9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Potaraju, Gaichang Gaamei, Sriram Parakkat, D. Siri Rao, Annapurna, Sandeep Gover, Siddhartha, Advs. for Luthra and Luthra, Madhurima Tatia, Sadhana Sandhu, Sunita Sharma, Gargi Khanna, S.S. Rawat, Advs. for D.S. Mahra, Adv., Avijeet Bhujabal, P.P. Nayak, Advs. for Parmanand Gaur, Adv. for S.L. Aneja, Subramonium Prasad, Mumtaz Bhalla, Sidhartha, Arijit Mazumdar, Ajay Aggarwal, Rajan Narain, Partha Sil, Devashish Bharuka, Anil K. Jha, S.K. Divakar and Chhaya Kumari, Advs. For the Respondent : None JUDGMENT R.M. Lodha, J. Introduction 1. This group of six appeals occupied considerable judicial time. These matters were heard on ten days between November 2, 2011 and November 29, 2011. Although the facts differ from one another in some respects but since fundamental issues appeared to be common and all these matters arise from a common judgment dated April 4, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, we have heard all these matters together which are being disposed of by this common judgment. Prayers 2. The prayers in the writ petitions filed by the Appellants before the High Court also differ. However, principally the reliefs prayed for by the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s shall ensue and shall be deemed always to have ensued, namely; (a) Suchestate or tenure including the interests of the proprietor or tenure-holder in any building or part of a building comprised in such estate or tenure ... as also his interest in all sub soil including any rights in mines and minerals whether discovered or undiscovered or whether been worked or not, inclusive of such rights of a lessee of mines and minerals, comprised in such estate are tenure (other than the interests of raiyats or under -raiyats) shall, with effect from the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances and such proprietor or tenure-holder shall cease to have any interest in such estate or other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act. 4. The brief facts relating to each of these appeals may be noticed now. Factual features Civil Appeal No. 3285 of 2009, Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 5. The Appellant company, referred to as Monnet, is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Monnet is engaged in the business of mining, production of steel, ferro-alloys and power. Monnet decided to set up an integrated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to avoid complications. 5.4. The Central Government vide its letter dated June 15, 2005 informed that a joint meeting of officers of Ministry of Mines, Government of India and concerned officers of the State Government be held to clarify certain issues in connection with the Ghatkuri Reserve Forest. 5.5. On June 29, 2005, a joint meeting of the officials of the Central Government and State Government on the issues relating to proposals for grant of mining leases in Ghatkuri was held wherein the Secretary of the State Government is stated to have requested the Central Government to hold on the processing of the pending applications. 5.6. On September 13, 2005, the State Government requested the Central Government to return the proposals of mining lease of nine out of ten applicants, including Monnet. 5.7. On September 14, 2005, a joint meeting of the officials of the State Government and the Central Government took place. In that meeting also the officials of the State Government informed the Central Government that it has decided to withdraw nine pending mining lease proposals, including that of Monnet. 5.8. Monnet has averred that compartment No. 5 which was recommended for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrict of Seraikela - Kharswan setting out the details of the project; capacity per annum, project cost and implementation period. 6.4. On August 4, 2004, the State Government recommended Adhunik's case to the Central Government for grant of mining lease for iron ore for captive consumption over an area of 426.875 hectares. In its letter dated August 4, 2004 seeking prior approval of the Central Government for grant of mining lease for iron ore in favour of Adhunik, the State Government gave various reasons justifying grant of mining lease to Adhunik. 6.5. Adhunik claims that substantial progress has been made in construction of its Rs. 790 crores integrated steel plant and the plant has been seriously affected due to shortage of iron ore. Civil Appeal No. 3287 of 2009, Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 7. The Appellant M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited, referred to as Abhijeet, was earlier known as Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt. Limited. Abhijeet has been in the business of iron and steel for last many years. On November 21, 2003, Abhijeet submitted the application to the State Government for mining lease over an area of 1633.03 hectares in Mauza Gh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .50 hectares at Mauza Ghatkuri. It also entered into an MOU dated February 26, 2004 with the State Government for establishment of sponge iron and steel plant in the Hazaribagh District. As per para 4 of the MOU, State Government would assist Jharkhand Ispat in selecting the area for iron and other minerals as per requirement depending upon quality and quantity. The State Government agreed to grant mineral concession as per existing law. 9.2. On August 4, 2004, the State Government prepared a report containing its decision and proposal in favour of Jharkhand Ispat for grant of mining lease over an area of 346.647 hectares at Mauza Ghatkuri and forwarded the same to the Ministry of Mines, Government of India. Civil Appeal No. 3290 of 2009, Prakash Ispat Limited v. Union of India and Ors. 10. The Appellant Prakash Ispat Limited, referred to as Prakash, is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Prakash carries on business in steel and claims to have annual turnover of Rs. 2200 crores. Prakash applied to the State Government for mining lease of iron ore over an area of 1000 hectares in Mauza Ghatkuri on January 20, 2004 for captive consumption of the proposed Steel Plan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ploitation of the mineral in the public sector: Name of the district -Shinghbhum Description of the areas reserved. 1. Sasangda Main Block - BOUNDARY South - The southern boundary is the same as the northern boundary. It starts from the Bihar, Orissa boundary opposite the gorge of the southern tributary of Megnahatu nala and runs west-north-west along the gorge till the foot of the hill. East - The boundary between the States of Bihar and Orissa. East & South - East Bihar-Orissa boundary from 2680 upto a point 2-3/4 miles north-east of it, meeting the southern boundary of Sasangda Main Block. North - The northern boundary is the same as the southern boundary of Sasangda Main Block and follows the gorge at just over one mile northwards of .2935. 5. Dirisumburu Block - BOUNDARY South and South-West Starting from the ChuruIkir Nala at about 5 furlongs east - north-east of Kiriburu Kolaiburu village (220 11'30": 85 14'), in east-south-east direction for one mile. South-East - From the above end towards north-east for 2-1/2 miles to reach a point = miles north west of Bahada village (22 11'30": 85 17'30"). North-East - From the above end north - wes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification No. A/MM 40510/62-6209/M dated the 21st December, 1962 and No. B/M-6-1019/68-1564/M dated the 28th February, 1969 of the State of Bihar. The mineral reserved in the said area has now been decided to be utilized for exploitation by Public Sector undertaking or Joint Venture project of the State Govt. which will usher in maximum benefits to the State and which generate substantial amount of employment in the State. The aforesaid notification is being issued in public interest and in the larger interest of the State. The defining co-ordinates of the reserved area enclosed here with for reference. By order of the Governor S.K. Satapathy Secretary to Government Description of the area reserved in Ghatkuri is given below: District: Singhbhum Main Block: Ghatukuri Limiting co-ordinate points of the reserved area of Ghatkuri as per the notification dated 21st December 1962 and 28th February 1969 published in the Bihar Gazette are given below: xxx Sd/- Vijoy Kumar Director I/c Geology Directorate Contentions 18. Learned senior Counsel for the Appellants highlighted different aspects while setting up challenge to the 1962, 1969 and 2006 Notifications. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with proper authority of law at that point of time, the fact that Rule 58 was omitted in 1988 without any saving clause necessarily meant that 1962 and 1969 Notifications were no longer valid and could not be relied upon. He argued that current power of reservation contained in Section 17A of the 1957 Act is consistent with the erstwhile Rules 58/59 since Section 17A expressly requires the prior approval of the Central Government before State Government issues any notification for reservation of mining area for public sector undertakings. 21. The decisions of this Court in Hingir-Rampur Coal Company Limited and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. AIR 1961 SC 459; State of Orissa and Anr. v. M/s M.A. Tulloch and Company AIR 1964 SC 1284; Baijnath Kadio v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1969 (3) SCC 838; Amritlal Nathubhai Shah and Ors. v. Union Government of India and Anr. 1976 (4) SCC 108; India Cement Limited and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 1990 (1) SCC 12; Orissa Cement Limited v. State of Orissa and Ors. 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 430 and Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2010 (4) SCC 498 were cited. Mr. C.A. Sundaram sought to distinguish Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd and submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c sector, it had no power to do so. Learned senior Counsel submitted that Amritlal Nathubhai Shah dealt with situation post 1963 amendment in Rule 59 and not pre-amendment. 24. Learned senior Counsel submitted that the "reservation of mineral bearing areas for exploitation by public sector" is covered under the declaration made by Parliament Under Section 2 of the 1957 Act in view of List I, Entry 54 of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The topic relating to "reservation" is covered within the field of "regulating the grant of mining lease" and that would include the power to grant or not to grant mining lease to a particular person. The "reservation" would come within the scope of "regulating the grant of mining lease" for which the Central Government is given the power to make rules. The Central Government, as a delegate of the Parliament, can frame rules with respect to "regulating the grant of mining lease". By placing reliance upon Baijnath Kadio 1969 (3) SCC 838 and Bharat Coking Coal 1990 (4) SCC 557, it was submitted that whether the rules are made or not, the topic is covered by Parliamentary Legislation and to that extent the power of State Legislature cease ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... van also based his argument on the doctrine of federalism and submitted that the State of Bihar had no legal power to reserve the area de hors the 1957 Act. He submitted that 1957 Act was wholly occupied field on the subject of mines and minerals and that ousts the state legislative and congruent executive power wholly and squarely. In support of his submissions, he referred to the decisions of this Court in Hingir-Rampur Coal Company AIR 1961 SC 459, Baijnath Kadio 1969 (3) SCC 838, State of Assam and Ors. v. Om Prakash Mehta and Ors. 1973 (1) SCC 584, State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Limited and Ors. 2004 (10) SCC 201 and Sandur Manganese and Iron Ors. Limited v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2010 (13) SCC 1. 29. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan submitted that merely because State happens to be the owner of the land including mines, it does not give it power to mine or reserve outside the regime of 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. He submitted that Amritlal Nathubhai Shah's cased must be confined to its own facts. The decision in Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd was founded on the specific finding that the State's action was consistent with Rule 59; it does not test the proposition of a conflict betw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1957 Act, yet the said Notification suffers from diverse infirmities, namely, (a) there is no approval by the Central Government and (b) being an exercise of subordinate legislation, it cannot be given retrospective effect. Reliance was placed by the learned senior Counsel on Hukam Chand etc. v. Union of India and Ors. 1972 (2) SCC 601. Central Government's Stand 32. Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior Counsel for the Union of India referred to Entry 54 of the Union List, Entry 23 of the State List, Article 246 of the Constitution, various Sections of 1957 Act and Rules of 1960 Rules and submitted that Central Government having taken power on to itself by enacting 1957 Act, the legislative field relating to 'minerals - Regulation and development' is occupied and the Central Government was the sole regulator. Mr. Ashok Bhan submitted that under the scheme of law, the State Government was denuded of its power other than what flows from the 1957 Act. In matters of Regulation of mines and development of minerals, according to Mr. Ashok Bhan, public interest is paramount. Reply on behalf of the State Government 33. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior Counsel for the State o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962 to 1987 and thereafter Under Section 17A(2). According to him, after 1987 there is a concurrent power of reservation both with State Governments as well as Central Government as provided in Section 17A of the 1957 Act and Rule 59(1)(e) of the 1960 Rules. He relied upon decisions of this Court in Lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workmen AIR 1961 SC 860, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Limited and Ors. 1986 (1) SCC 264, Municipal Corporation for City of Pune and Ors. v. Bharat Forge Company Limited and Ors. 1995 (3) SCC 434 and High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh and Anr. 2003 (4) SCC 239. 36. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior Counsel referred to the provisions of the 1957 Act, particularly Sections 2, 4(3), 4A, 10(1), 13(2) (e), 16(1)(b), 17(1), 17A(1)(A), 18A(6), 21(5), 28 and 30 to show that Parliament itself contemplated state legislation for vesting of lands containing mineral deposits in the State Government and Parliament did not intend to trench upon powers of State legislatures under Entry 18 of List II. He relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Chanan Mal and Ors. 1977 (1) SCC 340, Ishwari Khetan Sug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adapt and/or modify the law and every such law shall have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made until altered, repealed or amended by a competent legislature. He, thus, submitted that by virtue of Section 85 of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 read with Sections 84 and 86 thereof, it is clear that the existing law shall have effect till it is altered, repealed and/or amended. Interveners' view 39. Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. Krishnan Venugopal and Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned senior Counsel, appeared for interveners. While adopting the arguments advanced on behalf of State of Jharkhand, Mr. Vikas Singh submitted that reservation of minerals is inherent right vested in the State. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior Counsel heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd and submitted that the said decision was binding and not per incuriam as contended on behalf of the Appellants. He submitted that many provisions in 1957 Act and 1960 Rules acknowledge that all minerals vest in the State and that power to reservation is contemplated by Rule 59 of 1960 Rules. 40. After this group of appeals was fully argued before us and the appeals we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of mines and the development of minerals, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Bill was introduced in the Parliament. Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Amendments 46. 1957 Act came into effect on June 1, 1958. It has been amended from time to time. 47. Section 2 of the 1957 Act reads as follows: S. 2. Declaration as to the expediency of Union control.- It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the Regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent hereinafter provided. 48. Section 3(a),(c),(d),(e),(f), (g) and (h) defines 'minerals', 'mining lease', 'mining operations', 'minor minerals', 'prescribed' 'prospecting licence' and 'prospecting operations' in the 1957 Act as under: (a) "minerals" includes all minerals except mineral oils; (c) "mining lease" means a lease granted for the purpose of undertaking mining operations, and includes a sub-lease granted for such purpose; (d) "mining operations" means any operations undertaken for the purpose of winning any mineral; (e) "minor min ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Act 38 of 1999, Section 5, for "the Atomic Minerals Division" (w.e.f. 18-12-1999) [the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research] of the Department of Atomic Energy of the Central Government, the Directorates of Mining and Geology of any State Government (by whatever name called), and the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956:] Ins. by Act 16 of 1987, Section 14 (w.r.e.f. 1-10-1963) [Provided also that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to any mining lease (whether called mining lease, mining concession or by any other name) in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu.] Ins. by Act 38 of 1999, Section 5 (w.e.f. 18-12-1999) [(1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.] (2) Subs. by Act 38 of 1999, Section 5, for "No prospecting licence or mining lease" (w.e.f. 18-12-1999) [No reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] shall be grated otherwise than in accordance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y other person: Provided that the State Government is satisfied that the licensee has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the prospecting licence and is otherwise a fit person for being granted the mining lease. (2) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1), where two or more persons have applied for a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of the same land, the applicant whose application was received earlier shall have a preferential right for the grant of the licence or lease, as the case may be, over an applicant whose application was received later: Provided that where any such applications are received on the same day, the State Government, after taking into consideration the mattes specified in Sub-section (3), may grant the prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit. (3) The matters referred to in Sub-section (2) are the following: (a) any special knowledge of, or experience in, prospecting operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant; (b) the financial resources of the applicant; (c) the nature and quality of the technical staff e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icence or mining lease, as the case may be, and the State Government has invited applications by notification in the Official Gazette for grant of such permit, licence or lease, all the applications received during the period specified in such notification and the applications which had been received prior to the publication of such notification in respect of the lands within such area and had not been disposed of, shall be deemed to have been received on the same day for the purposes of assigning priority under this Sub-section: Provided further that where any such applications are received on the same day, the State Government, after taking into consideration the matter specified in Sub-section (3), may grant the reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit. (3) The matters referred to in Sub-section (2) are the following: (a) any special knowledge of, or experience in, reconnaissance operations, prospecting operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant. (b) the financial resources of the applicant; (c) the nature and quality of the technical staff emplo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovided that if the Central Government was of the opinion that in the interest of mineral development it was expedient so to do, it might permit any person to hold one or more such mining leases covering in any one State a total area in excess of that specified in Clause (b) of Section 6 or for a period exceeding that specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 8. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 has been amended in 1972 and 1994. 60. By virtue of Section 17, the Central Government has been given special powers to undertake prospecting or mining operations in certain cases. Section 17(1) was amended in 1972. After amendment, Section 17(1) reads as under: S. 17.-Special powers of Central Government to undertake prospecting or mining operations in certain lands.-(1) The provisions of this Section shall apply in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government of a State or any other person. 61. Section 17A was inserted in the 1957 Act by Act 37 of 1987. Thereafter, Sub-section (1A) was added in Section 17A by Act 25 of 1994. Section 17A, after its amendment in 1994, reads as follows: S. 17A. Reservation of area for purposes of conservation.-(1) The Central Government, with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). 63. Section 18A was inserted in 1957 Act to enable the Central Government to authorize Geological Survey of India to carry out necessary investigation for the purpose of obtaining information with regard to availability of any mineral in or under any land in relation to which any prospecting licence or mining lease has been granted by a State Government or by any other person. Proviso that follows Sub-section (1) of Section 18A provides that in cases of prospecting licences or mining leases granted by a State Government, no such authorization shall be made except after consultation with the State Government. To the extent Section 18A is relevant, it is reproduced as under: S. 18A. Power to authorize Geological Survey of India, etc., to make investigation.-(1) Where the Central Government is of opinion that for the conservation and development of minerals in India, it is necessary to collect as precise information as possible with regard to any mineral available in or under any land in relation to which any prospecting licence or mining lease has been granted, whether by the State Government or by any other person, the Central Government may authorize the Geological Survey of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est in the State Government. 68. Rule 9 provides that an application for a prospecting licence and its renewal in respect of land in which the minerals vest in Government shall be made to the State Government in Form B and Form D respectively. The State Government is empowered to relax the provisions of Clause (d) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9. 69. Chapter-IV deals with grant of mining leases in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 provides that an application for the grant of a mining lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government shall be made to the State Government in Form I. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 provides that on receipt of the application for the grant of a mining lease, the State Government shall take decision to grant precise area and communicate such decision to the applicant. The applicant, on receipt of communication from the State Government of the precise areas to be granted, is required to submit a mining plan within a period of six months or such other period as may be allowed by the State Government, to the Central Government for its approval. The applicant is required to submit the mining plan, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58. Availability of areas for regrant to be notified. (1) No area which was previously held or which is being held under a prospecting licence or a mining lease as the case may be, or in respect of which the order granting licence or lease has been revoked under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 or Sub-rule (1) of Rule 31, shall be available for grant unless- (a) an entry to the effect made in the register referred to in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 or Sub-rule (2) of Rule 40, as the case may be in ink; and (b) the date from which the area shall be available for grant is notified in the Official Gazette at least thirty days in advance. (2) The Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax the provisions of Sub-rule (1) in any special case. Rule 58 was amended on November 16, 1980 and the amended Rule 58 read as under: 58. Reservation of area for exploitation in the public sector etc.-The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, reserve any area for the exploitation by the Government, a Corporation established by the Central, State or Provincial Act or a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 195 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... area for grant is notified in the Official Gazette and specifying a date (being a date not earlier than thirty days from the date of the publication of such notification in the Official Gazette) from which such area shall be available for grant: Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to the renewal of a lease in favour of the original lessee or his legal heirs notwithstanding the fact that the lease has already expired: Provided further that where an area reserved under Rule 58 is proposed to be granted to a Government Company, no notification under Clause (ii) shall be required to be issued. (2) The Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing relax the provisions of Sub-rule (1) in any special case. Rule 59 was further amended on April 13, 1988. The amended Rule 59 reads as under: 59. Availability of area for regrant to be notified:(1) No area- (a) which was previously held or which is being held under a prospecting licence or a mining lease; or (b) in respect of which an order had been made for the grant of a prospecting licence or mining lease, but the applicant has died before the grant of the licence or the execution of the lease, as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to Regulation of mines and mineral development and the role and powers of the State Governments in that regard. Decisions Hingir-Rampur Coal Company Ltd. 78. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Hingir-Rampur Coal Company Ltd. AIR 1961 SC 459 was concerned with the question of the validity of Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952. Inter-alia, the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners was that even if the cess imposed thereunder was a 'fee' relatable to Entries 23 and/or 66 of List II, the same would be ultra vires Entry 54 of List I in light of declaration made in Section 2 of the 1948 Act which read, 'it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Central Government should take under its control the Regulation of mines and oilfields and the development of minerals to the extent hereinafter provided' and other provisions. 79. The majority view considered the above contention as follows: 23. The next question which arises is, even if the cess is a fee and as such may be relatable to Entries 23 and 66 in List II its validity is still open to challenge because the legislative competence of the State Legislature und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enforced; all that this required is a declaration by Parliament that it is expedient in the public interest to take the Regulation and development of mines under the control of the Union. In such a case the test must be whether the legislative declaration covers the field or not. Judged by this test there can be no doubt that the field covered by the impugned Act is covered by the Central Act LIII of 1948. 25. It still remains to consider whether Section 2 of the said Act amounts in law to a declaration by Parliament as required by Article 54. When the said Act was passed in 1948 the legislative powers of the Central and the Provincial Legislatures were governed by the relevant Entries in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution Act of 1935. Entry 36 in List I corresponds to the present Entry 54 in List I. It reads thus: "Regulation of Mines and Oil Fields and mineral development to the extent to which such Regulation and development under Dominion control is declared by Dominion law to be expedient in public interest". It would be noticed that the declaration required by Entry 36 is a declaration by Dominion law. Reverting then to Section 2 of the said Act it is clear that the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I in the seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the 'State List'). Coming now to the Seventh Schedule, Entry 23 of the State List vests in the State legislature power to enact laws on the subject of 'Regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to Regulation and development under the control of the Union'. It would be seen that "subject" to the provisions of List I the power of the State to enact Legislation, on the topic of "mines and mineral development" is plenary. The relevant provision in List I is, as already noticed, Entry 54 of the Union List. It may be mentioned that this scheme of the distribution of legislative power between the Centre and the States is not new but is merely a continuation of the State of affairs which prevailed under the Government of India Act, 1935 which included a provision on the lines of Entry 54 of the Union List which then bore the number Item 36 of the Federal List and an entry corresponding to Entry 23 in the State List which bore the same number in the Provincial Legislative List. There is no controversy that the Central Act has been enacted by Parliament in exerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... io 1969 (3) SCC 838, the validity of proviso (2) to Section 10(2) added by Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Bihar Act 4 of 1965) and the operation of Rule 20(2) added on December 10, 1964 by a Notification of Governor in the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 were in issue. The Court referred to the Government of India Act, 1935, 