# CASE DETAILS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** 2023 INSC 824
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-09-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8238 of 2022
- **Bench:** Sanjiv Khanna, Aravind Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/case-details-state-of-west-bengal-and-another-v-m-s-chiranjilal-mineral-36459
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Issue for consideration: Intra-court appeal preferred by the State of
West Bengal before the High Court was dismissed with the direction to the
Appellant No. 2 - Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, Commerce
and Enterprises, West Bengal or any authorised offi cer to execute a mining
lease in favour of the Respondent No. 2, sole proprietor of Respondent No.
1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih.
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - s.
10-A - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment
Act, 2015 - Concession Rules, 2016 - r.61 and Proviso - Directions issued
to the government of West Bengal to execute a mining lease in favour
of respondent no.1-M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih:
Held: It is the stand of the appellants - State of West Bengal, that
they are owners of 20.87 acres of the land in question and to this extent,
they have no diffi culty in executing the mining lease - This being the stated
stand, which has also been affi rmed, there should be no diffi culty in granting
of mining lease for the said area to the Respondent No. 1-M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih - So, it is directed that the government of
West Bengal will execute a mining lease for 20.87 acres of land in favour
of the Respondent No. 1 - The claim of the Respondent No. 1 towards the
balance area for the grant of mining lease will be treated as rejected and
dismissed. [Paras 20 and 22]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 -
sub-section (1) to Section 10-A Mines and Minerals (Development and
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 - Object and purpose of amendment
- Application of exceptions or the saving clauses in three kinds of
situations:
Held: The object and purpose of the Amendment Act, 2015 is to
ensure that allocation of mineral resources is done through auctioning
- This is the reason why sub-section (1) to Section 10-A of the MMDR
Act, 1957 mandates that all applications received prior to 12.01.2015
shall become ineligible - The exceptions or the saving clause applies to
three kinds of situations specifi ed in sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of the
MMDR Act, 1957 - The fi rst category is where an application has been
received u/s. 11-A of the MMDR Act,1957 - The second category is where
a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence has been granted the
permit holder or the licensee has the right to obtain a prospecting licence
followed by a mining lease and the State Government is satisfi ed that the
permit holder or the licensee has complied with the requirements specifi ed
in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of
the MMDR Act, 1957 - The reason for protecting this class of cases is on
account of the fact that they had altered their position by spending money
on reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations - Accordingly, the
principle of legitimate expectation is applied - The third category is where
the Central Government had already communicated their previous approval
or the State Government had issue Letter of Intent for grant of mining lease
before coming into force of the Amendment Act 2015 - The raison dêtre,
it is observed therein, is that certain rights had accrued to these applicants
inasmuch as all necessary procedures and formalities had been complied
with and only formal lease remains to be executed. [Para 14]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 -
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,
2015 - A Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was issued by the Deputy
Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal for
Dolomite mining in favour of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih in respect of 76 acres of land, subject
to certain conditions - Whether approval of the Central Government
required or not:
279
Held: Though in the present case, post notifi cation No. S.O. 423

## Text

_Characters 0–39,972 of 72,076. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39972 for what follows._

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 277 : 2023 INSC 824
277
CASE DETAILS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER
v.
M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH
AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 8238 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
[SANJIV KHANNA AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Intra-court appeal preferred by the State of
West Bengal before the High Court was dismissed with the direction to the
Appellant No. 2 - Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, Commerce
and Enterprises, West Bengal or any authorised offi cer to execute a mining
lease in favour of the Respondent No. 2, sole proprietor of Respondent No.
1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih.
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - s.
