N.C. Chitralekha vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—The order passed by the Regional Controller of Mines, Chennai, dated 27 July, 2012, suspending the mining operations is challenged by the irrevocable power of attorney holder of the legal representatives of original lessee in W.P. (MD) No. 2890 of 2013. Similarly, the order dated 02 September, 2013, suspending the mining operations on account of non-compliance of Rule 12(3) of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, is challenged in W.P. (MD) No. 16350 of 2013.

FACTS IN NUTSHELL:

The petitioner is the joint power of attorney holder of N.C. Chitralekha, N.C. Imeshika and N.C. Sri Om, stated to be the legal representatives of the original lessee in whose favour mining lease was given by the Chief Controller of Mines. The mining operation was suspended by the statutory authority for non-compliance of Rule 45(5) of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 [W.P. (MD) No. 2890 of 2013]. The statutory authority made it clear that the order would remain in force until it is revoked.

The petitioner failed to submit the Scheme of mining for the next five year period, in spite of issuing a violation letter dated 27 February, 2013. The failure to seek mining plan approval for grant of mining lease under Section 12(3) of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 made the Regional Controller of Mines to suspend the mining operations.

According to the petitioner, notice was not issued to the power agent before suspending the lease and as such, action is bad in law. The petitioner has taken up another contention that the order dated 27 July, 2012 is liable to be revoked on account of the subsequent submission of accounts.

The Senior Assistant Controller of Mines on behalf of the Controller of Mines filed a counter-affidavit in W.P. (MD) No. 16350 of 2013, justifying the action taken against the petitioner. According to the statutory authority, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The petitioner failed to submit the mining plan, as required under Rule 24-A of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, while applying for renewal of mining lease. The suspension orders were passed on account of violation of Rules 12(3) and 45(5) of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988. It was further contended that the lessee has transferred the lease to the power agent. The transferee has no right either to challenge the action or to apply for lease.

The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, in his counter-affidavit filed in W.P. (MD) No. 2890 of 2013, contended that the legal representatives of the original lessee have transferred the lease to the power agent, by executing irrevocable general power of attorney in violation of Rule 37 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The District Collector explained the circumstances under which impugned orders were passed.

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS:

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has already submitted the monthly return in Form No. 8 and as such, the statutory authority is bound to revoke the order of suspension. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner would submit the mining plan for grant of mining lease and as such, a direction should be issued to consider revocation of suspension.

The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India contended that submission of mining plan is a statutory requirement. The petitioner has not submitted the plan even now and as such, there is no question of revoking the suspension order. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, by placing reliance on Rule 37 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, contended that the legal representatives have executed irrevocable general power of attorney in favour of the power agent and the same would operate as transfer of lease, which is prohibited by law. In short, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India challenged the very maintainability of Writ Petitions, at the instance of transferee.

DISCUSSION:

The statutory authority suspended the mining lease of the petitioner on two grounds. The petitioner failed to submit the monthly return within the due date under Rule 45(5) of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988. The statutory authority invoked Rule 45(7)(i)(a) of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, and suspended the mining operations with immediate effect, by order dated 27 July, 2012. Similarly, on account of non-submission of mining plan, the mining licence was suspended by order dated 02 September, 2013.

There is no dispute that the petitioner failed to submit the mining plan which is a mandatory requirement. There is no question of setting aside the order dated 02 September, 2013, in view of the factual position that the petitioner is yet to produce the mining plan.

The core question is whether the Writ Petition challenging the suspension of mining lease on account of statutory violation is maintainable without exhausting the statutory remedy available to the petitioner.

Rule 57 of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 provides for filing revision before Central Government. The provision reads thus:

"Revision.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any order made or direction issued under these rules by any officer subordinate to the Controller General, or an officer of the State Government, as the case may be, may within thirty days of the communication of such order or direction, apply to the Controller General for a revision of the order or direction, provided that any such application may be entertained after the said period of thirty days if the applicant satisfies the Controller General that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within time."

The lessee was given lease in accordance with the provisions of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988. The statute also provided a remedy, in case adverse orders were passed by the statutory authority. The petitioner has no case that alternative remedy is not effective or efficacious. When the statute says that a particular thing has to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done in that manner.

The Writ Petitions are still in the notice of motion stage. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Another Vs. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S. and Others, indicated that even during the time of final hearing, it is open to the Court to dismiss the Writ Petition on the ground of alternative remedy, notwithstanding the issuing of Rule Nisi.

The petitioner has taken up several contentions which require appreciation of facts. Similarly, the respondents have also taken contentions including violation of Rule 37 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, which prohibits transfer of lease. The interpretation of the terms and conditions of the irrevocable power of attorney granted to the power agent is also involved in this matter.

The available materials are not sufficient to bypass the statutory remedy available to the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ Petitions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.