1948 Act and 1957 Act in light of Entry 54 of List I and Entry 23 of List II and the earlier decisions in Hingir-Rampur Coal Company Ltd. AIR 1961 SC 459 and M.A. Tulloch and Company AIR 1964 SC 1284 and observed as under: 13. ...Entry 54 of the Union List speaks both of Regulation of mines and minerals development and Entry 23 is subject to Entry 54. It is open to Parliament to declare that it is expedient in the public interest that the control should rest in Central Government. To what extent such a declaration can go is for Parliament to determine and this must be commensurate with public interest. Once this declaration is made and the extent laid down, the subject of legislation to the extent laid down becomes an exclusive subject for legislation by Parliament. Any legislation by the State after such declaration and trenching upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on existent. It was held on appeal that since Act 67 of 1957 contained the requisite declaration by Parliament under Entry 54 and that Act covered the same field as the Act of 1948 in regard to mines and mineral development, the ruling in Hingir Rampur's case applied and as Sections 18(1) and (2) of the Act 67 of 1957 were very wide they ruled out legislation by the State Legislature. Where a superior legislature evinced an intention to cover the whole field, the enactments of the other legislature whether passed before or after must be held to be overborne. It was laid down that inconsistency could be proved not by a detailed comparison of the provisions of the conflicting Acts but by the mere existence of two pieces of legislation. As Section 18(1) covered the entire field, there was no scope for the argument that till rules were framed under that Section, room was available. Amritlal Nathubhai Shah 82. In Amritlal Nathubhai Shah 1976 (4) SCC 108, a three-Judge Bench of this Court was concerned with an issue similar to the controversy presented before us. That was a case relating to grant of mining leases for bauxite in the reserved areas in the State of Gujarat. On Decembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to reserve any particular area for exploitation in the public sector". It is therefore quite clear that, in the absence of any law or contract etc. to the contrary, bauxite, as a mineral, and the mines thereof, vest in the State of Gujarat and no person has any right to exploit it otherwise then in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 10 of the Act and Chapters II, III and IV of the Rules, deal with the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in the land in which the minerals vest in the Government of a State. That was why the Appellants made their applications to the State Government. 83. In Amritlal Nathubhai Shah 1976 (4) SCC 108, this Court referred to Section 4 of the 1957 Act and held that there was nothing in 1957 Act or 1960 Rules to require that the restrictions imposed by Chapters II,III and IV of the 1960 Rules would be applicable even if State Government itself wanted to exploit a mineral for, it was its own property. The Court held: 4. ...There is therefore no reason why the State Government could not, if it so desired, "reserve" any land for itself, for any purpose, and such reserved land would then not be available for the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the competence of the State Legislature inasmuch as the filed in which the Haryana Act operated was necessarily occupied by the provisions of 1957 Act under Entry 54 of the Union List (List I) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Bench considered extensively the provisions contained in the 1957 Act and earlier decisions of this Court in Hingir-Rampur Coal Co Ltd. AIR 1961 SC 459, M.A. Tulloch and Company AIR 1964 SC 1284 and Baijnath Kadio 1969 (3) SCC 838. The Court then referred to Section 16(1)(b) and Section 17 of the 1957 Act and held as under: 38. We are particularly impressed by the provisions of Sections 16 and 17 as they now stand. A glance at Section 16(1)(b) shows that the Central Act 67 of 1957 itself contemplates vesting of lands, which had belonged to any proprietor of an estate or tenure holder either on or after October 25, 1949, in a State Government under a State enactment providing for the acquisition of estates or tenures in land or for agrarian reforms. The provision lays down that mining leases granted in such land must be brought into conformity with the amended law introduced by Act 56 of 1972. It seems to us that this clearly means that Parlia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Court made the following general observations with regard to minerals and natural resources and the scheme of 1957 Act: 6. Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other resources constitute a nation's natural wealth. These resources are not to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation. Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best possible way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in the interest of the nation. It is recognised by Parliament. Parliament has declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the Regulation of mines and the development of minerals. It has enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. We have already referred to its salient provisions. Section 18, we have noticed, casts a special duty on the Central Government to take necessary steps for the conservation and development of minerals in India. Section 17 authorises the Central Government itself to undertake prospecting or mining operations in any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease. Section 4-A em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 8-C was ultra vires Section 15. Well-known cases on the subject right from Municipal Corporation of the City of Toronto v. Virgo [1896 AC 88] and Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for the Dominions [1896 AC 348] up to State of U.P. v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. [1979 (3) SCC 229] were brought to our attention. We do not think that "Regulation" has that rigidity of meaning as never to take in "prohibition". Much depends on the context in which the expression is used in the statute and the object sought to be achieved by the contemplated Regulation. It was observed by Mathew, J. in G.K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu [1975 (1) SCC 375]: "The word 'Regulation' has no fixed connotation. Its meaning differs according to the nature of the thing to which it is applied." In modern statutes concerned as they are with economic and social activities, "Regulation" must, of necessity, receive so wide an interpretation that in certain situations, it must exclude competition to the public sector from the private sector. More so in a welfare State. It was pointed out by the Privy Council in Commonwealth of Australia v. Bank of New South Wales [1950 AC 235]- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution Bench of this Court in Baijnath Kedia v. State of Bihar. In that case this Court held that Entry 54 in the Union List speaks both of Regulation of mines and mineral development and Entry 23 in the State List is subject to Entry 54. Under Entry 54 it is open to Parliament to declare that it is expedient in the public interest that the control in these matters should vest in the Central Government. To what extent such a declaration can go is for Parliament to determine and this must be commensurate with public interest but once such declaration is made and the extent of such Regulation and development laid down the subject of the legislation to the extent so laid down becomes an exclusive subject for legislation by Parliament. Any legislation by the State after such declaration which touches upon the field disclosed in the declaration would necessarily be unconstitutional because that field is extracted from the legislative competence of the State legislature. In that case the court further pointed out that the expression "under the control of the Union" occurring in Entry 54 in the Union List and Entry 23 in the State List did not mean "control of the Union Government" because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It also knew that in the exercise of such rule-making power the Central Government had made the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, and that by Rule 4 of the said Rules the extraction of minor minerals was left to be regulated by rules to be made by the Provincial Governments. Thus, the makers of the Constitution were not only aware of the legislative history of the topic of mines and minerals but were also aware how the Dominion legislature had interpreted Entry 36 in the Federal Legislative List in enacting the 1948 Act. When the 1957 Act came to be enacted, Parliament knew that different State Governments had, in pursuance of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, made rules for regulating the grant of leases in respect of minor minerals and other matters connected therewith and for this reason it expressly provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the 1957 Act that the rules in force immediately before the commencement of that Act would continue in force until superseded by rules made under Sub-section (1) of Section 15. Regulating the grant of mining leases in respect of minor minerals and other connected matters was, therefore, not something which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... areas and for local purposes while minerals other than minor minerals are those which are necessary for industrial development on a national scale and for the economy of the country. That is why matters relating to minor minerals have been left by Parliament to the State Governments while reserving matters relating to minerals other than minor minerals to the Central Government. Sections 13, 14 and 15 fall in the group of Sections which is headed "Rules for regulating the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases". These three Sections have to be read together. In providing that Section 13 will not apply to quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals what was done was to take away from the Central Government the power to make rules in respect of minor minerals and to confer that power by Section 15(1) upon the State Governments. The ambit of the power Under Section 13 and Under Section 15 is, however, the same, the only difference being that in one case it is the Central Government which exercises the power in respect of minerals other than minor minerals while in the other case it is the State Governments which do so in respect of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was held that the legislative competence of the State Legislature to make law on the topic of mines and mineral was subject to parliamentary legislation. While dealing with Section 18(1) prior to its amendment by amending Act 37 of 1986 and after amendment, the Court held in paragraph 16 of the Report (Pg. 572) as under: 16. ...The amended and unamended Sections both lay down that it shall be the duty of the Central Government to take all such steps as may be necessary "for the conservation and development of minerals" in India and for that purpose it may make such rules as it thinks fit. The expression "for the conservation of minerals" occurring Under Section 18(1) confers wide power on the Central Government to frame any rule which may be necessary for protecting the mineral from loss, and for its preservation. The expression 'conservation' means "the act of keeping or protecting from loss or injury". With reference to the natural resources, the expression in the context means preservation of mineral; the wide scope of the expression "conservation of minerals" comprehends any rule reasonably connected with the purpose of protecting the loss of coal through the was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ills (P) Ltd. 1980 (4) SCC 136, Baijnath Kadio 1969 (3) SCC 838, M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India and Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 431, M/s. Hind Stone 1981 (2) SCC 205, I.T.C. and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 1985 (Supp) SCC 476 and Western Coalfields Limited v. Special Area Development Authority Korba and Anr. 1982 (1) SCC 125. I shall cite paragraphs 49, 50, 51 and 53 (Pgs. 480-486) of the Report which read as follows: 49. It is clear from a perusal of the decisions referred to above that the answer to the question before us depends on a proper understanding of the scope of M.M.R.D. Act, 1957, and an Assessment of the encroachment made by the impugned State legislation into the field covered by it. Each of the cases referred to above turned on such an appreciation of the respective spheres of the two legislations. As pointed out in Ishwari Khetan, the mere declaration of a law of Parliament that it is expedient for an industry or the Regulation and development of mines and minerals to be under the control of the Union under Entry 52 or entry 54 does not denude the State legislatures of their legislative powers with respect to the fields covered by the several entries in List II or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipal administration which were considered in the cases cited and which are traceable to different specific entries in List 11 or List III. 53. These observations establish on the one hand that the distinction sought to be made between mineral development and mineral area development is not a real one as the two types of development are inextricably and integrally interconnected and, on the other, that, fees of the nature we are concerned with squarely fall within the scope of the provisions of the Central Act. The object of Section 9 of the Central Act cannot be ignored. The terms of Section 13 of the Central Act extracted earlier empower the Union to frame rules in regard to matters concerning roads and environment. Section 18(1) empowers the Central Government to take all such steps as may be necessary for the conservation and development of minerals in India and for protection of environment. These, in the very nature of things, cannot mean such amenities only in the mines but take in also the areas leading to and all around the mines. The development of mineral areas is implicit in them. Section 25 implicitly authorises the levy of rent, royalty, taxes and fees under the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate of A.P. (AIR 1959 AP 485) and Amritlal Nathubhai Shah v. Union Government of India (AIR 1973 Guj. 117), the latter of which was approved by this Court in Amritlal Nathubhai Shah v. Union of India ([1977] 1 SCR 372). (As pointed out earlier, Rule 58 has been amended in 1980 to confer such a power on the S.G.). It is also not in dispute that a notification of reservation was made on August 3, 1977. The S.G., OMC and IDCOL are, therefore, right in contending that, ex facie, the areas in question are not available for grant to any person other than the S.G. or a public sector corporation [rule 59(1), proviso] unless the availability for grant is renotified in accordance with law [rule 59(1)(e) ] or the C.G. decides to relax the provisions of Rule 59(1) [rule 59(2) ]. None of those contingencies have occurred since except as is indicated later in this judgment. There is, therefore, no answer to the plea of reservation put forward by the S.G., OMC and IDCOL. Then in paragraph 45 (Pgs. 136-138), while considering Section 17A (1) that was inserted in 1957 Act by amendment in 1987, the Court held: 