CWP/3190/2020 on 31 December 2024

1. CWP No. 3190 of 2020

Sh. Kahan Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors.

…....Respondents

2. CWP No. 3192 of 2020

Fateh Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors.

…....Respondents

3. CWP No. 3193 of 2020

Inder Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors.

…....Respondents

4. CWP No. 3194 of 2020

Jalam Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors.

…....Respondents

5. CWP No. 2667 of 2021

Sanjay Parmar

……...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors.

…....Respondents

6. CWP No. 6466 of 2022

Rajinder Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors.

…....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1/UOI.

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Since common questions of facts and law are involved in the above captioned cases and petitioners are aggrieved of letter dated 25.7.2016 (Annexure P-5), issued by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, thereby rejecting the proposal mooted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for conversion of mining lease granted for extraction of

limestone from minor minerals to major minerals, this Court after having clubbed all the cases, heard them together and same are now being decided vide this common judgment.

2. Petitioners herein, who were granted mining leases for limestone, as a ‘minor mineral’ under provision of Himachal Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) and Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 1960, framed under Section 15 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ( hereinafter ‘MMDR Act’), are aggrieved of communication dated 20.7.2016 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India thereby rejecting the proposal of Government of Himachal Pradesh for conversion of mining leases granted for extraction of limestone under minor minerals to major minerals. Petitioners herein, who are private land owners, were earlier doing mining of limestone as a minor mineral pursuant to permission granted by the State of Himachal Pradesh under rules referred herein above. During subsistence of afore mining leases granted in favour of the petitioners, it came to be transpired that limestone extracted from mines is not only of limekiln grade, but also of industrial usage like cement, chemical industries and glass factories etc. and the percentage of CaCO3 is more than limestone. In view of above, limestone came to be shifted from the category of ‘minor’ to ‘major’ mineral.

3. Since permission for mining of major minerals could only be granted by the Government of India, State of Himachal Pradesh, which otherwise on the basis of opinion rendered by the Deputy Controller of Mines-cum-Officer-In-charge, Indian Bureau of Mines, Dehradun, Uttrakhand, had proceeded to issue Letter of Intent in favour of the applicants/lease holders i.e. petitioners herein to get the mining plan approved from the Indian Bureau of Mines, sent a detailed communication dated 29.8.2015 (Annexure P-4), for conversion of leases granted in favour of the petitioners from ‘minor mineral’ to ‘major mineral’, however vide communication dated 20.7.2016 aforesaid proposal came to be rejected by the Government of India on the following grounds:

“5.The matter has been examined and the Ministry is of the opinion that:

(a) The letter dated 23.09.2014 issue by the Dy COM, IBM, Dehradun based on which the LOIs were issued by the State Government is basically an internal communication from the field office of IBM at Dehradun to the CCOM's office in the Head Office of IBM at Nagpur. Only a copy of the letter has been endorsed for information of the State Goverment. The letter addressed to CCOM, IBM, Nagpur cannot be treated as advice. It is needless to say that in statutory matters involving the exercise of powers of the Central Government, it is the Ministry of Mines which

exercises such powers with the approval of the Hon'ble Minister of Mines.

(b) Section 31 of the Act provides for relaxation of rules made under section 13. As such, the leases granted for minor minerals cannot be converted into major minerals by exercise of powers under section 31. Further, the provisions of section 8A do not apply to concessions granted for minor minerals.

6. The letters of intent granted by State Government in this regard are in violation of the provisions of the MMDR Act and the rules made there under and, therefore, need to be canceled forthwith. The State Government is hereby advised that the said leases be cancelled and action be taken for grant of fresh concessions as per the provisions of the Minerals (Evidence of Mineral Contents) Rules, 2015, the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015, and the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, made under section

13.

7. This issues with the approval of the Hon'ble Minister of State (I/C) for Mines.

4. In the afore background, petitioners have approached this Court, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order on the ground that once it is not in dispute that land qua which mining leases are to be granted is owned by the petitioners, there is no requirement for auction of the same, rather straightaway permission is required to be granted to the petitioners for mining the limestone in terms of chapter IX of the MCR-16.

5. While fairly admitting that Mineral Concession Rules 1960 stand amended in the year 2016, Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners though fairly admitted that petitioners herein are required to file fresh application under the amended Mineral Concession Rules 2016, but while referring to Chapter-IX of afore Rules, above named Senior counsel further argued that no direction otherwise could have been issued by the Government of India vide communication dated 20.7.2016 to conduct auction in terms of Mineral Auction Rules 2016, which as per him are not applicable qua the land owned by the petitioners.

6. While responding to the aforesaid submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned counsel for the respondent/State and Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, though claimed that even if it is accepted that land from which limestone is to be extracted is owned by the petitioner, auction is required to be conducted for the same in terms of Mineral Auction Rules, 2015, but they further submitted that since in terms of communication dated 20.7.2016, proposal is to be initiated by the petitioners afresh, they be directed to file fresh applications under Chapter IX of the Mineral Concession Rules 2016 and respondents shall consider

and decide the same in accordance with law/rules occupying the field expeditiously.

7. Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned Senior Counsel, states that though he is not opposed to the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, but it may be clarified that decision, if any, pursuant to fresh application shall be taken by the appropriate authorities taking note of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL, (2024) 10 SCC 1, wherein it has been categorically held that Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act does not vest the ownership of minerals or mineral rights in the State, rather it regulates the exercise of rights to minerals which may be owned either by Government, private persons, or by both the Government and private individual.

8. He also invited attention of this Court to judgment passed by this Court in case titled Kalyan Singh and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., 2006 (1) Shim. LC41, wherein it came to be specifically ruled that the entry in ‘Wajibularz’ relates to the Government land and not to the private land, secondly, Mahsul is the share of the State when revenue was realized in kind and the balance was known as "rahkam" and therefore, Mahsul is nothing but land revenue payable to the Government.

9. Since it is not in dispute that Mineral Concession Rules 1960 under which petitioners herein, at the first instance, were granted mining leases stand amended in the year 2016 coupled with the fact that vide impugned letter dated 20.7.2016, State Government has been advised by the Government of India to initiate fresh case for grant of fresh concessions as per provision of Mineral Concession Rules 2016, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file fresh application to the State Government under Chapter-IX of Mineral Concession Rules Act 2016 for grant of mining lease within a period of four weeks, which in turn shall be decided by the State Government within four weeks and thereafter, same shall be forwarded to the Government of India for consideration. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authorities concerned i.e. Government of Himachal Pradesh and Government of India, while considering fresh proposal, if any, submitted by the petitioners shall take note of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mineral Area Development Authority (supra) and by this Court in Kalyan Singh (supra) to the extent relevant to the cases at hand.

10. Since petitioners have been fighting for their claim for last so many years, this Court hopes and trusts that Government of India shall take final decision on the proposal, if any, submitted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh pursuant to request made by the petitioners expeditiously, preferably, within a period of eight weeks and if need be, opportunity of hearing shall also be afforded by the State Government and Government of India to the petitioners.

11. In the aforesaid terms, present petitions are disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.

December 31, 2024

(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)

Judge