M/S. GEOMYSORE SERVICES (I) PVT. LTD. & ANR.V. M/S. HUTTI GOLDMINES CO. LTD. & ORS. versus M/S. HUTTI GOLDMINES CO. LTD. & ORS on 8 May 2018

[2018] 6 S.C.R. 533

M/S. GEOMYSORE SERVICES (I) PVT. LTD. & ANR.

v.

M/S. HUTTI GOLDMINES CO. LTD. & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 2537 of 2017)

MAY 08, 2018

[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957:

ss. 11(1) and 17A(2) – Reservation of mining area u/s. 17A(2)– Permissibility – Grant of Reconnaissance Permit (RP) in favourof two private Companies (appellants) – Reconnaissance conductedby them – On the basis of reconnaissance report, further appliedfor grant of Prospecting Licence (PL) u/s. 11(1) – Thereafter,respondent (a Government Company) sought reservation u/s. 17A(2)in respect of the areas for which the appellant-Companies weregranted RP – State Government sought approval for reservation –Central Government rejected the proposal of State Government anddirected the State to consider the PL applications of the appellants– Writ petition filed by respondent-Company allowed by High Court– On appeal, held: s. 11(1) and s. 17A(2) operate in different fieldsand have no connection with each other – State Government haspower to reserve an area u/s. 17A(2) with the approval of CentralGovernment – An RP holder is entitled to preference for grant ofPL u/s. 11(1)– But, there is no bar in reserving the land u/s. 17A(2),if the land is covered under RP – Central Government whileconsidering the request for reservation u/s. 17A(2), can take intoconsideration various factors which are relevant for deciding theissue of reservation – Grant of RP though cannot be the sole groundto reject the proposal for reservation, but the same can be one ofthe factors along with other factors for deciding the issue ofreservation – Unless reservation takes place, a private companystand on the same footing as a Government Company – In the presentcase, the factors taken into consideration while deciding the issueof reservation were relevant and germane to the issues – Appellantswere entitled to preference u/s. 11(1) – Central Government wasjustified in rejecting the proposal of the State Government forreservation u/s. 17A(2).

A

B

CDEF

G

H

534SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AAllowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. State is the owner of the land and minerals.However, the control and regulation of mines and developmentof minerals are in the domain of the Union Government. TheState Government is denuded of its legislative power to makeBany law in respect of regulation of mines and mineral developmentin so far as that field is covered by the provisions of the Minesand Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. It is onlyif the field is vacant that the State can exercise its legislativepowers. Otherwise, it has to exercise its power strictly inaccordance with the powers specifically conferred on the StateCGovernment by the Act and the Minerals Concession Rules, 1960.While exercising the powers of reservation vested in Section17A(2) of the Act, the State Government has to take approval ofthe Central Government. [Para 39] [556-D-F]

2. Section 17A(2) of the Act clearly provides that the StateDGovernment can reserve any area for undertaking prospectingor mining operations through a Government company orcorporation with the approval of the Central Government. TheAct does not lay down the parameters which the CentralGovernment is required to follow. Therefore, the CentralEGovernment can take all the factors which are relevant for thepurpose of deciding whether reservation should be made or not.The National Mineral Policy 2008 (NMP 2008) being a policy ofthe country, can definitely be taken into consideration whileconsidering such a request. [Para 40] [557-B-C]

F3. A policy of a Government is an important document. Itcannot be brushed aside. The Central Government, whileconsidering the request of the State Government, can take intoconsideration various factors which may include economic factors,the factors reflecting the image of the country internationally tothe global world community and also other factors of nationalGsecurity etc.. Each case has to be decided on its own facts.Therefore, it cannot be said that only those factors can be takeninto consideration, which flow from the Act or the Rules.[Para 41] [557-E]

4. Section 11(1) and Section 17A(2) of the Act have noconnection with each other. Section 11(1) of the Act deals withpreference to be given to Reconnaissance Permit (RP) holderand Prospecting Licence (PL) holder while considering their casefor grant of PL and Mining Lease (ML) respectively. This hasnothing to do with reservation of land under Section 17A(2) ofthe Act. The only connection, if it can be called that, is that if aland is held under a PL or ML, then action under Section 17A(2)of the Act cannot be initiated. Under Section 11(1) of the Act, anRP holder, who has carried out reconnaissance, is entitled forpreference when his case is being considered for grant of PL.However, in Section 17A(2) of the Act, the bar to reservation isonly in those cases where the land is held under a PL or ML.When any land is held under PL or ML, then the said land cannoteven be considered for reservation. If the land sought to bereserved is not under PL or ML, then the State can make aproposal to reserve the land. If the land sought to be reserved iscovered by an RP there is no bar to reserve the land forexploitation by State Government undertakings. This, however,does not mean that while dealing with the proposal of the State,the Central Government must make the reservation. The CentralGovernment while granting approval, has to independently applyits mind and while doing so, there is nothing which debars theCentral Government from taking into consideration the fact thatsome entity was granted RP and the effect thereof. No doubt,the Central Government cannot reject the proposal only on theground that RP was issued since that would run counter to theprovisions of Section 17A(2) of the Act. However, this is a factwhich along with other facts can be taken into consideration whiledeciding the issue of reservation of land. [Paras 42 and 46] [557-F-H; 558-A-B; 559-F-G]

5. In the present case, the Central Government took intoconsideration various factors and noted that PL applications hadalready been filed by Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 pursuant to RPs. Itvirtually held that the request of the State Government was at abelated stage and was against the provisions of the NMP, 2008,the emphasis in which was to provide a regulatory environmentwhich is conducive to private investment. It may be true that the ABCDEF

G

H

ACentral Government was influenced by the fact that the appellants,pursuant to the RPs, had completed the reconnaissance andsubmitted their consolidated reports, but there were otherrelevant factors also which were taken into consideration suchas that the appellants had already applied for grant of PL and nosecurity consideration or public interest was involved in makingBreservation for respondent No. 1. Therefore, the factors takeninto consideration by the Central Government are relevant andgermane to the issues and cannot be said to be such factors whichare extraneous or could not have been taken into consideration.[Para 43] [558-C-E]