45. Our conclusion that the areas in question before us were all duly reserved for pub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors the statute and the rules. There is nothing in either of them which gives a right to OMC or IDCOL to insist that the leases should be given only to them and to no one else in the public sector. If, therefore the claim of reservation in 1977 in favour of the public sector is upheld absolutely, and if we do not agree with the findings of Rao that neither OMC nor IDCOL deserve any grant, all that we can do is to leave it to the S.G. to consider whether any portion of the land thus reserved should be given by it to these two corporations. Here, of course, there are no competitive applications from organisations in the public sector controlled either by the S.G. or the C.G., but even if there were, it would be open to the S.G. to decide how far the lands or any portion of them should be exploited by each of such Corporations or by the C.G. or S.G. Both the Corporations are admittedly instrumentalities of the S.G. and the decision of the S.G. is binding on them. We are of the view that, if the S.G. decides not to grant a lease in respect of the reserved area to an instrumentality of the S.G., that instrumentality has no right to insist that a ML should be granted to it. It is open to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... difference in their wording. Perhaps because of this Rule 58 has been omitted by an amendment of 1988 (G.S.R. 449E of 1988) made effective from April 13, 1988. Rule 59, however, contemplates a relaxation of the reservation only by the C.G. By an amendment of 1987 effective on February 10, 1987, (G.S.R. 86-E of 87) the words "reserved by the State Government" were substituted for the words "reserved by the Government" in Rule 59(1)(e). Later, Rule 59(1) has been amended by the insertion of the words "or Under Section 17-A of the Act" after the words "under Rule 58" in Clause (e) as well as in the second proviso. The result appears to be this: (i) After March 13, 1988, certainly, the S.G. cannot notify any reservations without the approval of the C.G., as Rule 58 has been deleted. Presumably, the position is the same even before this date and as soon as Act 37 of 1986 came into force. (ii) However, it is open to the S.G. to denotify a reservation made by it under Rule 58 or Section 17A. Presumably, dereservation of an area reserved by the S.G. after the 1986 amendment can be done only with the approval of the C.G. for it would be anomalous to hold that a reservation by the S.G. n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to make any law with respect to the Regulation of mines and minerals development to the extent provided in the 1957 Act. In paragraphs 61, 62 and 63 (Pgs. 30-31) of the Report, the Court held as follows: 61.-In addition to what we have stated, it is relevant to note that Section 11(5) again carves out an exception to the preference in favour of prior applicants in the main provision of Section 11(2). It permits the State Government, with the prior approval of the Central Government, to disregard the priority in point of time in the main provision of Section 11(2) and to make a grant in favour of a latter applicant as compared to an earlier applicant for special reasons to be recorded in writing. It also gives an indication that it can have no application to cases in which a notification is issued because, in such a case, both the first proviso to Section 11(2) and Section 11(4) make it clear that all applications will be considered together as having been received on the same date. In view of our interpretation, the proceedings of the Chief Minister and the recommendation dated 06.12.2004 are contrary to the Scheme of the MMDR Act as they were based on Section 11(5) which had n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout notice to the general public would be defeated. In fact, the learned single Judge correctly interpreted Section 11 read with Rules 59 and 60. The said conclusion also finds support in the decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Hindstone (1981) 2 SCC 205 at page 218, where it has been held in the context of the rules framed under the MMDR Act itself that a statutory rule, while subordinate to the parent statute, is otherwise to be treated as part of the statute and is effective. The same position has been reiterated in State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya (1961) 2 SCR 679 at 701 and Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishad v. State of Gujarat (2007) 7 SCC 718. As regards the legislative and executive power of the State under Entry 23 List II read with Article 162 of the Constitution, the Court in Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited 2010 (13) SCC 1 in paragraph 80 (Pg. 36) stated as under: 80. It is clear that the State Government is purely a delegate of Parliament and a statutory functionary, for the purposes of Section 11(3) of the Act, hence it cannot act in a manner that is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 11(1) of the MMDR Act in the grant of mining leases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The management of the mineral resources has been left with both the Central Government and State Governments in terms of Entry 54 in List I and Entry 23 in List II. In the scheme of our Constitution, the State Legislatures enjoy power to enact legislation on the topics of 'mines and mineral development'. The only fetter imposed on the State Legislatures under Entry 23 is by the latter part of the said entry which says 'subject to the provisions of List I with respect to Regulation and development under the control of the Union'. In other words, State Legislature loses its jurisdiction to the extent to which Union Government had taken over control, the Regulation of mines and development of minerals as manifested by legislation incorporating the declaration and no more. If Parliament by its law has declared that Regulation of mines and development of minerals should in the public interest be under the control of Union, which it did by making declaration in Section 2 of the 1957 Act, to the extent of such legislation incorporating the declaration, the power of the State Legislature is excluded. The requisite declaration has the effect of taking out Regulation of mine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asic industries. The conservation, preservation and intelligent utilization of minerals are not only need of the day but are also very important in the interest of mankind and succeeding generations. Management of minerals should be in a way that helps in country's economic development and which also leaves for future generations to conserve and develop the natural resources of the nation in the best possible way. For proper development of economy and industry, the exploitation of natural resources cannot be permitted indiscriminately; rather nation's natural wealth has to be used judiciously so that it may not be exhausted within a few years. No fundamental right in mining 104. The Appellants have applied for mining leases in a land belonging to Government of Jharkhand (erstwhile Bihar) and it is for iron-ore which is a mineral included in the First Schedule to the 1957 Act in respect of which no mining lease can be granted without the prior approval of the Central Government. It goes without saying that no person can claim any right in any land belonging to Government or in any mines in any land belonging to Government except under 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. No person h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the State Government (erstwhile Bihar and now Jharkhand) is the owner of the subject area. Mines and minerals within its territory vest in it absolutely. As a matter of fact it is because of this position that the Appellants made their application for grant of mining lease to the State Government. The question now is, the Regulation of mines and development of minerals having been taken under its control by the Central Government, whether the provisions contained in 1957 Act or 1960 Rules come in the way of the State Government to reserve any particular area for exploitation in the public sector. 106. The legislation on the subject of mines and minerals as contained in 1957 Act and 1960 Rules has been extensively quoted in the earlier part of the judgment. Suffice it to say that Section 4 is a pivotal provision around which the legal framework for the Regulation of mines and development of minerals as laid down in 1957 Act revolves. 107. The character of the impugned Notifications making reservation of the area set out therein for exploitation of iron ore in public sector has to be judged in light of the provisions in 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. The object and effect of declaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sections 6, 9, 10, 11 and 13(2)(a) also do not take away the State's ownership rights in the mines and minerals within its territory. The power to legislate for Regulation of mines and development of minerals under the control of the Union may definitely imply power to acquire mines and minerals in the larger public interest by appropriate legislation, but by 1957 Act that has not been done. There is nothing in 1957 Act to suggest even remotely - and there is no express provision at all - that the mines and minerals that vested in the States have been acquired. Rather, the scheme and provisions of 1957 Act themselves show that Parliament itself contemplated State legislation for vesting of lands containing mineral deposits in the State Government and that Parliament did not intend to trench upon powers of State Legislatures under Entry 18, List II. As noted above, the declaration made by Parliament in Section 2 of 1957 Act states that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the Regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in the Act itself. The declaration made in Section 2 is, thus, not all comprehensive. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read with 1957 Act was with reference to the State legislations under consideration and the whole of the legislative field was found to be occupied by 1957 Act. Similar observations in various other decisions by this Court were made in the context of the topic under consideration. 110. I am supported in my view by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Orissa Cement Limited 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 430 wherein it was emphatically asserted that in the case of a declaration under Entry 54, the legislative power of the State Legislatures is eroded only to the extent control is assumed by the Union pursuant to such declaration as spelt out by the legislative enactment which makes the declaration. The three-Judge Bench on careful consideration said, 'The measure of erosion turns upon the field of the enactment framed in pursuance of the declaration. While the legislation in Hingir-Rampur Coal Company AIR 1961 SC 459 and M.A. Tulloch and Company AIR 1964 SC 1284 was found to fall within the pale of the prohibition, those in Chanan Mal 1977 (1) SCC 340, Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills 1980 (4) SCC 136 and Western Coalfields Limited 1982 (1) SCC 125 were general in nature and traceable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court have not been considered and applied. It was argued that decision in Amritlal Nathubhai Shah 1976 (4) SCC 108 was limited to its own facts and that decision did not deal with reservation prior to amendment in Rule 59. In that case Notification was of December 31, 1963 whereunder lands in particular areas had been reserved for exploitation of bauxite in the public sector. At that time Rule 59 of 1960 Rules had been amended and, moreover, that was a case of exploitation of mineral by the State itself and in case of exploitation other than by State it could only be done in accord with the 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. 114. I am afraid that the distinguishing features highlighted by learned senior Counsel for the Appellants are not substantial and do not persuade me not to follow Amritlal Nathubhai Shah 1976 (4) SCC 108. The judgment of this Court in Amritlal Nathubhai Shah 1976 (4) SCC 108 establishes the distinction between the power of reservation to exploit a mineral as its own property on the one hand and the Regulation of mines and mineral development under the 1957 Act and the 1960 Rules on the other. The authority of the State Government to make reservation of a parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat 1962 and 1969 Notifications are not relatable to statutory provisions contained in 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. Reference was made to Sections 17 and 18 and Rules 58 and 59 of 1960 Rules and it was argued that these provisions are indicative of the position that reservation made by the State Government for exploitation of minerals in public sector was unsupportable and unsustainable in law. Section 17 - not all -comprehensive provision 116. I am of the opinion that Section 17 is not all -comprehensive on the subject of refusal to grant prospecting licence or mining lease. Section 17 has nothing to do with public or private sector. It does not deal directly or indirectly with the State Government's right for reservation of its own mines and minerals. Its application is not general but it is confined to a specific situation where the Central Government proposes to undertake prospecting or mining operations in any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease. The above view with regard to Section 17 finds support from Amritlal Nathubhai Shah 1976 (4) SCC 108. Insofar as Section 18 is concerned, it basically confers additional rule making power upon the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at formed part of original Rule 59, in my view, was not of much significance and did not impede the State Government's authority to make reservation of any area for exploitation in public sector founded on its ownership over that area. It was because of this that this insignificant and inconsequential expression was later on deleted from Rule 59 in 1963. Rule 59, accordingly, continued to recognise the State Government's right to reserve any area for mining within its territory for any purpose including exploitation in public sector. In Amritlal Nathubhai Shah 1976 (4) SCC 108, this position has been expressly affirmed when it said, "but quite apart from that, we find that Rule 59 of the Rules which have been made Under Section 13 of the Act, clearly contemplates such reservation by an order of the State Government". Repeal of Rule 58 and Section 17A 119. Rule 58 was amended in 1980 whereby it expressly provided that the State Government may by Notification in the official gazette reserve any area for exploitation by the Government, a corporation established by the Central, State or Provincial Act or a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reservations made by the State Government in 1977 before omission of Rule 58 and amendment in Rule 59 and insertion of Section 17A in 1957 Act were, thus, held to be unaffected. 