowed vide judgment dated
14.03.2012 in Bhushan Power and Steel Limited and Others v.
State of Orissa and Another11, setting aside the order of the State
Government dated 09.02.2016, with the following directions:
“41. In the light of the above, the High Court erred in holding that it
could not interfere with the decision of the State Government calling
upon the appellants to sign a fresh MoU with the Government, during
subsistence of the earlier MoU. Since the State Government has
10 (2017) 2 SCC 125.
11 (2012) 4 SCC 246.
294 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
already made allotments in favour of others in relaxation of the Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960, under Rule 59(2) thereof, no cogent ground
had been made out on behalf of the State to deny the said privilege
to the appellants as well. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set
aside the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa and also
the decision of the State Government dated 9-2-2006, rejecting the
appellants’ claim for grant of mining lease.
42. During the course of hearing, we have been informed that
Thakurani Block A has large reserves of iron ore, in which the
appellants can also be accommodated. We, accordingly, direct the
State of Orissa to take appropriate steps to act in terms of the MoU
dated 15-5-2002, as also its earlier commitments to recommend
the case of the appellants to the Central Government for grant of
adequate iron ore reserves to meet the requirements of the appellants
in their steel plant at Lapanga.”
9. The State of Odisha thereafter filed an application for review of
the judgment in Bhushan Power and Steel Limited and Others
v. State of Orissa and Another12 (supra) which was rejected vide
order dated 11.09.2012.
10. Alleging non-compliance and in-action of the judgment dated
14.03.2012, a contempt petition was filed by M/s Bhushan Power
and Steel Limited. The contempt petition was contested by the
State of Odisha on several grounds, including that the judgment
dated 14.03.2012 is incapable of enforcement, for which reliance
was placed on a subsequent judgment of this Court in Sandur
Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka13. This
stand did not find favour with this Court and the officers of the State
Government were found to be in contempt of the judgment dated
14.03.2012 vide judgment dated 22.04.2014 in Bhushan Power
and Steel Limited v. Rajesh Verma14. Under these circumstances,
the judgment dated 22.04.2014 had given one more opportunity
to the State Government to send requisite recommendation to the
Central Government inter alia observing that this Court cannot lose
12 (2012) 4 SCC 246.
13 (2010) 13 SCC 1.
14 (2014) 5 SCC 551.
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 295
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL
(MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER
sight of the fact that there is a judgment inter se the parties, which
has become final. Accordingly, the contention that the judgment of
this Court in Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited (supra)
will not undo the directions given in the judgment dated 14.03.2012
was rejected. The relevant observations in the judgment dated
22.04.2014 read as under:
“21. We cannot lose sight of the fact that there is a judgment, inter
partes, which has become final. Even when the civil appeal was
being heard, certain other parties claiming their interest in these very
lands had moved intervention applications which were dismissed.
At that time also it was mentioned that there are 195 applicants.
However, notwithstanding the same, this Court issued firm directions
to the State Government to recommend the case of the petitioners
for mining lease in both the areas. In view of such categorical and
unambiguous directions given in the judgment which has attained
finality, merely because another judgment has been delivered by
this Court in Sandur Manganese case , cannot be a ground to undo
the directions contained in the judgment dated 14-3-2012. Insofar
as law laid down in Sandur Manganese is concerned, that may be
applied and followed by the State Government in respect of other
applications which are still pending. However, that cannot be pressed
into service qua the petitioner whose rights have been crystallised
by the judgment rendered in its favour. It cannot be reopened, that
too at the stage of implementation of the said judgment.