C

C

6. Section 17A(2) of the Act envisages four conditions, viz.(a) The land is not held under prospecting licence or mining lease;(b) there is approval by the Central Government; (c) a notificationis issued in the Official Gazette specifying the boundaries of sucharea; and (d) such notification should identify the mineral orDminerals in respect of which such areas are sought to be reserved.In the present case, only the first condition was fulfilled. None ofthe other conditions were satisfied. Therefore, the State ofKarnataka could not have issued recommendation in favour ofrespondent No. 1 on 27.12.2008. Unless reservation takes place,a private company stands on the same footing as a GovernmentEcompany and in that eventuality, Section 11 of the Act would beapplicable and the appellants being the RP holders and also beingearlier PL applicants, had to be given preference. The CentralGovernment was justified in rejecting the request of the State ofKarnataka in reserving the land in question. [Paras 45 and 46]F[558-G-H; 559-A-C, G-H]

Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India &Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 331 : [2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 640 ;Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors(2012) 11 SCC 1: [2012] 7 SCR 644 ; AmritlalGNathubhai Shah and Others v. Union Government ofIndia and Another (1976) 4 SCC 108 : [1977] 1 SCR372 ; State of T.N. v. M/s Hind Stone and Others(1981) 2 SCC 205 : [1981] 2 SCR 742 ; Indian Metalsand Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (1992) 1

M/S. GEOMYSORE SERVICES (I) PVT. LTD. & ANR. v.M/S. HUTTI GOLDMINES CO. LTD. & ORS.

Suppl. SCC 91 : [1990] 2 Suppl. SCR 27 ; State of T.N.v. M.P.P. Kavery Chetty (1995) 2 SCC 402 : [1995] 1SCR 441 ; Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v.State of Karnataka & Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 1 : [2010]11 SCR 240 ; State of Kerala and Ors. v. Kerala RareEarth & Minerals Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 323 :[2016] 5 SCR 515 – referred to.

A

B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2537of 2017.

E

From the Judgment and Order dated 03.04.2012 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 25899 of 2011

WITH

F

Civil Appeal No. 2538 of 2017.

Maninder Singh, ASG, A. K. Panda, Ms. Meenakshi Arora,C.S. Vaidyanathan, C. U. Singh, Jaideep Gupta, Basava Prabhu S. Patil,Sr. Advs., S. A. Haseeb, T. A. Khan, Mrs. Manita Verma, PrabhasBajaj, Akshay Amritanshu, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mrs. Anil Katiyar,GG.S. Makker, Arun Mani, Naveen Kumar, Nishi Kant Singh, AbhinavRaghuvanshi, Naveen R. Nath, MRC Ravi, Darpan K.M.,V. N. Raghupathy, Chinmay Deshpande, Parikshit Angadi, Ms. Rachita,Advs. for the appearing parties.

H

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEEPAK GUPTA J. 1. What is the role and power of theCentral Government while dealing with the request of a StateGovernment for reservation of lands for government companies orcorporations owned and controlled by the State Government under sectionB17A (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act,1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is the main issue involved in this case.

THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. This case has a long and chequered history. There are goldCmines in the State of Karnataka and parties are litigating in respect oftheir rights to exploit those mines. We have two appellants before us,M/s. Geomysore Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Appellant No.1 (hereinafterreferred to as “Geomysore”) and Deccan Gold Exploration ServicesPvt. Ltd., Appellant No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “Deccan”).

D

3. On 01.04.2000 Geomysore applied for grant of ReconnaissancePermit (for short ‘RP’) for 315 sq. kms. of land in Hutti South Belt GoldMines area. After approval by the Central Government, the StateGovernment granted RP on 03.11.2000 for a period of 3 years. Similarly,Deccan was granted RP in Northern part of Hutti Gold Mines for anEarea measuring 501.48 sq. kms. for a period of 3 years on 09.01.2003after completing all formalities. The respondent no. 1 i.e. M/s Hutti GoldMines Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “HGML”) did not file anyapplication for grant of RP for either of the two areas.

4. Geomysore conducted the reconnaissance and submitted aconsolidated report on 30.11.2003. Deccan submitted its consolidatedFreport on 21.04.2006. Both the Companies found evidence to suggestthe existence of gold deposits and need to carry out further prospectingin certain areas. On the basis of the results of the reconnaissance,Geomysore filed 4 applications for grant of Prospecting Licence (forshort ‘PL’) under Section 11(1) of the Act. Deccan filed 7 applicationsGfor grant of PL with regard to the area where it had conductedreconnaissance.

5. On 28.11.2006, HGML sent a letter to the Commissioner,Geological Resources Development and Director, Department of Mines H

and Geology, Bangalore praying for reservation of area for the purposeof conservation exclusively for public sector undertakings under Section17A(2) of the Act. It was stated that HGML was keen to continueprospecting investigations in the area in question. It was submitted thatgrant of Mining Lease (for short ‘ML’) to different organizations wouldcreate severe problems including safety hazards and as such it wasprayed that the entire area, including the area for which RP had beengranted to Geomysore and Deccan, be reserved under Section 17A(2)of the Act. It appears that Geomysore came to know about this proposaland it sent a letter on 28.11.2006 itself to the Government of India andopposed the contemplated action of the State of Karnataka to forward aproposal to the Ministry of Mines for reservation of the mining area.

6. In the meantime, two other developments took place. TheMinistry of Mines published the National Mineral Policy, 2008 (for short‘the NMP 2008’) and the Government of Karnataka released theKarnataka Mineral Policy, 2008 (for short ‘the KMP, 2008) in consonancewith NMP, 2008 to which we shall advert later.

7. On 27.12.2008, the Government of Karnataka wrote toGovernment of India for reservation of area in favour of HGML andrecommended that 161 sq. kms. of land be allocated to HGML for mining.This covered the areas for which RPs had been granted to Geomysoreand Deccan and, therefore, Geomysore and Deccan filed revisionpetitions before the Central Government. The main challenge to thedecision of the State Government was that the appellants were entitledto preference while considering their application for grant of PL andalso their PL applications have been filed earlier in time. It was alsourged that in terms of the NMP, 2008 and the KMP, 2008 reservationcould not be made. The Central Government allowed the revision petitionsand directed the State of Karnataka to consider the PL applications filedby Geomysore as well as Deccan.