123. Having carefully considered Section 17A, I have no hesitation in holding that the said provision is prospective. There is no indication in Section 17A or in terms of the Amending Act that by insertion of Section 17A the Parliament intended to alter the pre-existing state of affairs. The Parliament does not seem to have intended by bringing in Section 17A to undo the reservation of any mining area made by the State Government earlier thereto for exploitation in public sector. The Parliament has no doubt plenary power of legislation within the field assigned to it to legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively. As early as in 1951 this Court in Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay AIR 1951 SC 128 had stated about a cardinal principle of construction that every statue is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to affect existing rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... validating these Notifications. If a state government has power to reserve mineral bearing area for exploitation in public sector - and I have already held that the then Government of Bihar had such power - the act of reservation vide 1962 and 1969 Notifications is not rendered illegal or invalid. I am clearly of the view that lack of knowledge on the part of the State Government about the reservation of areas for exploitation in public sector vide 1962 and 1969 Notifications does not affect in any manner the legality and validity of these Notifications once it has been found that these Notifications have been issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar in valid exercise of power which it had. Validity of 2006 Notification 126. On October 27, 2006, the State Government issued a Notification declaring its decision that the iron ore deposits at Ghatkuri would not be thrown open for grant of prospecting licence, mining licence or otherwise for private parties. In the said Notification, it was noted that the deposits were at all material times kept reserved by 1962 and 1969 Notifications issued by the State of Bihar. It was further mentioned in the Notification that mineral reserved in Gh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir scope have been considered by this Court in Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd.p in paragraphs 45 and 46 (pgs. 136-139) of the Report. I am in respectful agreement with that view. However, it was argued that Section 17A(2) requires prior approval of the Central Government before reservation of any area by the State Government for the public sector undertaking. The argument is founded on incorrect reading of Section 17A(2). This provision does not use the expression, 'prior approval' which has been used in Section 11. On the other hand, Section 17A(2) uses the words, 'with the approval of the Central Government'. These words in Section 17A(2) can not be equated with prior approval of the Central Government. According to me, the approval contemplated in Section 17A may be obtained by the State Government before the exercise of power of reservation or after exercise of such power. The approval by the Central Government contemplated in Section 17A(2) may be express or implied. In a case such as the present one where the Central Government has relied upon 2006 Notification while rejecting Appellants' application for grant of mining lease, it necessarily implies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 64/M dated 28th February, 1969 of the State of Bihar' leaves no manner of doubt that 1962 and 1969 Notifications continued to operate and did not lapse. Principles of promissory estoppel 132. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is now firmly established and is well accepted in India. Its nature, scope and extent have come up for consideration before this Court time and again. One of the leading cases of this Court on the doctrine of promissory estoppel is the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills 1979 (2) SCC 409. In that case, the Court elaborately and extensively considered diverse facets and aspects of doctrine of promissory estoppel. That was a case where the Appellant was primarily engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar and it had also a cold storage plant and a steel foundry. On October 10, 1968 a news item was carried in the newspaper/s that the State of Uttar Pradesh had decided to give exemption from sales tax for a period of three years Under Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to all new industrial units in the State with a view to enabling them, "to come on firm footing in developing stage". Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills 1979 (2) SCC 409 on the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the view of Justice Denning, as he then was, in the Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (1956) 1 All ER 256 wherein Denning, J. had considered Jorden v. Money (1854) 5 HLC 185. This Court also referred to in paragraph 8, the opinions in Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Company (1877) 2 AC 439, Birmingham and District Land Company v. London and North Western Rail Company (1889) 40 Ch D 268 which were considered by Justice Denning in the High Treesuu case. The Court also considered the decisions in Durham Fancy Goods Ltd. v. Michael Jackson (Fancy Goods) Ltd. (1968) 2 All ER 987, Evenden v. Guildford City Association Football Club Ltd. (1975) 3 All ER 269 and Crabb v. Arun District Council (1975) 3 All ER 865 and culled out the legal position as follows: 8. ... The true principle of promissory estoppel, therefore, seems to be that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lth jurisdictions and in some States at least, it has been used to reduce, if not to destroy, the prestige of consideration as an essential of valid contract. Vide Spencer Bower and Turner's Estoppel by Representation (2d) p. 358. 136. The Court then considered to what extent the doctrine of promissory estoppel was applicable against the Government. After referring to few decisions of the English courts and the American courts, the decisions of this Court in Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies (1968) 2 SCR 366, Collector of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay (1952) SCR 43, Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council (1970) 1 SCC 582, M. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala (1974) 1 SCR 515, Assistant Custodian v. Brij Kishore Agarwala (1975) 1 SCC 21, State of Kerala v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Company Ltd. (1973) 2 SCC 713, Excise Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad v. Ram Kumar: (1976) 3 SCC 540, Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh (1977) 4 SCC 145 and Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar: (1977) 3 SCC 457 were considered. 137. After entering into detailed consideration as no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties. It has often been said in England that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot itself be the basis of an action: it can only be a shield and not a sword: but the law in India has gone far ahead of the narrow position adopted in England and as a result of the decision of this Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P. it is now well settled that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not limited in its application only to defence but it can also found a cause of action. The decision of this Court in Motilal Sugar Mills case contains an exhaustive discussion of the doctrine of promissory estoppel and we find ourselves wholly in agreement with the various parameters of this doctrine outlined in that decision. 139. The doctrine of promissory estoppel also came up for consideration before this Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Limited v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 86. In para 18 (page 95) of the Report the Court stated as follows: 18. Here the Railways Rates Tribunal apparently, appears to have gone off the track. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st public policy.... 141. In Kasinka Trading and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. 1995 (1) SCC 274, the Court was principally concerned with the invocation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the facts and circumstances of the case obtaining therein. The Court considered the decision of this Court in Indo-Afghan Agencies (1968) 2 SCR 366 and the successive decisions. The Court held in (paras 11-12, pages 283-284) as under: 11. The doctrine of promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel is well established in the administrative law of the country. To put it simply, the doctrine represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice. The basis of the doctrine is that where any party has by his word or conduct made to the other party an unequivocal promise or representation by word or conduct, which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing as well as intending that the representation, assurance or the promise would be acted upon by the other party to whom it has been made and has in fact been so acted upon by the other party, the promise, assurance or representation should be binding on the party making it and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that fact situation that it was held that Textile Commissioner who had enunciated the scheme was bound by the assurance thereof and obliged to carry out the promise made thereunder. As already noticed, in the present batch of cases neither the notification is of an executive character nor does it represent a scheme designed to achieve a particular purpose. It was a notification issued in public interest and again withdrawn in public interest. So far as the second case (M.P. Sugar Mills case) is concerned the facts were totally different. In the correspondence exchanged between the State and the Petitioners therein it was held out to the Petitioners that the industry would be exempted from sales tax for a particular number of initial years but when the State sought to levy the sales tax it was held by this Court that it was precluded from doing so because of the categorical representation made by it to the Petitioners through letters in writing, who had relied upon the same and set up the industry. 21. The power to grant exemption from payment of duty, additional duty etc. under the Act, as already noticed, flows from the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act. The power to exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Under Section 25 of the Act cannot be said to be holding out of any such unequivocal promise by the Government which was intended to create any legal relationship between the Government and the party drawing benefit flowing from of the said notification. It is, therefore, futile to contend that even if the public interest so demanded and the Central Government was satisfied that the exemption did not require to be extended any further, it could still not withdraw the exemption. The Court went on to observe (paras 24 and 25, pages 289-290) as under: 24. It needs no emphasis that the power of exemption Under Section 25(1) of the Act has been granted to the Government by the Legislature with a view to enabling it to regulate, control and promote the industries and industrial productions in the country. Where the Government on the basis of the material available before it, bona fide, is satisfied that the "public interest" would be served by either granting exemption or by withdrawing, modifying or rescinding an exemption already granted, it should be allowed a free hand to do so. We are unable to agree with the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that Notification No. 66 of 1979 co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toppel again came up for consideration before this Court. Inter alia, the Court considered the earlier decisions of this Court in Indo-Afghan Agencies (1968) 2 SCR 366, Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills 1979 (2) SCC 409, Godfrey Philips India Limited (1985) 4 SCC 369, Mangalam Timber Products Limited (2004) 1 SCC 139, Amrit Banaspati Company Limited 1992 (2) SCC 411 and Kasinka Trading 1995 (1) SCC 274. The Court followed Godfrey Philips India Limited (1985) 4 SCC 369 which was found to be close to the facts of that case. The Court did not accept the argument canvassed on behalf of the State of Punjab that the overriding public interest would make it inequitable to enforce the estoppel against the State Government. 144. In Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 625, the development of doctrine of promissory estoppel was noted (paras 5-7, pages 631-633) and it was held as under: 5. Estoppel is a rule of equity which has gained new dimensions in recent years. A new class of estoppel has come to be recognised by the courts in this country as well as in England. The doctrine of "promissory estoppel" has assumed importance in recent years though it was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould still be open to a party who had acted on a representation made by the Government to claim that the Government should be bound to carry out the promise made by it even though the promise was not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution. [See Century Spg. and Mfg. Company Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council (1970) 1 SCC 582, Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar [(1977) 3 SCC 457], Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Ltd. v. State of U.P. [ (1979) 2 SCC 409], Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (1985) 4 SCC 369] and Ashok Kumar Maheshwari (Dr.) v. State of U.P. [ (1998) 2 SCC 502]. 6. In the backdrop, let us travel a little distance into the past to understand the evolution of the doctrine of "promissory estoppel". Dixon, J., an Australian jurist, in Grundt v. Great Boulder Gold Mines Pty. Ltd. [(1939) 59 CLR 641 (Aust HC) laid down as under: It is often said simply that the party asserting the estoppel must have been induced to act to his detriment. Although substantially such a statement is correct and leads to no misunderstanding, it does not bring out clearly the basal purpose of the doctrine. That purpose is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led principles. Therefore, the court has to consider- the nature of obligation in respect of which performance is sought, circumstances under which the decision came to be made, the conduct of the parties and the effect of the court granting the decree. In such cases, the court has to look at the contract. The court has to ascertain whether there exists an element of mutuality in the contract. If there is absence of mutuality the court will not exercise discretion in favour of the Plaintiffs. Even if, want of mutuality is regarded as discretionary and not as an absolute bar to specific performance, the court has to consider the entire conduct of the parties in relation to the subject-matter and in case of any disqualifying circumstances the court will not grant the relief prayed for (Snell's Equity, 31st Edn., p. 366).... 146. In my view, the following principles must guide a Court where an issue of applicability of promissory estoppel arises: (i) Where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supporting material are not sufficient to press into aid the doctrine of promissory estoppel. (vii) The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in abstract. When it is sought to be invoked, the Court must consider all aspects including the result sought to be achieved and the public good at large. The fundamental principle of equity must forever be present to the mind of the court. Absence of it must not hold the Government or the public authority to its promise, assurance or representation. Principles of legitimate expectation 147. As there are parallels between the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation because both these doctrines are founded on the concept of fairness and arise out of natural justice, it is appropriate that the principles of legitimate expectation are also noticed here only to appreciate the case of the Appellants founded on the basis of doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. 