10-A - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment
Act, 2015 - Concession Rules, 2016 - r.61 and Proviso - Directions issued
to the government of West Bengal to execute a mining lease in favour
of respondent no.1-M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih:
Held: It is the stand of the appellants - State of West Bengal, that
they are owners of 20.87 acres of the land in question and to this extent,
they have no diffi culty in executing the mining lease - This being the stated
stand, which has also been affi rmed, there should be no diffi culty in granting
of mining lease for the said area to the Respondent No. 1-M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih - So, it is directed that the government of
West Bengal will execute a mining lease for 20.87 acres of land in favour
of the Respondent No. 1 - The claim of the Respondent No. 1 towards the
balance area for the grant of mining lease will be treated as rejected and
dismissed. [Paras 20 and 22]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 -
sub-section (1) to Section 10-A Mines and Minerals (Development and
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 - Object and purpose of amendment
- Application of exceptions or the saving clauses in three kinds of
situations:
Held: The object and purpose of the Amendment Act, 2015 is to
ensure that allocation of mineral resources is done through auctioning
- This is the reason why sub-section (1) to Section 10-A of the MMDR
Act, 1957 mandates that all applications received prior to 12.01.2015
shall become ineligible - The exceptions or the saving clause applies to
three kinds of situations specifi ed in sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of the
MMDR Act, 1957 - The fi rst category is where an application has been
received u/s. 11-A of the MMDR Act,1957 - The second category is where
a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence has been granted the
permit holder or the licensee has the right to obtain a prospecting licence
followed by a mining lease and the State Government is satisfi ed that the
permit holder or the licensee has complied with the requirements specifi ed
in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of
the MMDR Act, 1957 - The reason for protecting this class of cases is on
account of the fact that they had altered their position by spending money
on reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations - Accordingly, the
principle of legitimate expectation is applied - The third category is where
the Central Government had already communicated their previous approval
or the State Government had issue Letter of Intent for grant of mining lease
before coming into force of the Amendment Act 2015 - The raison dêtre,
it is observed therein, is that certain rights had accrued to these applicants
inasmuch as all necessary procedures and formalities had been complied
with and only formal lease remains to be executed. [Para 14]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 -
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,
2015 - A Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was issued by the Deputy
Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal for
Dolomite mining in favour of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih in respect of 76 acres of land, subject
to certain conditions - Whether approval of the Central Government
required or not:
279
Held: Though in the present case, post notifi cation No. S.O. 423(E)
dated 10.02.2015, Dolomite was notifi ed as a minor mineral and hence,
the approval of the Central Government was not required for the reason
that the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was hedged with pre-conditions,
including the requirement to submit consent letters of the owners of the land
in question (Raiyats) before the execution of the lease deed, or there was to
be a stipulation that a condition to this eff ect would be incorporated in the
draft lease - Therefore, the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 is provisional,
and is subject to fulfi lment of the conditions therein. [Para 16]
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 - sub-section (10) to section
2 and sub-section (2A) to section 4 - Raiyat Land - Meaning - Rights
of Raiyat in respect of land:
Held: Raiyat land is to be used for cultivation, etc., and not for mining
- Once the mining activity is undertaken, the Raiyats will not be able to
use the land - In terms of sub-section (10) to Section 2 of the WBLR Act,
1955, a Raiyat means a person or an institution holding land for any purpose
whatsoever - However, the rights of Raiyat in respect of the land in terms
of sub-section (2A) to Section 4 of the WBLR Act, 1955 does not permit
any other person to quarry sand from his holding, dig or use, or permit
any person to dig or use, earth or clay of his holding for the manufacture
of bricks or tiles except with previous permission in writing of the State
Government - In case of breach of the condition, the prescribed authority
may, after giving notice and opportunity to a Raiyat to show cause, can levy
a monetary penalty. [Para 17]
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 - s. 4B - Preservation of