8. Thereafter, HGML filed a writ petition in the Karnataka HighCourt. The High Court held that the reservation of the area had not yettaken place and since the Central Government was still to take a decisionon the request of the State Government, it was not necessary to determinewhether the preferential right claimed by Geomysore and Deccan underSection 11 of the Act could defeat the right of the State Government to A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aseek reservation of the area under Section 17A(2) of the Act. The HighCourt, after considering the judgment of this Court in the case of IndianCharge Chrome Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.[1] heldas follows:

“10. Having held so, the Hon’ble Court has further held that theBpower under Section 17A(2) is the statutory power and normallythere could be no estoppel against the exercise of statutory powerand upheld the recommendation of the State Government seekingfor approval of the Central Government. It is clear that, in theinstant case, the undisputed fact is that the contesting respondentsin any event have not been granted the prospecting licence orCmining lease and as such the area in question is not the one whichis already held under a prospecting licence or mining lease.Therefore, if the above decision is kept in view, the StateGovernment was well within its powers to seek approval of theCentral Government to reserve the area in question. In any event,Dthe Central Government before granting its approval would haveto consider all these aspects of the matter and any suchconsideration by the Central Government could not have beenstifled by the contesting respondents in the form of revisionapplication and the revision authority was also not justified ininterfering. The preferential right claimed by the contestingErespondents cannot be accepted at this stage and a direction couldnot have been issued to consider the applications of the contestingrespondents by setting aside the communication dated 27.12.2008.The appropriate procedure would be to allow the CentralGovernment to take a decision on the approval sought by the StateFGovernment by its communication dated 27.12.2008. Thereafter,the consideration or otherwise of the applications for prospectinglicence by any other person including the contesting respondentswould arise depending on the result of such consideration by theCentral Government. If for any reason, the Central Governmentdoes not accede to the proposal of the State Government and inGsuch situation if the applications remain open for consideration,then and only then the question of preferential right would arisefor consideration.”

9. Consequently, the orders passed by the Central Governmentwere set aside and the matter was remanded to the Central Governmentto take decision on the recommendation made by the State Governmentwith a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law. TheCentral Government examined the matter and rejected the proposal ofthe State Government for reservation of land under Section 17A(2) ofthe Act for Government undertakings. The order notes that Geomysoreand Deccan had already filed PL applications after completingreconnaissance pursuant to the RPs granted to them. Instead of dealingwith the PL applications of Geomysore and Deccan, the StateGovernment suddenly decided to make a request to the CentralGovernment to reserve the land. The Central Government held that theaction of the State Government is against the stated purpose of Para 3.3of the NMP, 2008 which provides that there should a regulatoryenvironment conducive to private investment; that the procedure forgrant of concession should be transparent and seamless transition shallbe guaranteed to the concessionaires; that the action of the StateGovernment was not transparent or fair; that land could only be reservedwhere private players are not holding the land or have not applied forexploration or mining unless security considerations or specific publicinterests are involved; that since Geomysore and Deccan had completedtheir RPs and applied for seamless transition to PL, the proposal of theState Government to reserve the land in favour of HGML was neitherin public interest nor in terms of the NMP, 2008 and, therefore, proposalof the State Government to reserve land was rejected and again adirection was issued that the request of Geomysore and Deccan forgrant of PL be considered expeditiously.

10. HGML then filed another writ petition challenging the orderof the Central Government dated 31.05.2011. Geomysore and Deccanfiled a joint reply in the writ petition and the High Court allowed the writpetition vide the impugned judgment, which is under challenge beforeus.

11. The main factor which weighed with the High Court in allowingthe writ petition was that whereas under Section 11 of the Act, a partywhich had carried out reconnaissance pursuant to RP, was entitled topreference at the time of granting PL, under Section 17A(2) of the Act,the words “reconnaissance permit” do not find mention. The Court ABCDE

F

G

H

Afurther held that in its earlier judgment dated 18.02.2011, it had beenheld that while taking a decision under section 17A(2) of the Act, thepreferential right under Section 11 of the Act had no role to play and,therefore, the claim of the State Government could not be defeated onthis ground. Since the judgment had attained finality, the matter shouldnot be reopened. It further held that the NMP, 2008 cannot overrule theBprovisions of Section 17A of the Act. The Court further held that thepolicy has to give way to the statutory provisions. It was held that thesecond order passed by the Central Government contains the same flawswhich were there in the earlier order and hence the writ petition wasallowed and the order of the Central Government refusing to reserve Cthe land was quashed.

THE LEGAL PROVISIONS

12. At the outset, we may point out that as far as this case isconcerned, we are dealing with the Act prior to its amendment in theyear 2015. Sub-sections (ha) and (hb) of Section 3 of the Act wereDintroduced w.e.f. 18.12.1999 and define ‘reconnaissance operations’ and‘reconnaissance permit’ respectively. The same read as follows:

“(ha) “reconnaissance operations” means any operationsundertaken for preliminary prospecting of a mineral throughregional, aerial, geophysical or geochemical surveys and geologicalEmapping, but does not include pitting, trenching, drilling (exceptdrilling of boreholes on a grid specified from time to time by theCentral Government) or sub-surface excavation; (hb) “reconnaissance permit” means a permit granted for thepurpose of undertaking reconnaissance operations;”F

13. A reconnaissance permit allows the permit holder to carry outreconnaissance operations. A reconnaissance permit holder carries outoperations to determine whether the area is fit for mining only by way ofnon-invasive techniques, except for some minimal drilling. Normally,reconnaissance permits are granted for huge areas of land.G14. Sub-sections (g) and (h) of Section 3 of the Act define‘prospecting licence’ and ‘prospecting operations’ respectively. The sameread as follows:

“(g) “prospecting licence” means a licence granted for the purposeof undertaking prospecting operations;H

(h) “prospecting operations” means any operations undertakenfor the purpose of exploring, locating or proving mineral deposits;”

15. Normally, after reconnaissance is done, a party woulddetermine which is the best part of the huge area fit for prospecting todetermine with greater exactitude the location of mineral deposits. Thus,PL is granted for an area which is much less than that of the RP area.During prospecting, invasive methods can be used to the extent allowedunder law for determining the extant mineral deposits and whether theycan be exploited commercially.