22. …. Once we hold that the respondents are bound to implement
the direction contained in the judgment dated 14-3-2012, insofar as
the State Government is concerned, it is obliged to comply therewith
and such matters, along with other relevant considerations, can be
left to the wisdom of the Central Government while taking a decision
on the recommendation of the State Government.
xx xx xx
24. …. However, we are giving one final opportunity to them to
purge the contempt by transmitting requisite recommendations to
the Central Government. It would be for the Central Government
to consider the said recommendations on its own merits and in
accordance with law. In case the recommendation is sent within
296 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
one month from the date of copy of receipt of this order, we propose
not to take any further action and the respondents/contemnors shall
stand discharged from this contempt petition. However, in case the
respondents do not purge in the manner mentioned above, it would
be open to the petitioners to point out the same to this Court by
moving appropriate application and in that event the contemnors
shall be proceeded against.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. Consequent to the directions dated 22.04.2014, the State Government
had sent the requisite recommendation to the Central Government for
grant of mining lease of the area in question. The Central Government,
however, took the stand that having regard to the amendments in
the MMDR Act, 1957, vide the Amendment Act, 2015 introducing
Section 10-A, the request made by M/s Bhushan Power and Steel
Limited stands invalidated. In view of the aforesaid stand, the Central
Government had written letters to the State Government, with a copy
sent to M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited. In the letter dated
13.05.2015, the Central Government had stated that the proposal
for according the prior approval for grant of mineral concession was
ineligible in terms of sub-section (1) to Section 10-A of the MMDR
Act, 1957 and, therefore, should be treated as closed. However, the
State Government might ascertain whether the proposal was safe from
ineligibility under Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 and thereupon
the State Government could take action accordingly. Similar view
was also expressed by the Central Government in the letter dated
29.05.2015 therein. Consequent to these communications, the State
government vide letter dated 09.07.2015 had informed M/s Bhushan
Power and Steel Limited that their applications for grant of mining
lease had become ineligible as per sub-section (1) to Section 10-A
of the MMDR Act, 1957.
12. This Court in M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Limited15 (supra),
specifically examined the contention whether in the facts of the said
case, clause (c) to sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of the MMDR
Act, 1957 could be invoked in view of the contention raised by M/s
15 (2012) 4 SCC 246.
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 297
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL
(MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER
Bhushan Steel and Power Limited that the Letter of Intent was issued
by the State Government for grant of mining lease and, therefore,
their application stands protected. The submission was that the
recommendation dated 24.05.2014, given by the State Government
should be treated as a Letter of Intent by “whatever name called”,
as it signifies the intention to grant mining lease insofar as the
State Government is concerned. It was also argued that under the
new regime contained under Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957,
approval of the Central Government was not even required and the
State Government could have proceeded further and granted the
lease.
13. The aforesaid arguments did not find favour of this Court in the case
of M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Limited (supra) in spite of the
earlier judgment of this Court dated 14.03.2012 and the order passed
in the contempt petition dated 22.04.2014 with the observations
therein that there was failure of the State Government to comply with
the directions. This Court rejected the submissions in M/s Bhushan
Steel and Power Limited (supra) and held as under:
“17. Undoubtedly, as per sub-section (1) of Section 10-A, all
applications received prior to coming into force of the Amendment
Act, 2015, become ineligible. Reason for interpreting such a provision
is not far to seek. Before the passing of the Amendment Act, 2015, it
was the Central Government which had the ultimate control over the
grant of licences insofar as mining of major minerals is concerned.
As per the procedure then existing, the State Government could
recommend the application submitted by any applicant for grant of
mining lease to the Central Government and the Central Government
was given the power to grant or refuse to grant the approval. Thus,
“previous approval” from the Central Government was essential for
grant of lease, without which the State Government could not enter
into any such lease agreement with the applicant. Shortcomings of
this procedure were noticed by this Court in its judgment rendered
in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India [(2012) 3 SCC
1] (for short “CPIL case”) and also in Natural Resources Allocation, In
re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 [Natural Resources Allocation,
In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1] . In these
judgments, this Court expressed that allocation of natural resources
298 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
should normally be by auction. Judgment in CPIL case had a direct
relevance to the grant of mineral concessions as the Government
found that it was resulting in multipurpose litigation which was
becoming counterproductive. Mining Ordinance, 2015 was passed on
12-1-2015 which was ultimately replaced when Parliament enacted
the Amendment Act, 2015.