character of land:
Held: Section 4-B of the WBLR Act, 1955 stipulates that every Raiyat
holding any land shall maintain and preserve such land in a manner that
the area is not diminished or its character is not changed or the land is not
converted for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was settled
or previously held except with the previous permission of the Collector in
writing. [Para 17]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
- West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 - s. 14 Y - A Grant Order
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL)
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
dated 16.07.2015 was issued by the Deputy Secretary, Commerce and
Industries Department, West Bengal for Dolomite mining in favour of
Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih in
respect of 76 acres of land, subject to certain conditions, including the
requirement to submit consent letters of owners of the land in question
(Raiyats) - Another stipulation mentioned therein was the need for
permission u/s. 14-Y of the WBLR Act, 1955 for holding the required
land and furnishing of Conversion Certifi cate for plots of land from
the appropriate authority in terms of s.4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955:
Held: The controversy relating to Section 4-C of the WBLR Act,
1955, cannot simply be decided on the basis of Memo No. V/RTI/775/15
dated 06.03.2017 issued by the Deputy District Land and Land Reforms
Offi cer, Purulia, that as per the revenue records the land was recorded
as 'Dungri' - The reason is that Raiyat land is not for mining - Thus, a
contradiction arises, as the grant of Raiyat land and the classifi cation of
the same land as 'Dungri' is contradictory - Further, whether the consent
letter of the owners of the land in question (Raiyats) obtained by the
Respondent No. 1still hold good, would be relevant as there could be
a change of hands on account of transfer, inheritance, etc - Connected
with this are the legal issues - First, whether the Respondent No. 1 had
altered its position post the issue of the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015,
but before enforcement of the Concession Rules, 2016, to get the benefi t
of Rule 61 of the Concessions Rules, 2016? - It is necessary to ascertain
the facts and then alone one can adjudicate and decide the question
whether the Respondent No. 1 is entitled to the benefi t of the proviso
to Rule 61 of the Concession Rules, 2016 - This has not been verifi ed
and ascertained - An issue would arise on whether the application
fi led by the Respondent No. 1 way back in 1998 would still hold good
as at the time, when the application was fi led, approval of the Central
Government was required - Another diffi culty is that WBMDTCL has
not been impleaded as a party, though it was always contesting the claim
made by the Respondent No. 1 - However, these issues are not being
examined in the light of the directions issued - Further, that the remand
order cannot be passed at this distinct point of time. [Paras 18 and 19]
281
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Bhushan Power and Steel Limited v. S.L. Seal, Additional Secretary
(Steel and Mines), State of Odisha and Others, (2017) 2 SCC 125:[2016] 11
SCR 149; Bhushan Power and Steel Limited and Others v. State of Orissa
and Another, (2012) 4 SCC 246:[2012] 5 SCR 16; Sandur Manganese
and Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 13 SCC 1:[2010] 11 SCR
240; Bhushan Power and Steel Limited v. Rajesh Verma, (2014) 5 SCC
551:[2014] 5 SCR 493; Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited v. Board of
Trustees of Kandla Port Trust and Others, (2015) 13 SCC 233:[2014] 5
SCR 411; Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited v. Maha Laxmi
Mingrate Marketing Service Private Limited and Others, (1996) 10 SCC
405:[1996] 6 Suppl. SCR 368; Thressiamma Jacob and Others v. Geologist,
Department of Mining and Geology and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 725:[2013]
7 SCR 863 - referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAL NO.8238
OF 2022
[From the Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2018 of the High Court at
Calcutta in FMA No.1458 of 2017]
Appearances:
Anand Grover, Sr. Adv., Ms. Mantika Haryani, Shreyas Awasthi, Ms.
Astha Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Respondent in Person.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
This appeal, by way of special leave, takes exception to the judgment
of the division bench of the High Court of Calcutta, whereby the intra-court
appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal and Others in F.M.A. No. 1458
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL)
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
of 2017 with CAN No. 6596 of 2017 has been dismissed with the direction to
the Appellant No. 2 - Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, Commerce
and Enterprises, West Bengal or any authorised offi cer to execute a mining
lease in favour of the Respondent No. 2 - Dinesh Agarwal, sole proprietor
of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih.
