# COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2016] 2 S.C.R. 243
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016-04-04
- **Bench:** Jagdish Singh Khehar, C. Nagappan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/common-cause-v-union-of-india-and-others-30995
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
A
B
- s. 8, 4A(4) - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Amendment Act, 2015 - s. 8A - Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - . C
rr. 24A, 24A(6)(as amended) - Suspension of mining operations to
mining leaseholders since not in possession of clearances/approvals/
consent, required for carrying on the mining operations by order
of this Court - However, permitted to modify the said order as and .
when clearances/approvals/consent were obtained - Applications
by the mining companies seeking revocation of the suspension order D
- Whether leaseholders have subsisting right to carry on mining
operation - Held: Unless an order is passed by the State Government
declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would
be deemed to be subsisting, upto the date of expiry of the lease
period provided by the lease document - Vital vested rights in a
E
leaseholder, cannot be curtailed without affording him an
opportunity - In situations wherein an application has been filed
by a leaseholder, mining operations were not carried out for a
continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed
to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on .
such application - Where no order has been passed, the lease shall F
be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period,
for a further period of two years - Leaseholder would have a
subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still
in currency on 12.1.2015 - Leaseholder whose original lease has
since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original
G
lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency
on 12.1.2015 - Leaseholder who had not moved an application for
renewal of a mining lease at least twelve months before the existing
lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended
MMDR Act and the Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting
leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period - Leaseholder who H
243
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 2 S.C.R.
A
has moved an application for renewal (original/first or subsequent
renewal), at least twelve months before the existing /ease was due
to expire, and if such an application has been rejected, it would not
be a valid/subsisting leaseholder and in case application is moved
for first renewal and the same has not been rejected, it will be
B
considered as valid/subsisting leaseholder having right to carry on
mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18. 7.2014, i.e.,
up to 17. 7.2016 - Leaseholder who had moved a second (third or
subsequent) renewal application uls. 8(3) of the unamended MMDR
Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to
expire, and whose application is rejected (though not entitled to
C any benefit under the unamended s.8A and the amended r. 24A(6)
up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of s. 8A(5) and (6) of
the amended MMDR Act.
D
Common Cause v. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC
155:2014 (7) SCR 561 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2014 (7) SCR 561
referred to.
Paral
CIVIL ORIGJNAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
114 of2014
E
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JNDIA]
WITH
W. P. (C) NO. 194 OF 2014
A.D.N. Rao, Ms. Aparajita Singh, Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,
F
Amicus Curiaes.
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Maninder Singh, ASGs, P.Chidambararn, Dr.
A. M. Singhvi, Gopal Jain,Ashok K. Parija, DushyantA. Dave, Nidhesh
Gupta, Krishnan Venugopal,Arvind P. Datar, Gopal Subrarnanium, Ashok
Kumar Panda, A.K.Ganguly, Rakesh Dwivedi, Manas Ranjan
G
Mahapatra, Sr. Advs. Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Ms.Neha
Rathi, Nischal Kumar Neeraj, Samar Singh Kachwaha, Ms.Meenakshi
Grover, Neeraj Kumar Shanna, Vibhu Shankar Mishra, Sudhir Aggarwal,
Sunil Kumar Jain, Pawan Shree.Agrawal, Kaushik Choudhary, Jagmohan
Sharma, K.P.S. Chani, Ajay Bhargava, Ms.Vanita Bhargava, Jeevn
B.Panda, Kubrat Dev, Raj at Jariwal, Akash Bajaj, Sanjeev K. Kap

## Text

_Characters 0–39,991 of 69,765. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39991 for what follows._

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 243
COMMON CAUSE
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (C) No. 114 OF 2014)
APRIL 04, 2016
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
A
B
- s. 8, 4A(4) - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Amendment Act, 2015 - s. 8A - Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - . C
rr. 24A, 24A(6)(as amended) - Suspension of mining operations to
mining leaseholders since not in possession of clearances/approvals/
consent, required for carrying on the mining operations by order
of this Court - However, permitted to modify the said order as and .
when clearances/approvals/consent were obtained - Applications
by the mining companies seeking revocation of the suspension order D
- Whether leaseholders have subsisting right to carry on mining
operation - Held: Unless an order is passed by the State Government
declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would
be deemed to be subsisting, upto the date of expiry of the lease
period provided by the lease document - Vital vested rights in a
E
leaseholder, cannot be curtailed without affording him an
opportunity - In situations wherein an application has been filed
by a leaseholder, mining operations were not carried out for a
continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed
to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on .
such application - Where no order has been passed, the lease shall F
be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period,
for a further period of two years - Leaseholder would have a
subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still
in currency on 12.1.2015 - Leaseholder whose original lease has
since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original
G
lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency
on 12.1.2015 - Leaseholder who had not moved an application for
renewal of a mining lease at least twelve months before the existing
lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended
MMDR Act and the Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting
leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period - Leaseholder who H
243
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 2 S.C.R.