18. The exhaustive Statement of Objects and Reasons reveals that
the extensive amendment in the Act were effected after extensive
consultations and intensive scrutiny by the Standing Committee on
Coal and Steel, who gave their Report in May 2013. As is evident
from the Statement that difficulties were experienced because the
existing Act does not permit the auctioning of mineral concessions.
It was observed that with auctioning of mineral concessions,
transparency in allocation will improve; the Government will get an
increased share of the value of mineral resources; and that it will
alleviate the procedural delay, which in turn would check slowdown
which adversely affected the growth of mining sector.
19. The Amendment Act, 2015, as is evident from the objects,
aims at: (i) eliminating discretion; (ii) improving transparency in
the allocation of mineral resources; (iii) simplifying procedures; (iv)
eliminating delay on administration, so as to enable expeditious
and optimum development of the mineral resources of the country;
(v) obtaining for the Government an enhanced share of the value
of the mineral resources; and (vi) attracting private investment and
the latest technology.
20. The Amendment Act, 2015 ushered in the amendment of Sections
3, 4, 4-A, 5, 6, 13, 15, 21 and First Schedule; substitution of new
sections for Sections 8, 11 and 13; and, insertion of new Sections
8-A, 9-B, 9-C, 10-A, 10-C, 11-B, 11-C, 12-A, 15-A, 17-A, 20-A, 30-B,
30-C and Fourth Schedule.
21. These amendments brought in vogue: (i) auction to be the sole
method of allotment; (ii) extension of tenure of existing lease from the
date of their last renewal to 31-3-2030 (in the case of captive mines)
and till 31-3-2020 (for the merchant miners) or till the completion
of renewal already granted, if any, or a period of 50 years from the
date of grant of such lease; (iii) establishment of District Mineral
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 299
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL
(MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER
Foundation for safeguarding interest of persons affected by mining
related activities; (iv) setting up of a National Mineral Exploration
Trust created out of contributions from the mining lease-holders,
in order to have a dedicated fund for encouraging exploration and
investment; (v) removal of the provisions requiring “previous approval”
from the Central Government for grant of mineral concessions in
case of important minerals like iron ore, bauxite, manganese, etc.
thereby making the process simpler and quicker; (vi) introduction of
stringent penal provisions to check illegal mining prescribing higher
penalties up to Rs 5 lakhs per hectare and imprisonment up to 5
years; and (vii) further empowering the State Government to set up
Special Courts for trial of offences under the Act.”
14. Thus, the object and purpose of the Amendment Act, 2015 is to ensure
that allocation of mineral resources is done through auctioning. This
is the reason why sub-section (1) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act,
1957 mandates that all applications received prior to 12.01.2015 shall
become ineligible. The exceptions or the saving clause applies to
three kinds of situations specified in sub-section (2) to Section 10-A
of the MMDR Act. 1957. The first category is where an application
has been received under Section 11-A of the MMDR Act,1957. The
second category is where a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting
licence has been granted the permit holder or the licensee has the
right to obtain a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease and
the State Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee
has complied with the requirements specified in sub-clauses (i) to
(iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act,
1957. The reason for protecting this class of cases is on account of
the fact that they had altered their position by spending money on
reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations. Accordingly,
the principle of legitimate expectation is applied. The third category
is where the Central Government had already communicated their
previous approval or the State Government had issue Letter of Intent
for grant of mining lease before coming into force of the Amendment
Act 2015. The raison dêtre, it is observed therein, is that certain
rights had accrued to these applicants inasmuch as all necessary
procedures and formalities had been complied with and only formal
lease remains to be executed.