2. The facts are rather chequered, albeit are required to be noticed
in detail. On 07.08.1985, West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading
Corporation Limited1 had fi led an application for grant of long term mining
lease for Dolomite, Limestone and Quartzite at the plots in Mouza -
Khariduara, Kumari and Boch. An application was also fi led by WBMDTCL
for grant of long term mining lease for Iron Ore, Manganese and Fireclay
at the plots in Mouza - Khariduara, Kumari, Boch and Kangametya. Grant
Order dated 07.04.1986 was issued in favour of WBMDTCL by the Assistant
Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, Mines Branch, West
Bengal.
2.1 On 06.03.1998, Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih. had fi led an application before the Mining Offi cerin-charge, Purulia Zone, Directorate of Mines and Minerals, West Bengal,
for the grant of a mining lease for the purpose of extracting Dolomite at
Mouza - Khariduara, Kumari and Boch, in 76 acres of land.
2.2 The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih fi led Writ Petition No. 7808 (W) of 2001 before the High Court
of Calcutta, seeking disposal of their application for grant of mining lease.
The High Court vide order dated 13.06.2001, directed the State authorities to
dispose of the application of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih at an early date and in accordance with law.
2.3. The Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West
Bengal, vide order dated 13.03.2003, rejected the application of Respondent
No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, on the ground of
non-availability of land in view of the previous application of WBMDTCL.
By another order dated 26.03.2003, the Joint Secretary, Commerce and
Industries Department, West Bengal reiterated that the mining application
1
 For Short,' WBMDTCL'.
283
of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih
overlaps with the area applied for in the previous application by WBMDTCL.
The application of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih was accordingly rejected.
2.4 Aggrieved, the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih had fi led Writ Petition No. 7505 (W) of 2003 in the
High Court of Calcutta challenging the orders passed by the Joint Secretary,
Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal, dated 13.03.2003 and
26.03.2003. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the Joint Secretary,
Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal, reviewed the aforesaid
orders and passed a fresh order dated 13.10.2006 for apportionment of land
between WBMDTCL and the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih. This order states that two hearings were held on
24.05.2006 and 19.06.2006 to review the matter, and thereupon at the hearing
dated 19.06.2006, in the presence of the representatives of WBMDTCL and
the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih,
it was agreed that Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih will be granted the whole of the mining area of 76 acres, and
the lease for the rest of the area will be granted in favour of WBMDTCL.
No other reason has been stated and indicated in the said order. Thus, the
orders dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003 rejecting the application of the
Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih were
recalled. Consequently, the Letter of Intent dated 26.10.2006 was issued in
favour of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih for an area of 76 acres of land subject to fulfi lling/submission of
various documents, including approval of the Mining Plan duly approved
by the Chief Mining Offi cer, Asansol and Clearance Certifi cate from the
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.
2.5 However, the order dated 13.10.2006 was cancelled or revoked
vide order dated 03.12.2010 by the Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries
Department, Mines Branch, West Bengal, inter alia, recording that this
order was passed without ascertaining the exact position of the land and
in ignorance of the fact that the rejection orders dated 13.03.2003 and
26.03.2003 had already been challenged before the High Court in Writ
Petition No. 7505 (W) of 2003. The authorities had not ascertained the status
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL)
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
of the case. The order of cancellation or revocation dated 03.12.2010 was
not challenged by the respondents.
2.6. This order dated 03.12.2010 was also not brought to the notice
of the High Court, when the Writ Petition No. 7505 (W) of 2003 was
disposed of ex-parte vide order dated 25.03.2014 by relying upon the
supplementary affi davit fi led by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, which had referred to the recalled order
dated 13.10.2006. This order of the High Court states that a decision as to
whether a lease or licence to be granted in favour of the Respondent No.
1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih shall be taken within
a period of eight weeks and Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih would be accordingly informed. It was made clear
that the decision as to the grant will be on the basis of the law and the rules
applicable at the time of consideration.
