TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e legislative scheme as a safeguard against arbitrariness and the letter and spirit of the law must be adhered to in a strict manner. The MC Rules have been made under Section 13 of the MMDR Act by the Central Government and obviously could not have been made in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules provides that if an application for the renewal of a mining lease made within the time referred to in Sub-rule (1) is not disposed of by the State Government before the date of expiry of the lease, the period of the lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Government passes order thereon. This sub-rule cannot apply to a renewal under Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act because the renewal under this provision cannot be made without express orders of the State Government recording reasons for renewal in the interest of mineral development. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules will apply to a case of first renewal under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act other than a case covered under Sub-rule (9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules, but will not apply to renewal under Sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - Dated:- 13-8-2014 - R.V. More and U.V. Bakre, JJ. For the Appellant : R. Dada, D. Khambatta and S.D. Lotlikar and I.M. Chagla, Senior Advocates, Parag Rao, Swati Kamat Wagh, Fatima Noronha, Abhijeet Kamat, Sahish Mahambrey, D. Pangam, V. Agarwal, S.P. Munj, Riyaz Chagla, H.D. Naik, Abhijeet Gosavi, Amay Phadte, Ninad Laud, Abhijit Gosavi, Nikhil Vaze, Nitin Sardessai, Deep Shirodkar and L. Raghunandan, Advocates For the Respondents: A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General, D. Lawande, Government Advocate, P. Dangui and N. Pai, Additional Government Advocates, A. Prabhudesai, S.S. Rebello and Amogh Prabhudesai, Additional Government Advocates JUDGMENT R.V. More, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The above writ petitions pertain to renewal of mining leases. Initially, the petitioners sought directions to the State Government to decide their applications for renewal of the mining leases filed in the year 2007. Some petitions, thereafter, came to be amended, thereby seeking directions to the State Government to execute the second renewal lease deeds. Since the issues raised in these writ petitions are common, and the writ pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted first renewal for a period of 10 years i.e. 22nd November, 1987 to 21st November, 1997. Subsequently, in view of the amendment to Section 8 of the MMDR Act, the renewal was extended from 10 to 20 years and the period of 20 years expired on 22nd November, 2007. Before expiry of the period of the first renewal, the petitioners preferred applications under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act to the State Government for renewal of their mining leases. In the year 2010, the Central Government appointed Justice Shah Commission under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 to inquire into the illegal mining of iron ore and manganese ore in contravention of the provisions of the MMDR Act, the Forests (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and other rules and guidelines issued thereunder. Justice Shah Commission submitted its interim report in March, 2012 to the Ministry of Mines, Union of India. In the month of September, 2012, the Justice Shah Commission Report on Goa was tabled in the Parliament along with an Action Taken Report of the Ministry of Mines and on 10th September, 2012 State Government passed an order suspending all mining operations in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of Section 5 of the Abolition Act, the concession holder deemed to have become a holder of mining lease under the MMDR Act in relation to the mines to which the concession relates and the period of such lease was extended upto six months from the date when the Abolition Act received the President's assent, i.e. 22nd November, 1987. In terms of proviso to Rule 24A(8) of the MC Rules, the Government of Goa extended this period by further one year, within which period, the petitioners preferred an application for first renewal, which came to be granted initially for a period of 10 years. The said period was subsequently increased to 20 years. This extended period of 20 years expired on 22nd November, 2007. The petitioners before expiry of first renewal period, filed applications for second renewal of the mining leases. During the pendency of Writ Petition (C) 435/2012, these applications were processed by the State Government under the provisions of the MMDR Act and the MC Rules. The State Government also framed Goa Mineral Policy, 2013, which was duly gazetted on 28th September, 2013 and was placed on record before the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) 435/2012. The Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments on behalf of Goa Government to the effect that 28 leases have been ordered to be renewed, was placed on record of the Honourable Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 435/2012. (vii) In respect of 4 mining leases, there was valid environmental clearance and thereafter, the Government passed orders under Section 8(3) for second renewal. (viii) In respect of cases where the Government passed orders under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act, the Government sought payment of security deposit and demarcation charges, which were paid. Thereafter, the Government called upon such leaseholders to depute their representatives for verification of boundaries which the Government did and a plan was accordingly