300 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
15. Delving on the question of whether the letter for approval dated
22.05.2014 granted by the State Government can be treated as a
Letter of Intent predicated on the words by whatever name, which
expression, it was submitted, should be given a broad interpretation in
view of the words ‘by whatever name called’ was examined in-depth
and in detail. Reference was made to the legal dictionary for the
meaning of the term ‘Letter of Intent’ as a preliminary understanding
between the parties who intend to make a contract or join together
for further action. Reference was also made to decisions of this Court
in Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited v. Board of Trustees of
Kandla Port Trust and Others16 and Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy
Federation Limited v. Maha Laxmi Mingrate Marketing Service
Private Limited and Others17 However, the said contention was
rejected inter alia holding as under:
“26. Applying the aforesaid meaning, can it be said that Letter dated
24-5-2014 of the State Government would constitute a letter of intent?
We are afraid, answer has to be in the negative. Reason is simple.
As mentioned above, in order to enable the State Government to
enter into any lease agreement/contract with the prospecting licensee,
“previous approval” of the Central Government was essential. Unless
such approval came, the State Government could not communicate to
the prospecting licensee/lessee its intention to enter into any contract
as the prerequisite prior approval would be lacking. Therefore, no
promise could be held by the State Government to any applicant
showing its intention to enter into a contract in the future. Position
would have been different had Letter dated 24-5-2014 been issued
after receiving previous approval of the Central Government.
However, that is not so. This letter to the Central Government
was only recommendatory in nature and ultimate decision rested
with the Central Government. It is a different thing if the Central
Government refuses to give its approval on any extraneous reasons
or mala fides or does not take into consideration relevant factors/
material while rejecting the application, which may form a different
cause of action and may become a reason to challenge the action
of the Central Government rejecting the application on the grounds
16 (2015) 13 SCC 233.
17 (1996) 10 SCC 405.
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 301
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL
(MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER
that are available in law to seek judicial review of such an action.
However, we are not dealing with that situation in the instant case.
Our discussion is confined to the plea raised before us viz. whether
Letter dated 24-5-2014 can be termed as “letter of intent”. For the
reasons stated above, we are of the view that it was not a letter
of intent. The application of the petitioner, therefore, would not be
covered by clause (c) of Section 10-A of the Act.
27. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioner herein had
originally succeeded in the appeal inasmuch as judgment dated 14-
3-2012 was rendered giving direction to the State Government to
recommend the case of the petitioner, in terms of the MoU entered
into between the parties, to the Central Government. This was not
done and the decision was reiterated in orders dated 22-4-2014
passed in Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. v. Rajesh Verma [. It is
possible that had the State Government acted promptly and sent
the recommendations earlier, the Central Government might have
accorded its approval. However, whether it could have done so or
not would be in the realm of conjectures. Insofar as the Central
Government is concerned, no direction was ever given by this Court.
On the contrary, it was categorically observed in the order dated 22-4-
2014 in Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. v. Rajesh Verma that it would
be for the Central Government to consider the recommendations of
the State Government on its own merits and in accordance with law.
If that has not been done by the Central Government, it cannot be
the subject-matter of present contempt petition.”