2.7. By the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Joint Secretary,
Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal, the application
fi led by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih was rejected inter alia relying upon the earlier application fi led
by WBMDTCL. Signifi cantly, this order mentions that the two rejection
orders dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003 were recalled by the Joint Secretary
vide his order dated 13.10.2006. This order also refers to the factum that the
Grant Order dated 07.04.1986 to WBMDTCL for Iron Ore, Manganese and
Fireclay in the plots in question had been revoked and the application for
Long-Term Mining Lease fi led by WBMDTCL for Dolomite and Limestone
was rejected by a common order dated 24.09.2009. The order dated
24.09.2009 has not been placed on record, though it is necessary to ascertain
and know the reasons for cancellation and rejection in favour of WBMDTCL.
WBMDTCL had applied earlier in point of time, and is a government of
West Bengal undertaking. The order dated 09.07.2014 does indicate that the
cancellation and rejection against WBMDTCL had something to do with
the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih,
and possibly the order dated 13.10.2006 in favour of the Respondent No.
1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih. This is refl ected from
the reason given in the order dated 09.07.2014, which states that since the
recall order dated 13.10.2006 was cancelled or revoked vide order dated
285
03.12.2010, the rejection orders dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003 were still
valid and the application for mining lease dated 07.08.1985 for Dolomite
and Limestone by WBMDTCL still subsists. Thereupon, reference in the
order dated 09.07.2014 is made to sub-section (2) to Section 112 of the Mines
2
11. Preferential right of certain persons . - (1) Where a reconnaissance permit
or prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land, the permit holder or the
licensee shall have a preferential right for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining lease,
as the case may be, in respect of that land over any other person:
Provided that the State Government is satisfi ed that the permit holder or the licensee, as the
case may be, -
(a) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations, as the case may be,
to establish mineral resources in such land;
(b) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the reconnaissance permit
or the prospecting licence;
(c) has not become ineligible under the provision of this Act; and
(d) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may
be, within three months after the expiry of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence, as
the case may be, or within such further period as may be extended by the said Government.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1),where the State Government has not
notifi ed in the Offi cial Gazette the area for grant of reconnaissance permit or prospecting
licence or mining lease, as the case may be, and two or more persons have applied for a
reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of any land in such
area, the applicant whose application was received earlier, shall have a preferential right to
be considered for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as
the case may be, over the applicant whose application was received later:
Provided that where an area is available for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting
licence or mining lease, as the case may be, and the State Government has invited
applications by notifi cation in the Offi cial Gazette for grant of such permit, licence or
lease, all the applications received during the period specifi ed in such notifi cation and the
applications which had been received prior to the publication of such notifi cation 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 subsection.
Provided further that where any such applications are received on the same day, the State
Government, after taking into consideration the matters specifi ed 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 fi t.
(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 fi nancial resources of the applicant;
(c) the nature and quality of the technical staff employed or to be employed by the applicant;
 (d) the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry
based on the minerals;
(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL)
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]
286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 19573, which states that
in cases where the State Government has not notifi ed in the Offi cial Gazette
an area for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence for mining
lease, and two or more persons had applied for the permit, licence or mining
lease, the person whose application received earlier in point of time shall
have preferential right for grant of permit, licence or lease over the person
whose application was received later. The order states that WBMDTCL is
very much interested in mining Dolomite and Limestone in the area and has
confi rmed the said fact in writing vide letter dated 05.06.2014.
2.8. The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih challenged the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Joint
Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal in Writ
Petition No. 21358 (W) of 2014 before the High Court of Calcutta. This
petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.09.2014 observing that the
Joint Secretary, who had passed the order dated 09.07.2014 had failed to
exercise jurisdiction vested in him as the applications fi led by WBMDTCL
had been rejected vide common order dated 24.09.2009 and were therefore
not pending. Direction was issued by the High Court to grant a long term
lease in respect of 76 acres of land to the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih by observing that the respondent had a
Rayati status and that the remaining land can be given to WBMDTCL. It may
be relevant to note here that this order records that the fi les relating to the
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section(1), where the State Government notifi es in the
Offi cial Gazette an area for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining
lease, as the case may be, all the applications received during the period as specifi ed in such
notifi cation, which shall not be less than thirty days, shall be considered simultaneously
as if all such applications have been received on the same day and the State Government,
after taking into consideration the matters specifi ed 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 fi t.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), but subject to the provisions of
sub-section (1), the State Government may, for any special reasons to be recorded, grant
a reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or a mining lease, as the case may be, to
an applicant whose application was received later in preference to an applicant whose
application was received earlier:
Provided that in respect of minerals specifi ed in the First Schedule, prior approval of the
Central Government shall be obtained before passing any order under this sub-section.