16. After prospecting is done, comes the stage of grant of mininglease. ‘Mining lease’ and ‘mining operations’ are defined in sub-sections (c) and (d) of Section 3 of the Act respectively. The same readas under:

“(c) “mining lease” means a lease granted for the purpose ofundertaking mining operations, and includes a sub-lease grantedfor such purpose; (d) “mining operations” means any operations undertaken for thepurpose of winning any mineral;”

17. Investments during reconnaissance or prospecting are verylarge. These are not small investments. Therefore, a person who hadconducted reconnaissance is given preference for grant of PL and aperson who had conducted prospecting is given preference while beingconsidered for grant of ML. In this behalf we may refer to Section 11(1) of the Act which reads as follows:

“11. Preferential right of certain persons.- (1) Where areconnaissance permit or prospecting licence has been granted inrespect of any land, the permit holder or the licensee shall have apreferential right for obtaining a prospecting licence or mininglease, as the case may be, in respect of that land over any otherperson:

Provided that the State Government is satisfied that the permitholder or the licensee, as the case may be,- (a) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospectingoperations, as the case may be, to establish mineral resources insuch land; A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A(b) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions ofthe reconnaissance permit or the prospecting licence;

(c) has not become ineligible under the provisions of this Act; and(d) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence ormining lease, as the case may be, within three months after theBexpiry of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence, as thecase may be, or within such further period as may be extended bythe said Government.”

18. The purpose of the aforesaid Section is that in view of themoney, effort and time spent in undertaking reconnaissance or prospectingCoperations and preparation of detailed reports of the mineral discoverableor likely to be discovered pursuant to such operations, such RP or PLholder would get a preferential right for undertaking the next stage ofoperations.

19. Section17A of the Act reads as follows:D

“17A. Reservation of area for purposes of conservation.-(1) The Central Government, with a view to conserving anymineral and after consultation with the State Government, mayreserve any area not already held under any prospecting licenceor mining lease and, where it proposes to do so, it shall, byEnotification in the Official Gazette, specify the boundaries of sucharea and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such areawill be reserved.

(1A) The Central Government may in consultation with the StateGovernment, reserve any area not already held under anyFprospecting licence or mining lease, for undertaking prospectingor mining operations through a Government company orcorporation owned or controlled by it, and where it proposes to doso, it shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify theboundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect ofwhich such area will be reserved.]

G

(2) The State Government may, with the approval of the CentralGovernment, reserve any area not already held under anyprospecting licence or mining lease, for undertaking prospectingor mining operations through a Government company or H

corporation owned or controlled by it and where it proposes to doso, it shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify theboundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect ofwhich such areas will be reserved.

(3) Where in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1A) or sub-section (2) the Central Government or the StateGovernment, as the case may be, undertakes prospecting or miningoperations in any area in which the minerals vest in a privateperson, it shall be liable, to pay prospecting fee, royalty, surfacerent or dead rent, as the case may be, from time to time at thesame rate at which it would have been payable under this Act ifsuch prospecting or mining operations had been undertaken by aprivate person under prospecting licence or mining lease.”

20. Though, in this case we are dealing mainly with Section 17A(2),we feel that it would be appropriate to analyze the provisions of thevarious parts of Section 17A of the Act. Under Section 17A(1), theCentral Government has the power to reserve any area to conserve anymineral. The Central Government has to exercise this power afterconsultation with the State Government. There is, however, one caveat,which is, that if a PL or ML for the said area is held by any person thenthe Central Government cannot reserve the area. Under sub-section(1A) of Section 17A, the Central Government has similar power toreserve areas for undertaking prospecting or mining operations throughGovernment companies, but again, such areas should not have beenheld under any PL or ML. As far as Section 17A(2) is concerned, thisprovision gives power to the State Government to reserve an area notheld under a PL or ML for prospecting or mining by State Governmentowned companies. However, this can be done only with the approval ofthe Central Government and the area so reserved should be notified inthe official gazette along with the mineral and minerals for which thearea has been reserved. Though we are not directly concerned withsub-section (3) of Section 17A of the Act in this case, the said sub-section provides that where the Central Government or the StateGovernment, as the case may be, undertakes prospecting or miningoperations in any area in which mineral vests in the private person, thenthe Central Government or the State Government concerned shall beliable to pay prospecting fee, royalty, surface rent, dead rent etc..

A

BC

A

BC

DEF

G

A21. We may also, at this stage, refer to Section 2 of the Act,which reads as follows:

“2. Declaration as to the expediency of Union control. – It ishereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that theUnion should take under its control the regulation of mines andBthe development of minerals to the extent hereinafter provided.”

CONTENTIONS

22. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor Generalappearing for the Union of India, submitted that Section 17A(2) of theAct empowers the State Government to reserve any area not held underCPL or ML for any State Government undertaking. However, this issubject to the prior approval of the Central Government. It is hiscontention that the State Government cannot reserve an area (not heldunder a PL or ML) without obtaining the prior approval of the CentralGovernment. He further submits that the Central Government, whileDconsidering the request of the State Government, has to apply its mindindependently and while dealing with the request, it can take intoconsideration the mineral policy. Therefore, according to him, the HighCourt erred in holding that the Union could not take into considerationthe parameters set out in the mineral policy. According to him, the absenceof the words ‘reconnaissance permit’ from Section 17A(2) of the ActEonly indicates that whereas for those areas for which PL or ML hasbeen granted, there is an absolute bar, but where only RP is granted,there is no bar and the State Government can, with the approval of theCentral Government, reserve that area.

23. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing forFthe appellants adopted the arguments of Mr. Maninder Singh, but shealso urged that in view of the huge investments required to be made bythe RP holder, it is his legitimate expectation under Section 11 of the Actthat he would get the PL. She further submits that HGML had notsubmitted any application for grant of RP or PL. Therefore, theGapplications of Geomysore and Deccan being prior in time, should havebeen considered. She has referred to various provisions of the Act bothprior to and after its amendment in the year 2015 to emphasize that theintention of the Government is to encourage private investment in theindustry and to ensure that such private investors are not left in lurchafter investing huge amount and there is seamless transition from theHstage of reconnaissance to prospecting and then to mining.

24. Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearingfor the State of Karnataka, submitted that it is the State which is theowner of the minerals and keeping in view the federal structure of ourcountry, the Union cannot override the power of the State. According tohim, Section 2 of the Act does not empower the Union to reject theclaim of the State Government on grounds which are not provided for inthe statute itself. He also submits that the judgment rendered by theKarnataka High Court in the first Writ Petition No.39969/39970 of 2010decided the issues between the parties and that will operate as res-judicata. He submits that in the earlier judgment the High Court hadclearly held that the preferential right claimed by Geomysore and Deccancannot override the power of the State Government under Section 17A(2)of the Act. He submits that the grounds taken in both the orders passedby the Central Government are virtually identical. According to him,since the words ‘reconnaissance permit’ have been omitted from Section17A(2) of the Act, the Central Government could not have rejected theclaim of the State Government on grounds which are directly related tothe fact that Geomysore and Deccan had carried out reconnaissance infurtherance of such reconnaissance permit. He further submits that theNMP, 2008 was not binding and has made reference to clause 3.2 of theNMP, 2008, which indicates that what is set out in the policy are thegoals and that the Act, the Mineral Concessions Rules and the MineralConcessions Development Rules will be amended in line with the policy.He submits that these amendments took place in the year 2015 and,therefore, the policy could not have been resorted to by the CentralGovernment to reject the claim of the State.

25. Mr. C.U. Singh and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel,appearing on behalf of HGML, submit that before Geomysore andDeccan were granted RP, HGML had already done a lot of work in thearea. According to them, after the amendment of the Act, now thesemines can only be auctioned. Reliance has been placed on Para 160 ofMonnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors[2]. case. It wasurged that the factors taken into consideration by the Central Governmentwhile rejecting the proposal of the State Government were not relevantfactors. According to them, the right of the State to reserve area underSection 17A(2) flows from the paramount right of the State as owner ofthe land and minerals.

ABCDE

F

G

H

ATHE ISSUES

26. There are four main questions which need to be answered:

(i) Whether the State Government being the owner of land andminerals can claim that its proposal to reserve such land forexploitation of minerals by its undertakings is virtually binding onBthe Central Government?

(ii) What are the considerations which can weigh with the CentralGovernment while dealing with a request of the State Governmentfor reservation of land under Section 17A(2) of the Act?

C(iii) Whether Section 11(1) and Section 17A(2) of the Act operatein totally separate spheres and what is the effect of the right ofpreference granted to RP holder in terms of Section 11(1) of theAct while dealing with a matter under Section 17A(2) of the Act?

(iv) Whether, in the present case, the Central Government isDjustified in rejecting the proposal of the State of Karnataka?

27. The Act was initially enacted as the Mines and Minerals(Regulation and Development) Act (for short ‘the MMRD Act’). Atthat time, there was no Section 17A in the MMRD Act, which was laterintroduced w.e.f. 10.02.1987. Section 17 of the MMRD Act dealt withthose lands in which minerals vested with the State Government. UnderEsub-section (2), the Central Government was empowered to carry outprospecting or mining operations in any area not already held under anyPL or ML. This could, however, be done only after consultation with theState Government concerned. Therefore, Section 17 of the MMRDAct empowered the Central Government to undertake prospectingFoperations. Vide Act 38 of 1999 the name of the MMRD Act waschanged from ‘The Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development)Act’ to ‘The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act’w.e.f. 18.12.1999. By the same Act, in Section 17 of the Act, the words‘reconnaissance’ and ‘reconnaissance permit’ were introduced w.e.f.18.12.1999. Prior to that, there was no concept of reconnaissance.GUnder the provisions of the Act, prior to the introduction of Section 17A,there was no statutory provision which empowered the State Governmentto reserve any land. However, under the Mineral Concession Rules,1960, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) there was a provision inRule 58, empowering the State Government to reserve such lands. AfterHSection 17A was introduced on 10.02.1987, Rule 58 was omitted on 13.04.1988. We are pointing out these facts because some of thejudgments cited, being prior to introduction of Section 17A, have to beread in the context of Rule 58 of the Rules.

28. In Amritlal Nathubhai Shah and Others v. UnionGovernment of India and Another [3], this Court held that the Statebeing the owner of the land, was entitled to reserve the land and, therefore,was justified in rejecting the applications of the private parties. Thisjudgment was delivered in the context of Rule 58 of the Rules, as itexisted at that time.

29. In State of T.N. v. M/s Hind Stone and Others [4], the Stateof Tamil Nadu formulated the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral ConcessionRules. Under Rule 8-C, the right to quarry black granite, a minor mineral,was reserved in favour of the State Government and its Corporationsetc.. The validity of this Rule was challenged on various grounds includingthe ground that the MMRD Act, 1957 did not empower the StateGovernment to make such a reservation. This Court rejected thissubmission on the ground that the State was the owner of the land andminerals and also that minor minerals vest in the State Government.The Court held as follows:

“6. Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other resources constitutea nation’s natural wealth. These resources are not to be fritteredaway and exhausted by any one generation. Every generationowes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conservethe natural resources of the nation in the best possible way. It isin the interest of mankind. It is in the interest of thenation……………… In the case of minor minerals, the StateGovernment is similarly empowered, after consultation with theCentral Government. The public interest which induced Parliamentto make the declaration contained in Section 2 of the Mines andMinerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, has naturallyto be the paramount consideration in all matters concerning theregulation of mines and the development of minerals. Parliament’spolicy is clearly discernible from the provisions of the Act. It isthe conservation and the prudent and discriminating exploitationof minerals, with a view to secure maximum benefit to thecommunity. There are clear signposts to lead and guide the 3(1976) 4 SCC 108

4(1981) 2 SCC 205

A

B

C

DE

FG

H

Asubordinate legislating authority in the matter of the making ofrules. Viewed in the light shed by the other provisions of the Act,particularly Sections 4-A, 17 and 18, it cannot be said that the rulemaking authority under Section 15 has exceeded its powers inbanning leases for quarrying black granite in favour of privateparties and in stipulating that the State Government themselvesBmay engage in quarrying black granite or grant leases for quarryingblack granite in favour of any corporation wholly owned by theState Government…….”