16. The aforesaid judgment is relevant for our purpose, though in the
present case, post notification No. S.O. 423(E) dated 10.02.2015,
Dolomite was notified as a minor mineral and hence, the approval
of the Central Government was not required for the reason that
the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was hedged with pre-conditions,
including the requirement to submit consent letters of the owners
of the land in question (Raiyats) before the execution of the lease
deed, or there was to be a stipulation that a condition to this effect
would be incorporated in the draft lease. Therefore, in our opinion,
the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 is provisional, and is subject to
fulfilment of the conditions therein. This is clear from the terms of
the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015, which are reproduced below:
302 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
“
xx xx xx
(a) You have to furnish a Draft Mining Lease Deed in the model
form K us prescribed in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960,
as amended upto date (1 rule 31 of MC Rules, 1960),
(b) The Draft Mining Lease Deed should be prepared in durable
papers neatly and sufficient space should be kept in between
two lines in order to permit, if necessary, correction therein,
(c) The Deed of Lease, after execution, shall be registered by you
at your own cost and no mining operation should be started
before registration of the Deed,
(d) You shall have to furnish the approved Mining Plan, if not
submitted rules 22(4) and 22A of MC Rules, 1960,
(e) You shall have to furnish the Environment Clearance (EC), if not
submitted from the M1EF Environment of Protection Act, 1986,
(f) You shall have to furnish Consent to Establish and Consent to
Operate from the WBPCB before execution of Deed of Lease
[Section 25 and 26 of Water Act ,1974 and Section 21 of Air
Act, 1981],
(g) You shall have to raise annually a minimum quantity of minerals
as stipulated in the approved Mine Plan [rules 22A and 45(ia)
of MC Rules, 1960],
(h) You shall have to deposit Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand)
only as Security for due observance of the terms and conditions
of the lease, under appropriate Head of Account which shall be
refundable to you after expiry of the period of Lease, unless the
whole or a part of it is withheld or forfeited by the Government
for any default on you part including default in payment of
amount due to the Government [rule 32 of MC Rules, 1960],
(i) You shall have to submit consent letter(s) of the owner(s) of the
land under consideration before execution of the Lease Deed
(Consent of the Raiyats) or a condition to that effect should be
incorporated in the Draft Deed (rule 22(3)(i)(1t)),
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 303
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL
(MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER
(j) You shall have to furnish the N.O.C., of the Forest Authority in
proper format in case the applied area falls in the forest area
as notified by the Appropriate Authority, alongwith the Draft
Lease Deed or a condition to that effect should be incorporated
in the Draft Deed [Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980],
(k) For actual operation of quarrying or digging, ten (10) yards clear
margin shall be kept from the outer boundary of the adjacent 1
plot or plots and maintain throughout the operation and you shall
have to give a written undertaking to that effect or corporate a
condition in the Draft Lease Deed,
(l) You shall have to incorporate all the conditions as mentioned
in the M.C. Rules, 1960 in the Draft Lease Deed,
(m) You shall have to furnish up to date Royalty Clearance, Income
Tac Clearance and VAT Clearance certificates before execution
of the Deed,
(n) You shall have to submit, along with the Draft Deed, a GeoReference Map duly vetted by the DL&LRO and DMM, West
Bengal, if not submitted,
(o) You shall have obtained the permission under Section 14Y of
WBLR Act, 1955 for holding the required land,
(p) You have to furnish the Conversion Certificate for plots of land
from the Appropriate Authority (Section 4C of WBLR Act, 1955),
(q) You have to furnish the current Land Availability Report (LAR)
from the Appropriate Authority.
(r) In the event of non-execution of the deed within the stipulated
period on compliance with the above mentioned conditions
the order sanctioning the lease shall be liable to be revoked,
(s) You shall have to comply with all the statutory requirements
before presenting the Deed of Lease of execution to this
Department,
(t) This Grant Order and subsequent execution of Lease Deed are
subject to the No Objection Certificate (NOC) to be obtained
by this Department form the Govt. of India since the applicant
prayed for mining lease on the ground that the Letter of Intent
304 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
(Lol) was issued for the mineral Dolomite which was a major
mineral at the time of order dated 10.09.2014 of the Hon’ble
High Court.
xx xx xx”
