Yogesh Khare vs State of M.P.

A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J.—This petition takes exception to the order dated 5th April, 2012 passed by the respondent No.1 rejecting the petitioner�s representation for extending the lease period commensurate with the time spent by the petitioner in making representation for grant of relief by the appropriate Authority, as envisaged by the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as �the Act�).

The respondent No.1 has rejected the representation filed by the petitioner on the finding that the excepted situation specified in Part-IX(4) of the lease deed was not attracted in the fact situation of the present case. The correctness of this view is the subject matter of this petition. The relevant admitted facts can be culled out as follows.

The petitioner had applied for grant of mining lease. The appropriate Authority allowed the said application vide order dated 27th September, 1994, but for a limited period of 10 years only. Although the petitioner acted upon the said order, made representation to the Authority to specify the lease period in conformity with the amended provision of Section 8 of the Act, which stipulates the minimum period for which the mining lease may be granted should not be less than 20 years. The petitioner had also filed revision application before the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority being prima facie convinced about the claim of the petitioner for grant of mining lease for minimum 20 years, relegated the petitioner before the appropriate Authority for reconsideration of that part of the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner. Inspite of the order of the Revisional Authority, no action was taken by the appropriate Authority.

The petitioner accordingly made representation for early decision and as was not successful in persuading the Authority, eventually filed writ petition in this Court in the year 2004 before the expiry of period of 10 years of mining lease specified in order dated 27th September, 1994. That writ petition, however, remained pending till 2011 and finally was disposed of with direction to the appropriate Authority to take a final decision on the representations made by the petitioner, Annexure P-4 and P-5 to the said writ petition. Notably, the decision of the Revisional Authority as well as learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.4758/2004 dated 18th February, 2011 have been allowed to attain finality by the respondents. The directions contained in the abovesaid decisions, thus, bound the respondents and, in particular, the appropriate Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner keeping in mind the mandate of Section 8 of the Act of 1957.

It cannot be gainsaid that the mandate of Section 8 of the Act of 1957 envisages grant of mining lease for a period not less than 20 years from the grant. Realising this position, the State Government vide order dated 10th May, 2011 accepted the claim of the petitioner that the mining lease period should be for 20 years from the date of original grant. However, the Authority did not deem it appropriate to reckon the 20 years period by giving benefit to the petitioner from 2004 till 2011 during which period, the petitioner was pursuing remedy before the competent Authority and including this Court by way of writ petition.

The petitioner is justified in relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Beg Raj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and, in particular, the principle expounded therein that when the litigant enters the portals of Court and is entitled to relief from the Court as per Law, that ought not to be denied because of pendency of proceedings before the Court for long time and expiry of the maximum term in the interregnum.

In the present case, the petitioner could not avail of the minimum lease period of 20 years between 2004 to 2011 because of the inaction of the Authorities and the lapse, in no way, was attributable to the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner having pursued his remedy in accordance with law, was entitled for continuation of the mining lease for further seven years from 26th September, 2014, keeping in mind that 20 years term of the original period prescribed under the lease deed vide order dated 27th September, 1994 would have ordinarily expired on 26th September, 2014. For, the petitioner was unable to avail of the mining lease between 2004 to 2011 until the order was passed by the State Government on 10th May, 2011. The order passed by the State Government, therefore, could not have limited the mining lease period till 26th September, 2014 but also added the period spent by the petitioner before the Court of Law between 26th September, 2004 till 10th May, 2011. That period will have to be added from 26th September, 2014 and the petitioner would be thus entitled to commensurate extended mining lease period on that basis.

The petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ravi Shankar Naik Vs. State of M.P. and Another, . For the reasons already mentioned hitherto and the directions given to the Authority, it is not necessary to dilate further on this decision. The principle expounded in this decision also applies to the fact situation of the present case.

Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is allowed with direction, as mentioned hitherto.