prepared. (ix) Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the State Government issued various orders from time to time and these orders are also acted upon. They further submitted that the right to second renewal is vested in the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners have paid huge stamp duty pursuant to the directions of the State Government. They also submitted that the petitioners legitimately expected that the Government would execute the second renewal lease deeds and the Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that in terms of the Supreme Court decision, it is for the State Government to grant fresh leases in accordance with the policy which is yet to be framed. The learned Advocate General submitted that the Supreme Court has kept Writ Petition (C) 435/2012 pending and, therefore, it is for the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court and seek appropriate orders. The learned Advocate General submitted that the orders on which the petitioners rely, at the most show that the Government in principle has agreed for renewal of the leases for a further period of 20 years and the same was not a final decision. He submitted that in terms of the said decision of the Apex Court, it is for the State Government to frame a fresh mining policy and after framing the same, to decide granting of fresh mining leases. The learned Advocate General submitted that since final decision was not taken by the Government and the decision was taken in principle to grant the second renewal of the leases, the doctrine of promissory estoppel has no application in the present case. He lastly submitted that the petitions are devoid of any merit, and the same are liable to be dismissed. CONSIDERATION OF TH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5/2012, it is inter alia, mentioned thus: ...Presently in the State of Goa, it is found that the Applications for Renewal were filed well within time as contemplated by Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Presently, the State has ordered renewal of 28 mining leases, granted in principle approvals and has collected Renewal Fees/Stamp Duty from 27 Mining Leases.. (III) On or about 21st February, 2013, the State Government passed an order requiring the petitioners whose leases were decided to be renewed, to pay the enhanced stamp duty in accordance with the amended provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. The Order discloses that the Government, in principle, has agreed for renewal of the mining leases and the concerned leaseholders were directed to make the payment of the stamp duty. (IV) The Government of Goa, in its Affidavit-in-reply dated 25th June, 2014, filed in Writ Petition No. 292/2014, in para 15 made the following statement: 15.... These 28 leases were renewed after 2007 when indeed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Goa Mining leases have expired in the year 2007 and further these leases were renewed under Section 8(2) which the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nourable Supreme Court to seek clarification. The learned Advocate General submitted that this is necessary in the teeth of the directions of the Apex Court and the fact that the petitioners' applications for renewal were pending during the pendency of the Writ Petition before the Apex Court, and the Apex Court has not given any direction in that regard. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned Advocate General in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. vs. Shramik Sena, 2001 (7) SCC 469. In this case, the Supreme Court expressed its disapproval to the approach of the Division Bench of this Court in relegating the petitioner therein to the Honourable Supreme Court to seek clarification rather than deciding the matter on merits. The observations of the Supreme Court in para 8 therein, are relevant, which are reproduced hereunder: 8. We have perused the impugned order of the High Court. We are unable to appreciate the approach of the High Court. Even when it was faced with diametrically apposite (sic opposite) interpretation of the judgment of this Court, it was expected of the High Court to decide the case (Writ Petition) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act prior to its amendment provided that a mining lease may be renewed for only ten years and, therefore, if the deemed mining leases of the lessees expired on 22.11.1987, even if the lease was renewed on the application of first renewal made by the lessees in Goa, the period of lease under the first renewal would expire on 21.11.1997 and after 21.11.1997, there can be no deemed extension. Alternatively, he submitted that Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act as amended by Act 25 of 1994 provided that the mining lease may be renewed for a maximum period not exceeding twenty years. He submitted that as the deemed mining leases expired on 22.11.1987, the lessees would be entitled to a renewal for a maximum period of twenty years upto 21.11.2007 and after 21.11.2007, the lessees would not be entitled to any renewal and hence the lessees were not entitled to operate the lease beyond 21.11.2007. 23. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act, which provides the maximum and minimum periods for which a mining lease may be granted will not apply to deemed mining leases in Goa because Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Abolition Act prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of expiry of the lease, the period of the lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Government passes order thereon. This sub-rule cannot apply to a renewal under Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act because the renewal under this provision cannot be made without express orders of the State Government recording reasons for renewal in the interest of mineral development. In other words, so long as there is a right of renewal in the lessee which in the case of a mining lease is for a maximum period of twenty years, the provision regarding deemed extension of a lease can operate, but if the right of renewal of a mining lease is dependent upon the State Government forming an opinion that in the interest of mineral development it is necessary to do so and the State Government recording reasons therefor, a provision regarding deemed extension till orders are passed by the State Government on the application of renewal cannot apply. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Sub-rule (6) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules will apply to a case of first renewal under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act other than a case covered under Sub-rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. The affidavit makes specific statement on behalf of the Government that in fact some leases have been renewed under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act. 13. The contention of the petitioners that the Judgment of the Supreme Court would not be the impediment in execution of the second renewal of the lease deeds is also supported by the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India and ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114/2014. In that case, 26 applications for second renewal were pending before the State of Odisha where no express orders of renewal were passed by it. The Supreme Court directed the State Government by an interim order to consider and dispose of the pending applications under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act within 6 months. 14. The last contention in this regard raised by the learned Advocate General that Writ Petition (Civil) 435/2012 is kept pending and, therefore, the petitioners should approach the Supreme Court for seeking clarification, is also without merit in view of the observations of the Supreme Court particularly in paragraph 70 of the judgment by which the Supreme Court allowed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 435/2013 and consequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution. It is elementary that in a republic governed by the rule of law, no one, howsoever high or low, is above the law. Everyone is subject to the law as fully and completely as any other and the Government is no exception. It is indeed the pride of constitutional democracy and rule of law that the Government stands on the same footing as a private individual so far as the obligation of the law is concerned: the former is equally bound as the latter. It is indeed difficult to see on what principle can a Government, committed to the rule of law, claim immunity from the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Can the Government say that it is under no obligation to act in a manner that is fair and just or that it is not bound by considerations of honesty and good faith ? Why should the Government not be held to a high standard of rectangular rectitude while dealing with its citizens ? There was a time when the doctrine of exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... need not be a formal notice, giving the promisee a reasonable opportunity of resuming his position provided of course it is possible for the promisee to restore status quo ante. If, however, the promisee cannot resume his position, the promise would become final and irrevocable. Vide Emmanuel Avodeji Ajaye v. Briscoe (1964) 3 All ER 556. 33. The State, however, contended that the doctrine of promissory estoppel had no application in the present case because the appellant did not suffer any detriment by acting on the representation made by the Government: the vanaspati factory set up by the appellant was quite a profitable concern and there was no prejudice caused to the appellant. This contention of the State is clearly unsustainable and must be rejected. We do not think it is necessary, in order to attract the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, that the promisee, acting in reliance on the promise, should suffer any detriment. What is necessary is only that the promisee should have altered his position in reliance on the promise. This position was impliedly accepted by Denning J., in the High Trees case when the learned Judge pointed out that the promise mus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er held that the Government policy of granting incentive to new industries cannot be said to be a mere offer nor can the appellant's negotiation with Government to set up industry on that basis be said to be a counter offer. 16. In the case in hand, admittedly, all the petitioners have made applications for second renewal within the time limit i.e. before expiry of the term of first renewal of the mining leases. The mining plans for the second renewal, thereafter, came to be approved by the IBM. The IBM also recorded its subjective satisfaction that the same is in the interest of mineral development. Thus, there is enough material on record to show that the Government agreed to grant the second renewal of mining leases under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act and thereafter amended the Stamp Act and directed some of the petitioners to pay the stamp duty and even accepted the same. Thus, the Government gave promise that the mining leases would be executed under Section 8(3) and pursuant to the promise, the petitioners altered their position by depositing the huge stamp duty. Therefore, it now not open for the Government to resile from the promise as it is estopped by the doctrine o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