It would be pertinent to point out that in this very case this Court,in the opening para, held as follows:C

“……..It is now common ground between the parties that as aresult of the declaration made by Parliament, by Section 2 of theAct, the State legislatures are denuded of the whole of theirlegislative power with respect to regulation of mines and mineraldevelopment and that the entire legislative field has been takenDover by Parliament……”

30. It would also be pertinent to point out that both AmritlalNathubai Shah (supra) and Hind Stone (supra) were decided beforethe introduction of Section 17A in the Act.

E31. In Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India& Ors.[5], this Court was dealing with Section 17A of the Act. Followingobservations are pertinent:

“46. Before leaving this point, we may only refer to the positionafter 1986. Central Act 37 of 1986 inserted sub-section (2) whichempowers the State Government to reserve areas for exploitationFin the public sector. This provision differs from that in Rule 58 insome important respects—

(i) the reservation requires the approval of the C.G.;

(ii) the reservation can only be of areas not actually held undera PL or ML; G

(iii) the reservation can only be for exploitation by a governmentcompany or a public sector corporation (owned or controlledby the S.G. or C.G.) but not for exploitation by the governmentas such.

5 1992 Supp.(1 ) SCC 91H

Obviously, Section 17-A (2) and Rule 58 could not stand togetheras Section 17-A empowers the S.G. to reserve only with theapproval of the C.G. while Rule 58 contained no such restriction.There was also a slight difference in their wording…..”

32. In State of T.N. v. M.P.P. Kavery Chetty[6], dealing with Section17A(2) of the Act, this Court held as follows:

“15………Section 17-A(2) applies when an area is sought to bereserved by the State Government for undertaking miningoperations exclusively through a Government company orcorporation. When such area is notified the mineral or minerals inrespect of which it is notified must also be stated. Such reservationcannot be made without the approval of the CentralGovernment…….”

33. The High Court has placed reliance on a judgment of thisCourt delivered by a three-Judge Bench in Indian Charge Chrome(supra). Dealing with the interplay between Section 11 and Section 17Aof the Act, this Court held as follows:

“16. As we see it, the power under Section 17-A is anindependent power. It is not related to the power available underSection 11 of the Act. It is open to the Central Government toreserve an area in terms of Section 17-A(1) if it is thoughtexpedient and it is in the interests of the nation or that it is necessaryto conserve a particular metal or ore or the area producing it. It isalso open to the Central Government to decide that such areashould be exploited by a company or corporation owned orcontrolled by it. Of course, that situation has not arisen in thiscase. Under sub-section (2) of Section 17-A, with the approval ofthe Central Government, the State Government may reserve anyarea not already held under any prospecting licence or mininglease for undertaking the exploitation through a governmentcompany or corporation owned or controlled by it and on fulfillingthe conditions referred to in sub-section (2) and in an appropriatecase, also the conditions of sub-section (3). Again, the exercise ofpower by the State Government under sub-section (2) of Section17-A has no reference to the entertaining of applications underSection 11 or the preferences available thereunder…..”

A

B

CDEFG

A34. In Indian Charge Chrome (supra), an area of 1812.993hectares of land was granted to Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd.(TISCO) for mining of chromite ore. Initially, lease was granted in 1952,which was renewed in 1972. However, at the time of renewal, the areawas reduced to 1261.476 hectares. In 1991, TISCO again applied forrenewal of lease but the renewal was granted only in respect of 650Bhectares. TISCO challenged the said reduction in its area. In themeantime, various private companies challenged renewal of lease infavour of TISCO. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directedreconsideration of the matter. Appeal filed by TISCO in this Court wasdismissed. The Union Government, on reconsideration, renewed leaseCin favour of TISCO for 406 hectares and directed that the balance areaof 855.476 hectares be distributed by way of lease amongst otherclaimants. Subsequently, the State Government made a recommendationto the Union Government that half of the area of 855.476 hectares bereserved under Section 17A(2) of the Act and the remaining half could

be allotted to the 4 applicants who had filed writ petitions in the Court.DThereafter, some other parties filed writ petitions in the High Courtclaiming that they should also be given mining rights. The OrissaGovernment then decided to grant the balance land to the extent to436.295 hectares on lease to the State public sector undertaking i.e.,OrissaMining Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “OMC”). This actionEof the State Government was set aside by the High Court. This Court inIndian Charge Chrome (supra) was dealing with the appeals filed bythose applicants other than the 4 who had been granted mining leasesand also the appeal filed by OMC and the State Government. ThisCourt came to the conclusion that the Central Government had not takena decision on the request of the State Government to reserve the areaFunder Section 17A(2) and finally directed the Central Government tofirst consider the request of the State Government for reservation ofland and held that this contingency of the private applicants being grantedmining leases would only arise in case the Central Government does notgrant approval to the request of the State Government under SectionG17A(2) of the Act. This Court held as follows :- “32. ………This contingency may arise only if the CentralGovernment does not grant approval to the request of the StateGovernment under Section 17-A(2) of the Act……”

35. This clearly envisages that this Court held that the StateHGovernment could not make a reservation without approval of the Central

Government. It would be pertinent to mention here that this Courtdirected the State Government to make a fresh request to the CentralGovernment and further directed that prior directions of this Court orthe High Court cannot and do not stand in the way of the CentralGovernment in applying its mind to exercise its power under Section17A(2) of the Act and in taking an independent decision.

36. In the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v.State of Karnataka & Ors.[7], dealing with the powers of the State, thisCourt held that in view of Section 2 of the Act, the State is denuded of itsaccepted power with regard to the matters which fall within the domainof the Central Government. It further held that the State Governmenthas to act and justify its actions only in accordance with the Act and theRules, and the State Government cannot be permitted to justify its actionson criteria de hors the Act and the Rules. Dealing with Section 11 ofthe Act, the Court held that an RP holder or PL holder will have apreferential right to get a PL or ML as the case may be. The followingobservations of the Court are relevant:

“80. It is clear that the State Government is purely a delegate ofParliament and a statutory functionary, for the purposes of Section11(3) of the Act, hence it cannot act in a manner that is inconsistentwith the provisions of Section 11(1) of the MMDR Act in thegrant of mining leases. Furthermore, Section 2 of the Act clearlystates that the regulation of mines and mineral development comeswithin the purview of the Union Government and not the StateGovernment. As a matter of fact, the respondents have not beenable to point out any other provision in the MMDR Act or the MCRules permitting grant of mining lease based on past commitments.As rightly pointed out, the State Government has no authorityunder the MMDR Act to make commitments to any person that itwill, in future, grant a mining lease in the event that the personmakes investment in any project. Assuming that the StateGovernment had made any such commitment, it could not bepossible for it to take an inconsistent position and proceed to notifya particular area. Further, having notified the area, the StateGovernment certainly could not thereafter honour an allegedcommitment by ousting other applicants even if they are moredeserving on the merit criteria as provided in Section 11(3).”