148. In Union of India and Ors. v. Hindustan Development Corporation and Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 499, this Court had an occasion to consider nature, scope and applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The matter related to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re be seen that legitimate expectation can at the most be one of the grounds which may give rise to judicial review but the granting of relief is very much limited. It would thus appear that there are stronger reasons as to why the legitimate expectation should not be substantively protected than the reasons as to why it should be protected. In other words such a legal obligation exists whenever the case supporting the same in terms of legal principles of different sorts, is stronger than the case against it. As observed in Attorney General for New South Wales case: [(1990) 64 Aust LJR 327]: "To strike down the exercise of administrative power solely on the ground of avoiding the disappointment of the legitimate expectations of an individual would be to set the courts adrift on a featureless sea of pragmatism. Moreover, the notion of a legitimate expectation (falling short of a legal right) is too nebulous to form a basis for invalidating the exercise of a power when its exercise otherwise accords with law." If a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of right guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse of power or violation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt leaves the authority to decide its full range of choice within the executive or legislative power. In matters of economic policy, it is a settled law that the court gives a large leeway to the executive and the legislature. Granting licences for import or export is by executive or legislative policy. Government would take diverse factors for formulating the policy for import or export of the goods granting relatively greater priorities to various items in the overall larger interest of the economy of the country. It is, therefore, by exercise of the power given to the executive or as the case may be, the legislature is at liberty to evolve such policies. 4. An applicant has no vested right to have export or import licences in terms of the policies in force at the date of his making application. For obvious reasons, granting of licences depends upon the policy prevailing on the date of the grant of the licence or permit. The authority concerned may be in a better position to have the overall picture of diverse factors to grant permit or refuse to grant permission to import or export goods. The decision, therefore, would be taken from diverse economic perspectives which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion - require satisfaction of the same criteria and arise out of the principle of reasonableness. 152. A note of caution sounded in Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 625 is worth noticing. The Court observed that legitimate expectation was different from anticipation; granting relief on mere disappointment of expectation would be too nebulous a ground for setting aside a public exercise by law and it would be necessary that a ground recognized under Article 14 of the Constitution was made out by a litigant. 153. It is not necessary to multiply the decisions of this Court. Suffice it to observe that the following principles in relation to the doctrine of legitimate expectation are now well established: (i) The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked as a substantive and enforceable right. (ii) The doctrine of legitimate expectation is founded on the principle of reasonableness and fairness. The doctrine arises out of principles of natural justice and there are parallels between the doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel. (iii) Where the decision of an authority is founded in public interest as per executive policy or law, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isation Plant while Phase-II comprised of Sponge Iron Plant, Power Plant, Coal Washery, Mini Blast Furnace, Steel Melting/LD/IF and Iron Ore Mining and Phase-III comprised of establishment of Power Plant. Para 4 of MOU states that Adhunik requires help and cooperation of the State Government in several areas to enable them to construct, commission and operate the project. The State Government's willingness to extend all possible help and cooperation is stated in the above MOU. Para 4.3 of MOU records that the State Government shall assist in selecting the area for Adhunik for iron ore and other minerals as per requirement of the company depending upon quality and quantity. The State Government also agreed to grant mineral concession as per existing Acts and Rules. 156. In pursuance of the above MOU, the State Government through its Deputy Secretary, Mining and Geology Department recommended to the Government of India through its Joint Director, Mining Ministry on August 4, 2004 to grant prior approval Under Section 11(5) and Section 5(1) of the 1957 Act for grant of mining lease to Adhunik for a period of 30 years in the area of 426.875 hectares. The reasons for such recommend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Government was not even aware about the reservation of the subject mining area for exploitation in the public sector. It was on November 17, 2004 that the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa informed the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand that certain portions of Mauza Ghatkuri and the adjoining areas were reserved for public sector under 1962 and 1969 Notifications issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar. The District Mining Officer suggested to the State Government that approval of the Central Government should be obtained for grant of leases to the concerned applicants. In his communication, he stated that the fact of reservation of the subject area in public sector vide 1962 and 1969 Notifications was brought to the knowledge of the Director of Mines, Jharkhand but he did not take any timely or adequate action in the matter. In view of the fact that the subject mining area had been reserved for exploitation in public sector under 1962 and 1969 Notifications, in my opinion, the stipulation in the MOU that the State Government shall assist in selecting the area for iron ore and other minerals as per requirement of the company and the commitment t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are allowed to be carried out, it would tantamount to enforcement of promise, assurance or representation which is against law, public interest and public policy which I am afraid cannot be permitted. 162. On behalf of the Appellants, it was also argued that the 1962 and 1969 Notifications had remained in disuse for about 40 years and it is reasonable to infer that these two Notifications no longer operated. In this regard, the doctrine of quasi repeal by desuetude was sought to be invoked. Doctrine of desuetude 163. The doctrine of desuetude and its applicability in Indian Jurisprudence have been considered by this Court on more than one occasion. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik and Ors. (1982) 3 SCC 519, the Court noted the decision of Scrutton, L.J. in R.v. London County Council LR (1931) 2 KB 215 (CA) and the view of renowned author Allen in "Law in the Making" and observed that the rule concerning desuetude has always met with general disfavour. It was also held that a statute can be abrogated only by express or implied repeal; it cannot fall into desuetude or become inoperative through obsolescence or by lapse of time. 164. In Bharat Forge C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blish that the statute in question had been in disuse for long and the contrary practice of some duration has evolved. It was also held that neither of these two facts has been satisfied in the case and therefore the doctrine of desuetude had no application. 167. From the above, the essentials of doctrine of desuetude may be summarized as follows: (i) The doctrine of desuetude denotes principle of quasi repeal but this doctrine is ordinarily seen with disfavour. (ii) Although doctrine of desuetude has been made applicable in India on few occasions but for its applicability, two factors, namely, (i) that the statute or legislation has not been in operation for very considerable period and (ii) the contrary practice has been followed over a period of time must be clearly satisfied. Both ingredients are essential and want of anyone of them would not attract the doctrine of desuetude. In other words, a mere neglect of a statute or legislation over a period of time is not sufficient but it must be firmly established that not only the statute or legislation was completely neglected but also the practice contrary to such statute or legislation has been followed for a cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or an application for renewal of lease to be made one year prior to the expiry of lease but no application for renewal was made by Rungta within this time and, therefore, Rungta had no legal right over the overlapping area. 170. It was submitted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar that the Appellant - Monnet had produced two maps before the High Court and this Court (one was prepared by the District Mining Officer in 2004) that depicted that the area recommended for grant to the Appellant was not covered by 1962 or 1969 Notifications. 171. It was submitted on behalf of Monnet that the case of Monnet was identical to the case of M/s. Bihar Sponge Iron Ltd. and the State Government had discriminated against the Appellant vis-à-vis the case of M/s. Bihar Sponge Iron Ltd. 172. Mr. Ranjit Kumar also submitted that there has been violation of the statutory right of hearing in terms of Rule 26 of the 1960 Rules. He submitted that order was not communicated to Monnet by the State Government and thereby its remedy under Rule 54 of 1960 Rules was taken away. The violation of principles of natural justice goes to the root of the matter and on that ground alone the decision of the State Government t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticed. It transpires therefrom that many of the above arguments were not advanced including the issue of overlapping with the area of Rungta. In the list of dates/synopsis of the special leave petition, Monnet has not raised any grievance that arguments made on its behalf before the High Court were not correctly recorded or the High Court failed to consider any or some of its arguments. Criticism of the High Court judgment is thus not justified and I am not inclined to go into above submissions of Mr. Ranjit Kumar for the first time. 178. It is too late in the day for Monnet to contend that its case could not have been decided with group matters and in any case the matter should be remanded to the High Court for reconsideration on the issues, namely, (a) whether the area recommended for the Appellant was overlapping with Rungta only to the extent of 102.25 hectares out of total 705 hectares recommended for Appellant; (b) whether after expiry of lease Rungta's area was renotified for grant in 1996; (c) what was the reason for the State Government to withdraw the recommendation made in favour of the Appellant when the alleged overlapping with Rungta was only to the extent of 102 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecommendation in favour of Monnet to the Central Government was simply a proposal with certain pre-conditions. For withdrawal of such proposal by the State Government, in my view, no notice was legally required to be given. Moreover, no prejudice has been caused to it by not giving any notice before recalling the recommendation as it had no legal or vested right to the grant of mining lease. The area is not available for grant of mining lease in the private sector. For all these reasons, I do not find that the case of Monnet stands differently from the other Appellants. Conclusion 182. In view of the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in these appeals and they are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. R.M. Lodha ORDER 183. I find from the proceedings that no notice has been issued in the contempt petition. The proceeding of January 28, 2009 reveals that the Court only ordered copy of the contempt petition to be supplied to Learned Counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand to enable it to file its response. In the order passed on January 28, 2009, the Court made it very clear that it was not inclined to issue any notice in the contempt petition. Now, since the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Ranjit Kumar, Dhruv Mehta, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, L. Nageswara Rao, and G.C. Bharuka have appeared in support of these appeals. Senior Counsel Shri A. K. Sinha, and Shri Ashok Bhan have appeared for the State of Jharkhand, and Union of India respectively. Shri P.S. Narasimha, Senior Counsel for NMDC, Shri Vikas Singh, Senior Counsel for TISCO, Shri Krishnan Venugopal, Senior counsel for Arclor Mittal (India) Ltd. and Shri J.K. Das, Learned Counsel for M/s Rungta Sons Pvt. Ltd., have appeared to oppose these appeals. Facts leading to these appeals: 186. The facts in all these appeals are by and large similar. We may refer to the facts of the first Civil Appeal in the case of M/s Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. (for short 'Monnet') as somewhat representative. It is the case of Monnet that it wanted to set-up an iron and steel plant in the State of Jharkhand. It was ready to invest an amount of Rs. 1400 crores on this project, and for that purpose it was interested in the allotment of iron and manganese ore mines situated in the Ghatkhuri Forest area of West Singhbhum District (which has its headquarters at Chaibasa). A high level meeting was held in R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State Government had recommended the amended area of 705 hectares for the consent of the Central Government for grant of lease Under Section 5 (1) of the Act. The letter also stated that priority was being given to Monnet in terms of Section 11 (3) of the Act on the basis of its technical mineral based industry and financial capacity. 189. On receiving that application and after considering that the mining lease was to be granted for a period of 30 years, the Central Government asked the State Government, vide its letter dated 6.9.2004, to forward its justification in support of the proposal, since in its view an adequate justification, in the interest of mineral development, had not been sent. The State Government explained its position, vide its reply dated 17.11.2004, as to why priority was given to Monnet, and sought the approval of Government of India Under Sections 5 (1) and 11 (5) of MMDR Act. It enclosed therewith a comparative statement of the claims of 58 applicants who had applied for grant of mining leases of iron ore on 3566.54 hectares area in the reserved forest at Mauza Ghatkhuri in West Singhbhum District. 