A
has moved an application for renewal (original/first or subsequent
renewal), at least twelve months before the existing /ease was due
to expire, and if such an application has been rejected, it would not
be a valid/subsisting leaseholder and in case application is moved
for first renewal and the same has not been rejected, it will be
B
considered as valid/subsisting leaseholder having right to carry on
mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18. 7.2014, i.e.,
up to 17. 7.2016 - Leaseholder who had moved a second (third or
subsequent) renewal application uls. 8(3) of the unamended MMDR
Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to
expire, and whose application is rejected (though not entitled to
C any benefit under the unamended s.8A and the amended r. 24A(6)
up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of s. 8A(5) and (6) of
the amended MMDR Act.
D
Common Cause v. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC
155:2014 (7) SCR 561 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2014 (7) SCR 561
referred to.
Paral
CIVIL ORIGJNAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
114 of2014
E
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JNDIA]
WITH
W. P. (C) NO. 194 OF 2014
A.D.N. Rao, Ms. Aparajita Singh, Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,
F
Amicus Curiaes.
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Maninder Singh, ASGs, P.Chidambararn, Dr.
A. M. Singhvi, Gopal Jain,Ashok K. Parija, DushyantA. Dave, Nidhesh
Gupta, Krishnan Venugopal,Arvind P. Datar, Gopal Subrarnanium, Ashok
Kumar Panda, A.K.Ganguly, Rakesh Dwivedi, Manas Ranjan
G
Mahapatra, Sr. Advs. Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Ms.Neha
Rathi, Nischal Kumar Neeraj, Samar Singh Kachwaha, Ms.Meenakshi
Grover, Neeraj Kumar Shanna, Vibhu Shankar Mishra, Sudhir Aggarwal,
Sunil Kumar Jain, Pawan Shree.Agrawal, Kaushik Choudhary, Jagmohan
Sharma, K.P.S. Chani, Ajay Bhargava, Ms.Vanita Bhargava, Jeevn
B.Panda, Kubrat Dev, Raj at Jariwal, Akash Bajaj, Sanjeev K. Kapoor,
H
(for Mis. Khaitan & Co.), Gaurav Kejriwal, Keshav Mohan, Sujit Keshri,
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA
245
Ms.Nandini Gore, Ms.Tahira Karanjawala, Ms. Khushboo Bari, A
Ms.Devina Sehgal, Ms.Neha Khandelwal, (For Mis. Karanjawala &
Co.), Naveen Kumar, Sudeep Dey, Arnav Dash, Raj Kumar Mehta,
Abhishek Upadhyay, Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, Dhananjaya Mishra,
Anand V., Arnav Dash, Satyabrata Panda, Manoranjan Paikaray, Tejaswi'
Kumar Pradhan, Ms.Sangeeta Manda!, Ms.Swati Sinha, Arindam Guha,
B
Shantanu Bansal, Arijit Mazumdar, (For Mis Fox Manda! & Co.), Mrs.
Kirti Renu Mishra, Anish Agarwal, Ramesh Singh, Shiv Man gal Sharma,
Lalitendu Mahapatra, NishitAgrawal, (For Mis Aura& Co.), Sunil Dogra,
Vivek Vishnoi, Abhishek Sharma, Suchit Mohanty, Anupam Lal Das,
Balaji Srinivasan, E. C. Agrawala, Himinder Lal, Mukul Kumar, Satyendra
Kumar, Tayenjam Moma Singh, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, S.N. Terdal, Advs.,
C
with them for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. This Court by its order
dated 16.5.2014, in Common Cause v. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC
155, restrained 102 mining leaseholders from carrying on any mining D
operations. The above order was passed on account of the fact, that
none of these leaseholders were in possession of clearances/approvals/
consent, required for carrying on the mining operations. The above
order dated 16.5.2014, granted liberty to the leaseholders whose
operations were suspended, to move this Court after obtaining the requisite
E
clearances/approvals/consent, whereupon this Court would, on being
satisfied, revoke the suspension order.
2. A number of applications came to be filed before this Court
seeking revocation of the above order of suspension, wherein the
concerned applicants asserted, that they had obtained all clearances/
F
approvals/consent, and further that, they were now legally eligible to
recommence mining operations. During the course of such consideration
at our hands, Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned amicus curiae pointed out, that
the question of granting permission to the leaseholders to recommence
mining operations would arise, only ifthe leaseholders have a subsisting
mining lease. It was therefore submitted, that before determining the
G
·legitimacy of the claim raised by the applicants, this Court should first
examine, whether the applicants have a subsisting right to carry on mining
operation, under a valid lease.
3. This submission advanced at the hands of the learned amicus
J._.._
curiae, was strongly contested by learned counsel representing the H
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 2 S. C.R.
A
applicants. They invited our attention to paragraph 4 of the order dated
16.5.2014, passed in the Common Cause case, so as to contend, thatthis
Court had not postulated such a precondition, and therefore, the submission
advanced atthe hands of the learned amicus curiae, should be rejected.