A

B

C

DE

F

G

A

B

C

DE

F

G

A37. In Monnet Ispat (supra), Justice Lodha, in his leading judgmentheld that Section 2 of the Act does not affect the State’s ownership ofmines and minerals within its territory although the regulation of minesand development of minerals have been taken under the control of theUnion. It was held that the Central Government may have taken overthe power to regulate the mines and development of minerals but theBState could not be denuded of its rights and followed the decision of thisCourt in the case of Amritlal Nathubhai Shah (supra) wherein it washeld that “the authority to order reservation flows from the fact that theState is the owner of the mines and minerals within its territory”. Dealingwith Section 17A of the Act, it was held that this section would haveCprospective operation only and, therefore, it could not affect the earliernotifications. Thereafter, this Court in Para 160 of the judgment held asfollows:

“160. The types of reservation under Section 17-A and their scopehave been considered by this Court in Indian Metals and FerroDAlloys Ltd. in paras 45 and 46 (pp. 136-39) of the Report. I am inrespectful agreement with that view. However, it was argued thatSection 17-A(2) requires prior approval of the Central Governmentbefore reservation of any area by the State Government for thepublic sector undertaking. The argument is founded on an incorrectreading of Section 17-A(2). This provision does not use theEexpression, “prior approval” which has been used in Section 11.On the other hand, Section 17-A(2) uses the words, “with theapproval of the Central Government”. These words in Section17-A(2) cannot be equated with prior approval of the CentralGovernment. According to me, the approval contemplated inFSection 17-A may be obtained by the State Government beforethe exercise of power of reservation or after exercise of suchpower. The approval by the Central Government contemplated inSection 17-A(2) may be express or implied. In a case such as thepresent one where the Central Government has relied upon the2006 Notification while rejecting the appellants’ application forGgrant of mining lease, it necessarily implies that the CentralGovernment has approved reservation made by the StateGovernment in the 2006 Notification otherwise it would not haveacted on the same. In any case, the Central Government has notdisapproved reservation made by the State Government in theH2006 Notification.”

38. In State of Kerala and Ors. v. Kerala Rare Earth &Minerals Ltd. & Ors.[8], a three-Judge Bench of this Court again dealtwith the scope of Section 17A of the Act and per majority held as follows:

“15. There is no gainsaying that the State Government can reserveany area not already held under any prospecting licence or mininglease for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through agovernment company or corporation owned or controlled by it,but, in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 17-A (supra) where theGovernment proposes to do so, it shall by notification in the OfficialGazette specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral orminerals in respect of which such areas will be reserved. Threedistinct requirements emerge from Section 17-A(2) for a validreservation viz.:

(i) the reservation can only be with the approval of the CentralGovernment and must confine to areas not already held underany prospecting licence or mining lease;

(ii) the reservation must be made by a notification in the OfficialGazette; and

(iii) the notification must specify the boundaries of such areasand the mineral or minerals in respect of which such areas willbe reserved.

xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xxx

“19. The upshot of the above discussion then is that while theState Government is the owner of the mineral deposits in the landswhich vest in the Government as is the position in the case athand, Parliament has by reason of the declaration made in Section2 of the 1957 Act acquired complete dominion over the legislativefield covered by the said legislation. The Act does not denude theState of the ownership of the minerals situate within its territoriesbut there is no manner of doubt that it regulates to the extent setout in the provisions of the Act the development of mines andminerals in the country. It follows that if the State Governmentproposes to reserve any area for exploitation by the State-ownedcorporation or company, it must resort to making of such reservation

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ain terms of Section 17-A with the approval of the CentralGovernment and by a notification specifying boundaries of thearea and mineral or minerals in respect of which such areas willbe reserved. Inasmuch as the State Government has not so farissued any notification in terms of Section 17-A, the IndustrialPolicy, 2007 of the Kerala State Government does not have theBeffect of making a valid reservation within the comprehension ofSection 17-A. The High Court was, therefore, justified in holdingthat there is no valid reservation as at present no matter theGovernment can make such a reservation if so advised in themanner prescribed by law. In other words, the dismissal of thisCappeal shall not prevent the State from invoking its right underSection 17-A(2) of the Act by issuing notification in respect of themineral deposits in question…..”

39. On a careful perusal of the judgments aforesaid, it would bemore than apparent that this Court has consistently held that the State isDthe owner of the land and minerals. However, the control and regulationof mines and development of minerals are in the domain of the UnionGovernment. The State Government is denuded of its legislative powerto make any law in respect of regulation of mines and mineral developmentin so far as that field is covered by the provisions of the Act. It is only ifthe field is vacant that the State can exercise its legislative powers.EOtherwise, it has to exercise its power strictly in accordance with thepowers specifically conferred on the State Government by the Act andthe Rules. It is also a well settled position of law that while exercisingthe powers of reservation vested in Section 17A(2) of the Act, the StateGovernment has to take approval of the Central Government. In thisFcase, we are not required to deal with the question of prior approval asthere is no approval and, in fact, the request of the State has been rejectedby the Central Government.