190. It so happened that at that stage the District Mini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... feet contour at the south-western and of the Bhanalata ridge south-east-From 21 furlongs east of 2181 north-east wards upto north-west pochanalu village (22016'850 20') and from here north-north-east upto 3 furlongs east-sough-east of 2567 (Painsira Buru) North From the above end in west north west direction across the hill for five furlongs to reach the north west sloped the hill West From above and in general south-southwest direction along the flank of the hill to reach the south-west boundary at three furlongs north-west 2187. By the order of the Governor of Bihar Sd/- B.N. Sinha Secretary to Government Memo No. 6209/M Patna, the 21st Dec., 1962 30 Agrah Copy forwarded to the Superintendent, Secretariat Press, Gulzarbagh, Patna for publication of the notification in the next issue of the Bihar Gazette. 2. He is also requested to kindly supply two hundred copies of the Gazette notification to this Department. Sd/- B.N. Sinha Secretary to Government Memo No. 6209/M Patna, the 21st Dec., 1962 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had stated that they had not submitted any solid proposals. The Central Government wanted to know what the State Government meant by 'solid proposals'. (iii) There was wide variation between the area recommended and the proposed plant capacity. (iv) The total area of the ten proposals came to 3693.05 hectares whereas the total area reported to be available in Ghatkhuri was 3566.54 hectares. It was also stated that in the case of the proposal of M/s Bihar Sponge Iron Ltd., the total area in Ghatkhuri reserve forest was shown as 4692.46 hectares. 193. It was in this background that the Government of Jharkhand called back nine out of the ten proposals (excluding the one in favour of Bihar Sponge Iron Ltd.), by its letter dated 13.9.2005. The letter specifically stated that the proposals overlapped the areas reserved for the public undertakings and the areas already held by two other companies. This was one of the two letters impugned in the writ petitions to the High Court. This letter reads as follows: Government of Jharkhand Mines and geological department No. Khni (Chaya)-78/03 (Part)-501/M-C Ranchi Dated 13.09.2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds stated in the letter of Government of Jharkhand. It sent a letter accordingly to the Government of Jharkhand on 6.3.2006. This is the other letter which was under challenge in the writ petitions to the High Court. The letter reads as follows: REGISTERED GOVERNMENT of INDIA MINISTRY of MINES No. 5/55/2004-M.IV New Delhi, the 6th March, 2006 To The Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, Deptt. of Mines and Geology Ranchi (Jharkhand) Sub: Request made by State Government to return various proposals for grant of mining lease for iron and manganese ore in Mauza Bokna, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhad. Sir, I am directed to refer to the request made by the State Government vide its letter No. 501/M dated 13.9.2005 on the subject mentioned above and to summarily reject and return (in original) the following nine proposals which had been earlier sent to this Ministry for grant of prior approval Under Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 on the ground that the recommended areas in said the nine proposals either fall in areas or overlap areas which are either reserved for exploi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir Writ Petitions in the High Court and challenged the subsequent notification also. This notification reads as follows: THE JHARKHAND GAZETTE EXTRA ORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY No. 581 8 Kartik 1928 (S) Ranchi, Monday the 30th October, 2006 DEPARTMENT of MINES & GEOLOGY, RANCHI NOTIFICATION The 27th October, 2006 No. 3277 It is hereby notified for the information of the general public that for optimum utilization and exploitation of the mineral resources in the State and for establishment of mineral based industry with value addition thereon, it has been decided by the State Government that the iron ore deposits at Ghatkuri would not be thrown open for grant of prospecting licence, mining lease or otherwise for the private parties. The deposit was at all material times kept reserved vide gazette notification No. A/MM-40510/62-6209/M dated the 21st December, 1962 and No. B/M-6-1019/68-1564/M dated the 28th February, 1969 of the State of Bihar. The mineral reserved in the said area has now been decided to be utilized for exploitation by Public Sector undertaking or Joint Venture Project of the State Government which will usher-in maximum benefit to the Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin the power of the Union Government, to the extent a declaration is made by Parliament in that behalf in public interest, and such a declaration has been made and is to be found in Section 2 of the MMDR Act. This being the position, the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 (Act No. XXX of 1950) (Bihar Act, for short) cannot be pressed into service by the Respondents. (ii) Shri Sundaram contended that the field was already occupied by the MMDR Act when these notifications were issued, since the Parliament had already legislated on the field. Section 17 and 17A of the MMDR Act give special power to the Central Government to undertake the mining operations and effect reservations. Section 18 of the Act casts a duty on the Central Government to take steps for the conservation and systematic development of minerals and for the protection of environment by preventing or controlling any pollution which may be caused by the prospecting or mining operations. These powers were not with the State Government. The reservations in the notifications of 1962 and 1969 will therefore have to be held as outside the powers of the State Government (iii) This will be the position even when re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Constitution. 199. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Monnet raised the following additional submissions. (i) The State Government did not have the power to issue the two notifications in 1962 and 1969 under the rules as they then existed, particularly the notification of 1962, since the Rule 58 of the concerned rules as then existing did not give any such power to the State Government. (ii) Rule 58 has been deleted without any saving clause by the amendment Act No. 36 of 1986. (iii) The two notifications of 1962 and 1969 providing for reservation in favour of the public sector undertakings suffered on account of 'Desuetude', since they were never acted upon. (iv) In view of the proviso Rule 63A, once a recommendation is made, the State Government becomes functus officio, and it has no power to recall the recommendation. (v) The right of hearing of Monnet was affected in as much as the decision of the State Government to reject its application was taken behind its back. It was not provided with any opportunity of being heard under Rule 26 of the M.C. Rules 1960 before refusing to grant the mining lease. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Abhishek Manu Singhvi and L. Nageswara Rao, appearing for Adhunik submitted that the High Court had committed an error in relying upon the above referred amended Rule 59. The 1962 notification was issued when prospecting and mining was not within the jurisdiction of the State Government The judgment of this Court in Air India v. Union of India reported in 1995 (4) SCC 734 (para 4 to 8) was relied upon to submit that subordinate legislation can survive the repeal of a statute only when it is saved. It was further submitted that the impugned notifications were issued without prior approval of the Central Government and were therefore bad in law. 202.(i) Learned senior Counsel Shri G.C. Bharuka, appearing for Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ('Abhijeet' for short) submitted that Central Government had opened up the minerals for private participants. In 1962, the Government had no power to issue the notification in the absence of any legislation conferring any executive power. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar reported in 1990 (4) SCC 557 (para 19), and submitted that the State can act only under a legislation or unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty and make contracts, certainly included the power to reserve the land for exploitation of its minerals by the public sector. 204. It was further submitted by Shri Sinha, that there was no conflict between the right of the State Government to deal with the mines as the owner thereof, and the provisions of the MMDR Act. The MMDR Act does not disturb the ownership of the mines and minerals of the State in the land situated within its territory. The power to issue appropriate notifications concerning the mines and minerals situated within the State is not taken away by any of the provisions of the MMDR Act. In the instant case the Central Government, in its counter affidavit at para 5 (a) and para 10 filed before the High Court, had given deemed/de-jure approval to the reservation upon examination of the 1962 & 1969 notifications. This was apart from the impugned order, dated 6.3.2006, rejecting the proposals of the Appellants on the ground that the recommended areas in the said nine proposals were either reserved for public sector undertakings, or overlapped the areas held by M/s. Rungta Sons Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. General Produce Company. In the counter affidavit filed in this appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nforced. He relied upon paragraph 10 of Amrit Vanaspati Company Ltd. v. State of Punjab reported in 1992 (2) SCC 411, paragraph of 12 M.P. Mathur v. DTC reported in 2006 (13) SCC 706, and paragraph 83 of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka reported in 2010 (13) SCC 1. 209. Shri Sinha submitted that MOU between the Appellants and the State Government could not be treated as a contract under Article 299 (1) of the Constitution of India. It was neither enforceable nor binding. Based on the MOU, the State Government had made a recommendation which was only a proposal. Besides, no one had any legal or vested right for the grant or renewal of a mining lease. In this behalf, he relied upon paragraph 13 of State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s Hind Stone reported in (2) SCC 205, paragraph 4 of Dharambir Singh v. Union of India reported in 1996 (6) SCC 702, paragraph 13 of M.P. Ram Mohan Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2007 (9) SCC 78, paragraphs 19 to 22 and 28 of State of Kerala v. B. Six Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 186, and paragraph 4 of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka reported in 2010 (13) SCC 1. 210. Last but not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , examined by Central Government, and after rejection returned the proposal to the State Government on 06.03.2006. Under the circumstances if the State Government desires to grant the area under mining lease to a person other than a public sector, it is required to firstly de-reserve the area, notify the same under Rule 59 (1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and therefore in present situations the Petitioner has no case and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Submissions on behalf of the intervenors 212. (i) Shri Das Learned Counsel appearing for M/s Rungta Sons pointed out that Rungta had a mining lease in their favour and were entitled to seek the renewal thereof. Therefore, the Appellants could not have been granted any lease, in any way overlapping with the mining area allotted to Rungta Sons. (ii) Learned Senior Counsels Sarvashri Narasinha, Vikas Singh & Krishnan Venugopal have appeared for the interveners to oppose these appeals. Their submissions have been similar to that of Shri Sinha. 213. After the hearing of these appeals was concluded, another SLP arising out of the judgment of Orissa High Court in W.A. No. 6288 of 2006 (Geo Minerals and Marketing (P) Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Sections 3, 3A and 3B except the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 and Sub-section (1) of Section 3A, on the publication of the notification under Sub-section (1), of Section 3 or Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 3A, the following consequences shall ensue and shall be deemed always to have ensued, namely:] (a) 2[xxx] Such estate or tenure including the interests of the proprietor or tenure-holder in any building or part of a building comprised in such estate or tenure and used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure, and his interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, hats, bazars, 3[mela] and ferries and all other sairati interests, as also his interest in all subsoil including any rights in mines and minerals whether discovered or undiscovered, or whether been worked or not, inclusive of such rights of a lessee of mines and minerals, comprised in such estate or tenure (other than the interests of raiyats or under -raiyats) shall, with effect from the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the State free from all incumbrances and such proprietor or tenure-holder shall cease to have any interest in such e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s necessary to understand the extent of this control of the Union Government, and for that we must see the scheme of the Act with respect to the powers of the Central Government and the State Government to deal with the mines and minerals. This was also the approach adopted by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported in 1980 (4) SCC 136 and later by a bench of three Judges in Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in 1991 Supp.(1) SCC 430. (ii) In Ishwari Khetan (supra) the Constitution Bench was concerned with the validity of the provisions of U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 enacted by the State of U.P. It was canvassed that the State's power to legislate in respect of industries under Entry 24 of List II is taken away to the extent of the declaration in that respect made by Parliament under Entry 52 of List I. After examining the relevant provisions, the Constitution Bench held in para 24 as follows: 24. It can, therefore, be said with a measure of confidence that legislative power of the States under Entry 24, List II is eroded only to the extent control is assumed by the Union pursua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat nothing in this Sub-section shall affect any prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement: [Provided further that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to any prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines, [the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research] of the Department of Atomic Energy of the Central Government, the Directorates of Mining and Geology of any State Government (by whatever name called), and the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956: Provided also that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to any mining lease (whether called mining lease, mining concession or by any other name) in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. (1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the association are citizens of India; and (b) in the case of an individual, only if he is a citizen of India. (2) No mining lease shall be granted by the State Government unless it is satisfied that (a) there is evidence to show that the area for which the lease is applied for has been prospected earlier or the existence of mineral contents therein has been established otherwise than by means of prospecting such area; and (b) there is mining plan duly approved by the Central Government, or by the State Government, in respect of such category of mines as may be specified by the Central Government, for the development of mineral deposits in the area concerned. 