3
 For short, 'MMDR Act, 1957'
287
application of WBMDTCL were untraceable. WBMDTCL was not made a
party to the said writ petition. Notably, the application fi led by WBMDTCL,
being earlier in point of time in terms of the applicable rules was to be given
preference, whereas the application fi led by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih was rejected vide orders dated
13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003. However, the rejection orders were recalled vide
order dated 13.10.2006 and the Letter of Intent dated 26.10.2006 was issued
in favour of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih. Subsequently, the Grant Order dated 13.10.2006 in favour of
the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih
was cancelled and recalled vide order dated 13.12.2010. This order dated
13.12.2010 was never challenged and has attained fi nality. It is during the
period between the order dated 13.10.2006 and the order dated 13.12.2010
that the request/application of WBMDTCL was rejected and the mining
lease cancelled vide order dated 24.09.2009.
2.9. On 10.02.2015, vide notifi cation No. S.O. 423 (E), Dolomite
was notifi ed as a minor mineral, and accordingly henceforth, fell under the
legislative and administrative jurisdiction of the State Government.
2.10. A Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was issued by the Deputy
Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal for Dolomite
mining in favour of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih in respect of 76 acres of land, subject to certain conditions,
including the requirement to submit consent letters of owners of the land
in question (Raiyats) before the execution of the lease deed, or a condition
to this eff ect would be incorporated in the draft lease. Another stipulation
mentioned therein is the need for permission under Section 14-Y4 of the West
4
 14-Y. Limitation on future acquisition of land by a raiyat.-If at any time, after
the commencement of the provisions of this Chapter, the total area of land owned by
a raiyat exceeds the ceiling area applicable to him under Section 14-M, on account of
transfer, inheritance or otherwise, the area of land which is in excess of the ceiling area
shall vest in the State and all the provisions of this Chapter relating to ceiling area shall
apply to such land:
Provided that a person intending to establish a tea garden, mill, factory or workshop,
livestock breeding farm, poultry farm, or dairy, or township in accordance with the
provisions of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979,
may, with the previous permission, in writing, of the State Government and on such terms
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL)
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
Bengal Land Reforms Act, 19555 for holding the required land and furnishing
of Conversion Certifi cate for plots of land from the appropriate authority in
terms of Section 4-C6 of the WBLR Act, 1955. It is also stipulated that the
Grant Order and the subsequent execution of the lease deed are subject to
the No Objection Certifi cate to be obtained from the Central Government
since Dolomite was a major mineral at the time of the order dated 10.09.2014
passed by the High Court.
2.11. Aggrieved by the conditions and the requirements stipulated in
the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015, the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih fi led two Contempt Petitions in W.P.
and conditions and in such manner as the State Government may by rules prescribe, acquire
and hold land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him under Section 14-M:
Provided further that if such person, having been permitted by the State Government,
does not utilise within two years of the date of such permission such land for the purpose
for which he has been so permitted by the State Government to acquire and hold it, then, all
the provisions of this Chapter relating to ceiling area shall apply to the area of land which
is held in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him under Section 14-M.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, "person" includes an individual,
a fi rm, a company, an institution, or an association or body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not.
5
 For short, 'WBLR Act, 1955'.'
6
 4-C. Permission for change of area, character or use of land.-(1) A raiyat holding
any land may apply to the Collector for change of area or character of such land or for
conversion of the same for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was settled or
was being previously used or for alteration in the mode of use of such land.