40. In the light of what has been said in the aforesaid judgments,we have examined the facts of the instant case. The State GovernmentGmade a request to the Central Government for reservation. In the firstround of litigation, the High Court directed the Central Government tofirst consider the request before considering the applications ofGeomysore and Deccan. The Central Government rejected the proposalof the State Government on various grounds including the groundsenumerated earlier, which flow from the NMP, 2008. Arguments haveH

been addressed to suggest that the Central Government can only takeinto consideration issues of national interest and security and cannotlook into the other aspects. We are not in agreement with this submission.Section 17A(2) of the Act clearly provides that the State Governmentcan reserve any area for undertaking prospecting or mining operationsthrough a Government company or corporation with the approval of theCentral Government. The Act does not lay down the parameters whichthe Central Government is required to follow. In our view, the CentralGovernment can take all factors which are relevant for the purpose ofdeciding whether reservation should be made or not. The NMP, 2008being a policy of the country, can definitely be taken into considerationwhile considering such a request.

41. We may note that the policy of the Government can sometimesbe binding on the Government if the principles of promissory estoppel orlegitimate expectation come into play. We may make it clear that in thiscase neither the principle of promissory estoppel nor the principle oflegitimate expectation is attracted. We are only making reference tothese principles to emphasize that a policy of a Government is an importantdocument. It cannot be brushed aside. The Central Government, whileconsidering the request of the State Government, can take intoconsideration various factors which may include economic factors, thefactors reflecting the image of the country internationally to the globalworld community and also other factors of national security etc.. Theseare just illustrative and each case has to be decided on its own facts.Therefore, we are not in agreement with the Karnataka High Court thatonly those factors can be taken into consideration, which flow from theAct or the Rules.

42. Another important aspect of the matter is that under Section11(1) of the Act, an RP holder, who has carried out reconnaissance, isentitled for preference when his case is being considered for grant ofPL. However, in Section 17A(2) of the Act, the bar to reservation isonly in those cases where the land is held under a PL or ML. When anyland is held under PL or ML, then the said land cannot even be consideredfor reservation. If the land sought to be reserved is not under PL or ML,then the State can make a proposal to reserve the land. If the landsought to be reserved is covered by an RP there is no bar to reserve theland for exploitation by State Government undertakings. This, however,does not mean that while dealing with the proposal of the State, the AB

C

DE

F

G

H

ACentral Government must make the reservation. The Central Governmentwhile granting approval, has to independently apply its mind and whiledoing so, there is nothing which debars the Central Government fromtaking into consideration the fact that some entity was granted RP andthe effect thereof. No doubt, the Central Government cannot reject theproposal only on the ground that RP was issued since that would runBcounter to the provisions of Section 17A(2) of the Act. However, this isa fact which along with other facts can be taken into consideration whiledeciding the issue of reservation of land.

43. As far as the present case is concerned, the CentralGovernment took into consideration various factors and notes that PLCapplications had already been filed by Geomysore and Deccan pursuantto RPs. It virtually held that the request of the State Government was ata belated stage and was against the provisions of the NMP, 2008, theemphasis in which was to provide a regulatory environment which isconducive to private investment. It may be true that the CentralDGovernment was influenced by the fact that Geomysore and Deccan,pursuant to the RPs, had completed the reconnaissance and submittedtheir consolidated reports, but there were other relevant factors alsowhich were taken into consideration such as that Geomysore and Deccanhad already applied for grant of PL and no security consideration orpublic interest was involved in making reservation for HGML. In ourEview, the factors taken into consideration by the Central Governmentare relevant and germane to the issues and cannot be said to be suchfactors which are extraneous or could not have been taken intoconsideration.

44. We may also add that as far as the present case is concerned,Fwhen on 27.12.2008, the Government of Karnataka recommended that161 sq. kms. land be allotted to HGML, no reservation had taken placebecause approval of the Central Government had not come. In fact, theState of Karnataka had not even notified the area, which was sought tobe reserved nor it identified the minerals for which reservation was sought.

G45. Section 17A(2) of the Act envisages following four conditions:

(a) The land is not held under prospecting licence or mining lease; (b) there is approval by the Central Government;

(c) a notification is issued in the Official Gazette specifying theHboundaries of such area; and (d) such notification should identify the mineral or minerals inrespect of which such areas are sought to be reserved.

Only the first condition was fulfilled. None of the other conditionswere satisfied. Therefore, the State of Karnataka could not have issuedrecommendation in favour of HGML on 27.12.2008. The cart could nothave been put before the horse. Unless reservation takes place, a privatecompany stands on the same footing as a Government company and inthat eventuality, Section 11 of the Act would be applicable and Geomysoreand Deccan being the RP holders and also being earlier PL applicants,had to be given preference.

CONCLUSION

46. In view of the above discussion, our answers to the fourquestions are as follows:

(i) The State Government being the owner of the land and minerals,has a right to make a proposal to the Central Government to reservelands not held under a prospecting licence or mining lease for exploitationby the State Government companies or undertakings but approval of theCentral Government is necessary;

(ii) The Central Government cannot be bound by any specificparameters. Each case has to be decided on its own merits. However,as indicated by us above, the Central Government can not only take intoconsideration factors of national security or public interest but alsoeconomic factors, the policy of the Government and all such other factorswhich are relevant to decide the issue whether the land should be reservedfor exploitation only by State Government Undertakings;

(iii) Section 11(1) and Section 17A(2) of the Act have no connectionwith each other. Section 11(1) of the Act deals with preference to begiven to RP holder and PL holder while considering their case for grantof PL and ML respectively. This has nothing to do with reservation ofland under Section 17A(2) of the Act. The only connection, if it can becalled that, is that if a land is held under a PL or ML, then action underSection 17A(2) of the Act cannot even be initiated;

(iv) In view of the discussion held above, we feel that the CentralGovernment was justified in rejecting the request of the State ofKarnataka in reserving the land in question.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

47. Before parting with the case, we may note that argumentswere addressed before us on the effect of the amendments made in2015 to the MMDR Act especially with regard to Section 10A and Section10B. We are not dealing with these issues, as decision on them is notnecessary to decide the present case.

B48. In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the viewthat the Karnataka High Court erred in allowing the writ petition.Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court passed in W.P. No.25899of 2011 on 03.04.2012 is set aside and the decision of the CentralGovernment dated 31.05.2011 is upheld and the State of Karnataka isdirected to consider the case of Geomysore and Deccan for grant of PLCin accordance with the provisions of the Act as they now stand amended in the year 2015.

49. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms with no orderas to costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

D

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeals allowed.

E

F

G

H