219. Section 10 of the Act deals with the procedure for obtaining the necessary licences. It makes it very clear the application is to be made to the State Government, and it is the right of the State Government either to grant or refuse to grant the permit, licence or lease. This Section reads as follows: 10. Application for prospecting licences or mining leases (1) An application for [a reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] in respect of any land in whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government will be required. Thus, although the Central Government is given the authority to approve the applications with respect to the specified minerals, that does not take away the ownership and control of the State Government over the mines and minerals within its territory. 221. Senior Counsel Shri Sundaram had contended that Section 17 and 17A of the MMDR Act give special power to the Central Government to undertake the mining operations and effect reservations. Section 18 of the Act casts a duty on the Central Government to protect the environment and to prevent pollution that may be caused by mining operations. These powers were not with the State Government. Therefore, the reservations in the notifications of 1962 and 1969 were outside the powers of the State Government. Thus, Sections 17 and 17(A) of the Act were pressed into service to canvass the reduction in the authority of the State Government. Section 17 (1) gives the power to the Central Government to undertake prospecting and mining operations in certain lands. However, such operations have also to be done only after consultation with the State Government as stated in Sub-section (2) thereof. Besides, Sub-sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny new area which is not already held through a Government Company or Corporation, and where the proposal is to do so. The notification of 27.10.2006 refers to the previous notifications of 1962 and 1969 whereunder the mining areas in the Ghatkuri forest were already reserved, and reiterates the decision of the State Government that the minerals which were already reserved in the Ghatkuri area under the two notifications will continue to be utilised for exploitation by public sector undertakings or joint venture projects of the State Government. Therefore this notification of 27.10.2006 did not require the approval of the Central Government. 223. When it comes to the challenge to the letter dated 13.9.2005, it is seen that the State Government states therein that nine out of the ten proposals overlap the areas meant for public undertakings and two other companies, and therefore the proposals were called back. The power to take such a decision rests in the State Government in view of its ownership of the mines, though there may not be a reference to the source of power. Absence of reference to any particular Section or rule which contains the source of power will not invalidate the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) (ii) Rule 59 was amended first on 9.7.1963 and later in 1980 along with Rule 58. The amended Rule 59 as amended on 9.7.1963 reads as follows: Rule 59. Availability of certain areas forgrant to be notified-In the case of any land which is otherwise available for the grant of a prospecting licence or a mining lease but in respect of which the State Government has refused to grant a prospecting licence or a mining lease on the ground that the land should be reserved for any purpose, the State Government shall, as soon as such land becomes again available for the grant of a prospecting or mining lease, grant the license or lease after following the procedure laid down in Rule 58. (iii) Rule 59 when amended in 1980 reads as follows: 59. Availability of area for regrant to be notified-(1) No area- (a) which was previously held or which is being held under a prospecting licence or a mining lease; or (b) in respect of which an order had been made for the grant of a prospecting licence or mining lease, but the applicant has died before the grant of the licence or the execution of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) of Rule 7D or Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 or Sub-rule (2) of Rule 40, as the case may be; and (ii) the availability of the area for grant is notified in the Official Gazette and specifying a date (being a date not earlier than thirty days from the date of the publication of such notification in the Official Gazette) from which such area shall be available for grant: Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to the renewal of a lease in favour of the original lessee or his legal heirs notwithstanding the fact that the lease has already expired. Provided further that where an area reserved under Rule 58 or Under Section 17A of the Act is proposed to be granted to a Government company, no notification under Clause (ii) shall be required to be issued: Provided also that where an area held under a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence, as the case may be, is granted in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 11, no notification under Clause (ii) shall be required to be issued. (2) The Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax the provisions of Sub-rule (1) in any special case. 227. (i) The notification of 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... originally stood, merely dealt with three contingencies where the prescribed procedure was required to be followed. This cannot mean that when it comes to reservation of mining areas for public undertakings, such power was not there with the State Government prior to the amendment of 1963. The over-view of various Sections of the act done by us clearly shows that the power to grant the mining leases is specifically retained with the State Government even with respect to the major minerals, though with the approval of the Central Government. The power to effect such reservations for public undertakings, or for any purpose flows from the ownership of the mines and minerals which vests with the State Government. The amendment of Rule 59 in 1963 made it clear that the State can reserve land 'for any purpose', and the amendment of Rules 58 and 59 in 1980 clarified that State can reserve it for a public corporation or a Government company. These amendments have been effected only to make explicit what was implicit. These amendments can not be read to nullify the powers which the State Government otherwise had under the statute. In the present matter we are concerned with the chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubject to the law made by the Parliament. There is no conflict with the proposition in the facts of this case. The power of the State flows from its ownership of the mines, and it is not in any way taken away by the law made by the Parliament viz. the MMDR Act or the MC rules. It is therefore not possible to accept the submission of Shri Ranjit Kumar that because a regulatory regime is created under the Act giving certain role to the Central Government, the power to effect reservations is taken away from the State Government. The reference to the judgment of this Court in D.K. Trivedi and Sons (supra) in this behalf was also misconceived. In that matter a bench of two Judges, of this Court, held Section 15 (1) of MMDR Act to be constitutional and valid. The court also held that the rule making power of the State Government, thereunder, did not amount to excessive delegation of legislative power to the executive. In that matter no such submission that the powers of the State Government were restricted only to Section 15 was under consideration 231. Similarly, the reliance on Hukam Chand (supra) was also misconceived in as much as in the present case there is no such issue of exerci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Petition nowhere states as to how Monnet came to know about these internal communications between the state and the central government. The other Petitioners claim to have learnt about the same through a newspaper report, and Adhunik claims to have got the copies thereof through an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 234. The Appellants had relied upon three judgments of the Constitution Benches of this Court in Hingir-Rampur Coal Company, M.A. Tulloch and Company and Baijnath Kadio (supra). In Hingir-Rampur Coal Company (supra), the Constitution Bench was concerned with the question of legality of the cess under the Orissa Mining Ares Development Fund Act, 1952. One of the grounds canvassed was that the said legislation was bad in law for being in conflict with the previous Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, which was also a Central Act. It was contended that the central legislation was referable to Entry No. 54 of the Union List from the Seventh Schedule. It occupied the field and therefore the state legislation which was referable to Entry No. 53 was beyond the competence of the state legislature. The Court found that the areas co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of Entry No. 54 of the Union List. The validity of the state act was canvassed under Entry No. 23 of the State List and was accepted as not hit by the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957. The Court held the Orissa Act and the demand of fee to be valid. What this Court observed in Para 5 is relevant for our purpose.... 5. ...It does not need much argument to realise that to the extent to which the Union Government had taken under "its control" "the Regulation and development of minerals" so much was withdrawn from the ambit of the power of the State Legislature under Entry 23 and legislation of the State which had rested on the existence of power under that entry would to the extent of that "control" be superseded or be rendered ineffective, for here we have a case not of mere repugnancy between the provisions of the two enactments but of a denudation or deprivation of State legislative power by the declaration which Parliament is empowered to make and has made. 236. In Baijnath Kadio (supra), this Court was concerned with the validity of second proviso of Section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1964 for being in conflict with the provisions concerning miner mineral ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in entry 54 of List I in the Seventh Schedule, Parliament specifically declared in Section 2 of the Act that it was expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the Regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent provided in the Act. The State Legislature's power under entry 23 of List II was thus taken away, and it is not disputed before us that Regulation of mines and mineral development had therefore to be in accordance with the Act and the Rules. The mines and the minerals in question (bauxite) were however in the territory of the State of Gujarat and, as was stated in the orders which were passed by the Central Government on the revision applications of the Appellants, the State Government is the "owner of minerals" within its territory, and the minerals "vest" in it. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules to detract from this basic fact. That was why the Central Government stated further in its revisional orders that the State Government had the "inherent right to reserve any particular area for exploitation in the public sector". It is therefore quite clear that, in the absence of any law or contract etc. to the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sub-sections of Section 17 do not cover the entire field of the authority of refusing to grant a prospecting licence or a mining lease to anyone else, and do not deal with the State Government's authority to reserve any area for itself. As has been stated, the authority to order reservation flows from the fact that the State is the owner of the mines and the minerals within its territory, which vest in it.... 242. The judgment referred to Rule 59 of the M.C. Rules also, and held that it clearly contemplates such reservation by the order of the State Government In para 7 this Court held in this behalf as follows: 7...A reading of Rules 58, 59 and 60 makes it quite clear that it is not permissible for any person to apply for a licence or lease in respect of a reserved area until after it becomes available for such grant, and the availability is notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette. Rule 60 provides that an application for the grant of a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of an area for which no such notification has been issued, inter alia, under Rule 59, for making the area available for grant of a licence or a lease, would be premature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants including Aadhunik cannot claim promissory estoppel in the teeth of the notifications issued under the relevant statutory powers. Alternatively, the Appellants are trying to make a case under the doctrine of legitimate expectations. The basis of this doctrine is in reasonableness and fairness. However, it can also not be invoked where the decision of the public authority is founded in a provision of law, and is in consonance with public interest. As recently reiterated by this Court in the context of MMDR Act, in Para 83 of Sandur Manganese (supra) 'it is a well settled principle that equity stands excluded when a matter if governed by statute'. We cannot entertain the submission of unjustified discrimination in favour of Bihar Sponge and Iron Ltd. as well for the reason that it was not pressed before the High Court nor was any material placed before this Court to point out as to how the grant in its favour was unjustified. Epilogue 247. Before we conclude, we may refer to the judgment of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s Hind Stone reported in: AIR 1981 SC 711 wherein the approach towards this statute came up for consideration. In that matter this Court was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Statute, cannot be said to involve any change of policy. The policy of the Act remains the same and it is, as we said, the conservation and the prudent and discriminating exploitation of minerals, with a view to secure maximum benefit to the community. Exploitation of minerals by the private and/or the public sector is contemplated. If in the pursuit of the avowed policy of the Act, it is thought exploitation by the public sector is best and wisest in the case of a particular mineral and, in consequence the authority competent to make the subordinate legislation makes a rule banning private exploitation of such mineral, which was hitherto permitted we are unable to see any change of policy merely because what was previously permitted is no longer permitted. Last but not least, in para 13 this Court observed as follows: 13...No one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions.... 250. Mines and minerals are a part of the wealth of a nation. They constitute the material resources of the community. Article 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