(2) On receipt of such application, the Collector may, after making such inquiry
as may be prescribed and after giving the applicant or the persons interested in such land
or aff ected in any way an opportunity of being heard, by order in writing either reject the
application or direct such change, conversion or alteration, as the case may be, on such
terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
(3) Every order under sub-section (2) directing change, conversion or alteration shall
specify the date from which such change, conversion or alteration shall take eff ect.
(4) A copy of the order passed by the Collector directing change, conversion or
alteration, if any, under sub-section (2), or in an appeal therefrom shall he forwarded to
the Revenue Offi cer referred to in Section 50 or Section 51, as the case may be, and such
Revenue Offi cer shall incorporate in the record-of-rights changes eff ected by such order
and revise the record-of-rights in accordance with such order.
(5) If the Collector is satisfi ed that any land is being convened for any purpose other
than the purpose for which it was settled or was being previously held, or attempts are being
made to eff ect alteration in the mode of use of such land or change of the area or character
of such land, he may, by order, restrain the raiyat from such Act.
289
21358 (W) of 2014. These contempt petitions were disposed of, inter alia,
observing that the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih was required to fulfi l the conditions, including furnishing of the
Conversion Certifi cate under Section 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955 and No
Objection Certifi cate from the Government of India. The court, therefore,
found that there was no wilful, or contumacious violation of the order dated
10.09.2014. However, liberty was granted to the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih to question the Grant Order
dated 16.07.2015.
2.12. The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih thereupon preferred Writ Petition No. 20309 (W) of 2016 before
the High Court of Calcutta. However, WBMDTCL was not a party to this
writ petition. In the meanwhile, a clarifi cation was sought by the Deputy
Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal and vide
clarifi cation dated 26.08.2016 issued by the Government of India, Ministry
of Mines, it was clarifi ed that even prior to 10.02.2015, Dolomite was a
Non-Scheduled major mineral, for which prior approval of the Central
Government was not required under sub-section (1) to Section 5 of the
MMDR Act, 1957.
2.13.This Writ Petition No. 20309 (W) of 2016 vide judgment and
order dated 12.04.2017 has been allowed inter alia observing that Dolomite
had become a minor mineral with eff ect from 10.02.2015 and hence prior
approval of the Central Government is not required under Section 5(1) of
the MMDR Act, 1957. On the question of requirements under Section 14-Y
and 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955, it is observed that the land in question is
recorded as 'Dungri' as per information provided by the Deputy District
Land and Land Reforms Offi cer, Purulia vide Memo No. V/RTI/775/15
dated 06.03.2017 and that the land classifi ed as 'Dungri' is only used for
the purpose of mining lease and thus, there is no need for a conversion
certifi cate under Section 4-C of the WBLR, Act, 1955. The clarifi cation dated
07.04.2016 was issued by the Additional District Magistrate and District
Land and Land Reforms Offi cer, Purulia, stating that the Respondent No.
1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih had procured a No
Objection Certifi cate in respect of the major portion of Raiyati land from
diff erent owners and that the State Government itself was the owner of
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL)
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
20.87 acres of land, thus Section 14-Y of the WBLR Act, 1955 would not be
applicable as the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih has not acquired land in excess ceiling limit prescribed under
Section 14-M of the WBLR Act, 1955.
2.14. This judgment was challenged by the State of West Bengal in
an intra-court appeal being F.M.A. No. 1458 of 2017 with CAN No. 6596
of 2017 which has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated
04.10.2018. Agreeing with the fi ndings recorded by the Single Judge,
the division bench has held that the provisions of the West Bengal Minor
Minerals Concession Rules, 20167 will not be applicable as the Respondent
No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih had made the
application in March 1998, and more so as the Joint Secretary, Government
of West Bengal had passed the order dated 13.10.2006 to grant mining
lease. The High Court's direction given in Writ Petition No. 21358 (W) of
2014 vide judgment dated 10.09.2014 are prior to the enforcement of the
Concession Rules, 2016.
3. We have heard the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State
of West Bengal and the Respondent No. 2 - Dinesh Agarwal, who has
appeared in-person. They have also submitted their written submissions.