17. Raiyat land is to be used for cultivation, etc., and not for mining.
Once the mining activity is undertaken, the Raiyats will not be able
to use the land. In terms of sub-section (10) to Section 2 of the
WBLR Act, 1955, a Raiyat means a person or an institution holding
land for any purpose whatsoever. However, the rights of Raiyat in
respect of the land in terms of sub-section (2A) to Section 4 of the
WBLR Act, 1955 does not permit any other person to quarry sand
from his holding, dig or use, or permit any person to dig or use, earth
or clay of his holding for the manufacture of bricks or tiles except
with previous permission in writing of the State Government. In
case of breach of the condition, the prescribed authority may, after
giving notice and opportunity to a Raiyat to show cause, can levy
a monetary penalty. Further, on an order being passed, the land
shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances. Section 4-B of
the WBLR Act, 1955 stipulates that every Raiyat holding any land
shall maintain and preserve such land in a manner that the area
is not diminished or its character is not changed or the land is not
converted for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was
settled or previously held except with the previous permission of the
Collector in writing. Equally significant for our purpose is Section 3A
of the WBLR Act, 1955, which states that the rights and interests
of all non-agricultural tenants and under-tenants shall vest in the
State free from all encumbrances and provisions of Section 5 and
5A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 shall apply. An
exception is carved out by sub-section (2) to Section 3A of the WBLR
Act, 1955, where a non-agricultural tenant or under-tenant is holding
khas possession of any land, in which case he is entitled to retain the
land as Raiyat. There are also provisions relating to the transferability
of land by the Raiyat. If cultivation was not being undertaken at the
land in question, the classification requires a change.
18. The controversy relating to Section 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955,
cannot simply be decided on the basis of Memo No. V/RTI/775/15
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 305
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL
(MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER
dated 06.03.2017 issued by the Deputy District Land and Land
Reforms Officer, Purulia, that as per the revenue records the land
was recorded as ‘Dungri’. The reason is that Raiyat land is not for
mining. Thus, a contradiction arises, as the grant of Raiyat land
and the classification of the same land as ‘Dungri’ is contradictory.
19. Further, whether the consent letter of the owners of the land in
question (Raiyats) obtained by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih still hold good, would be relevant as
there could be a change of hands on account of transfer, inheritance,
etc. Connected with this are the legal issues. First, whether the
Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih
had altered its position post the issue of the Grant Order dated
16.07.2015, but before enforcement of the Concession Rules, 2016,
to get the benefit of Rule 61 of the Concessions Rules, 2016? It is
necessary to ascertain the facts and then alone one can adjudicate
and decide the question whether the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih is entitled to the benefit of
the proviso to Rule 61 of the Concession Rules, 2016. This has not
been verified and ascertained. An issue would arise on whether the
application filed by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih way back in 1998 would still hold good as
at the time, when the application was filed, approval of the Central
Government was required. Another difficulty is that WBMDTCL has
not been impleaded as a party, though it was always contesting the
claim made by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih. On the question of cancellation or rejection
of the application made by WBMDTCL, we have made observations
supra. However, we need not examine these issues in light of the
order and directions we are issuing. Further, we feel that the remand
order should not be passed at this distinct point of time.
20. Having said so, it is the stand of the appellants – State of West
Bengal, that they are owners of 20.87 acres of the land in question
and to this extent, they have no difficulty in executing the mining
lease. This being the stated stand, which has also been affirmed
before us, there should be no difficulty in granting of mining lease
for the said area to the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih.
306 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
21. During the course of arguments before us, reference was made
by the appellants to the provisions of the WBLR Act, 1955 and
the judgment of this Court in Thressiamma Jacob and Others v.
Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology and Others18.
We have not examined the said aspects which are left open and
not adjudicated upon. However, we deem it appropriate to observe
that the judgment of this Court in Thressiamma Jacob and Others
(supra) is prior to the enforcement of the Amendment Act, 2015
and the Concession Rules, 2016. The amendments made by the
Amendment Act, 2015 were not subject matter of decision in the
said case and would have to be considered by the courts and the
authorities as a judgment’s binding ratio depends upon the legal
provisions considered, interpreted and applied in a given judgment.
When the law changes by an amendment in the legislation, the
amended legal provisions have to be considered, interpreted and
applied.
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated, we partly allow the present appeal
and set aside the impugned judgment with a direction that the government
of West Bengal will execute a mining lease for 20.87 acres of land in favour
of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih.
The Writ Petition No. 20309 (W) of 2016 will be treated as allowed to
the extent as indicated above. The claim of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih towards the balance area for
the grant of mining lease will be treated as rejected and dismissed. In the
facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case : Appeal partly
allowed.
18 (2013) 9 SCC 725.