4. We begin our discussion by first referring to Rule 61 of the
Concession Rules, 2016, which reads as under:
"61.Decleration of ineligibility of the pending minor mineral
applications for mining lease including the applications of
reclassifi ed major minerals.- All applications for mining lease of
minor minerals including the reclassifi ed minor minerals vide SO No423 (E) dated 12th February,2015 received prior to the giving-eff ect
to this rules irrespective of its duration of pendency shall become
ineligible.
Provided that if the applicant has been issued a Grant Order or Letter
of Intent (LoI) or any other Government Order requiring the alteration
of applicant's position then his mining lease application may be
considered after due compliance of the all the necessary conditions"
7
 For short, 'Concession Rules, 2016'.
291
5. An almost corresponding amendment was made to the MMDR Act,
1957 by incorporating Section 10-A vide Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Amendment Act, 20158, which reads as under:
10-A. Rights of existing concession holders and applicants.- (1)
All applications received prior to the date of commencement of the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,
2015, shall become ineligible.
(2) Without prejudice to sub-section (1), the following shall remain
eligible on and from the date of commencement of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015-
(a) applications received under Section 11-A of this Act;
(b) where before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 a reconnaissance
permit or prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land
for any mineral, the permit holder or the licensee shall have a right
for obtaining a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease, or a
mining lease, as the case may be, in respect of that mineral in that
land, if the State Government is satisfi ed that the permit holder or the
licensee, as the case may be,-
(i) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations,
as the case may be, to establish the existence of mineral contents in
such land in accordance with such parameters as may be prescribed
by the Central Government;
(ii) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the
reconnaissance permit or the prospecting licence;
(iii) has not become ineligible under the provisions of this Act; and
(iv) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining
lease, as the case may be, within a period of three months after the
expiry of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence, as the case
may be, or within such further period not exceeding six months as
may be extended by the State Government;
8
 For short, 'Amendment Act, 2015'.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL)
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
(c) where the Central Government has communicated previous
approval as required under sub-section (1) of Section 5 for grant of
a mining lease, or if a letter of intent (by whatever name called) has
been issued by the State Government to grant a mining lease, before
the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, the mining lease shall be granted
subject to fulfi lment of the conditions of the previous approval or
of the letter of intent within a period of two years from the date of
commencement of the said Act:
Provided that in respect of any mineral specifi ed in the First Schedule,
no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted under clause
(b) of this sub-section except with the previous approval of the Central
Government.
6. Rule 61 of the Concession Rules, 2016 states that all applications
for mining lease of minor minerals including reclassifi ed minor minerals
vide S.O. No. 423 (E) dated 12.02.2015 received prior to giving eff ect
to the Concession Rules, 20169, irrespective of its duration of pendency
shall become ineligible. In other words, these applications are not to be
considered. The proviso makes an exception and states that if an applicant,
who had made an application prior to 29.07.2016, had been issued a Grant
Order or a Letter of Intent, or any other order requiring alteration of the
applicant's position, his application for mining lease may be considered
after due compliance of all necessary conditions. The question is whether
the respondents' case is covered by the exception in terms of the proviso
to Rule 61 of the Concession Rules,2016. We have already referred to the
reasoning given by the division bench of the High Court dealing with the
Concession Rules, 2016, and would like to quote the fi ndings which hold
that the proviso would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
These observations read:
"25. ....Neither such recent policy nor can the provisions of the West
Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 can apply to the
application of the writ petitioners made in March, 1998 and more so
as the order of the Joint Secretary to grant lease is dated 13th October,
9
 The Concession Rules, 2016 came into eff ect on 29.07.2016
293
2006 and that of this Court directing grant of long term lease is dated
10th September, 2014 are prior to such policy and prior to the said
Rules came into operation. It further appears that necessary mining
plan taking into account the environmental aspect has been submitted
by the writ petitioners and the appellant/State has raised no grievance
in respect thereof."
7.