Paragraph 4 aforementioned, is extracted hereunder:
B
c
D
E
"4. We have considered the report dated 25.4.2014 of the CEC,
and the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for
different parties, and we find that 102 mining leases do not have
requisite environmental clearances, approvals under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, approved Mining Plan and/or Consent
to Operate. A list of these 102 mining leases is annexed to the
report of the CEC as Annexure R-2. The CEC has, however,
stated in the report that mining operations in these 102 miaj_vgleases have been suspended and these I 02 mining l.,aseS&ave .
been classified as non-working leases. We direct that mining
operations in these 102 mining leases listed in Annexure R-2 of
the report of the CEC shall remain suspended, but it will be open
to such lessees to move the concerned authorities for
environmental clearances, approval under the Forest
(Conservation)Act, 1980, approval of Mining Plan or Consent to
Operate and as and when the mining lessees are able to obtain all
the clearances/approval/consent, they may move this Court for
modification of this interim order in relation to their cases."
(highlighting - as per emphasis of learned counsel)
4. Having perused the position expressed by this Court, while
suspending mining operations with reference to I 02 mining leases, it is
F
apparent, that the said direction was issued for the sole consideration,
that the concerned leaseholders were not in possession of all clearances/
approvals/consent. And as such; they were permitted to move
applications before this Court, for modification of the order of suspension,
as and when all clearances/approvals/consent were obtained. It is
however relevant to notice, that such clearances, approvals and consent
G
can be meaningful to the applicants, only if they are with reference to
subsisting mining lease(s). In case a leaseholder does not have a
subsisting mining lease, he is precluded under the provisions of the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter
refen-ed to as, the MMDRAct), from can-ying on any mining operations.
H
It is therefore, that we accept the submission advanced by Mr. A.D.N.
...
'
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
247
Rao. And it is also for the above reason, that we required learned counsel
A
representing the mining leaseholders, desirous oflifting the suspension
order dated 16.5.2014, to substantiate whether or not, they were
possessed of a subsisting mining lease.
5. To commence with, we were of the view, that a decision/
conclusion in this behalf, would emerge from the actual document by
B
which the mining lease had been granted (or renewed). During the
course of hearing it emerged, that the deduction as to whether the
applicant-leaseholders were possessed of subsisting mining lease(s), was
a complicated question of fact and law. Since the same has to be resolved,
before the claim of the applicants for revoking the suspension order (-
dated 16.5.2014) can be accepted, we would endeavour to lay down
C
parameters for such determination.
6. A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, ifthe period
of the original grant is in currency. Additionally, a leaseholder whose
original lease has since expired, would have a subsisting lease, if the
original lease having been renewed, the renewal period is in currency.
D
7. It is also essential to notice, that to start with, renewal could be
granted to a mining leaseholder, any number of times; under the
unamended Section 8 of the MMDR Act. The duration of the original
grant (of the mining lease), as also, the duration of renewals, and the
number of permissible renewals, that a leaseholder can seek, have
undergone a change. We shall dwell upon the instant aspect of the
matter in the instant order, as it has a vital bearing on the issue, whether
or not the applicant-leaseholders are possessed of subsisting mining
leases. For this, in the first instance, reference may be made to the
provision regulating the grant of a mining lease, as also, renewal of a
mining lease, namely, Section 8 of the MMDRAct. The instant provision,
in the manner it came to be structured after being amended in 1994
(which position remained unamended till 18.7.2014), is extracted
hereunder:
E
F
"8. Periods for which mining leases may be granted or renewed.-
G
(1) The maximum period for which a mining lease may be granted
shall not exceed thirty years:
Provided that the minimum period for which any such mining lease
may be granted shall not be less than twenty years;
H
248
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 2 S.C.R.
(2) A mining lease may be renewed for a period not exceeding
twenty years.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), if the
State Government is of opinion that in the interests of mineral
development it is necessary so to do, it may, for reasons to be
recorded, authorise the renewal of a mining lease in respect of
minerals not specified in Part-A and Part-B of the First Schedule
for a further period or periods not exceeding twenty years in each
case.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) and subsection (3 ), no mining lease granted in respect of mineral specified
in Part-A or Part-B of the First Schedule shall be renewed except
with the previous approval of the Central Government."
(emphasis is ours)
A perusal of Section 8(1) extracted above reveals, that the maximum
period for which a mining lease could be granted, would not exceed
D
thirty years. Afterthe expiry of the original grant, the mining lease could
be renewed in the first instance for a further period not exceeding twenty
years, under Section 8(2). For all intents and purposes, the renewal
contemplated under Section 8(2), shall be referred to as the "first
renewal''. The "first renewal", required a clearance of the State
Government, and the approval of the Central Government. Further
E
renewals, after the expiry of first renewal granted under Section 8(2),
were also permissible, and were provided for under Section 8(3) of the
MMDRAct. The renewal(s) postulated under Section 8(3), for all intents
and purposes, shall be described hereinafter, as the "second (or third, or
fourth ... ) renewal". The renewal(s) under Section 8(3) could be granted
F
only if the State Government expressed its satisfaction, that the grant of
the second or subsequent renewal, would be in the interest of mineral
development. Furthermore, the "second renewal" or still further
renewal(s), had to also have the approval of the Central Government.
Even though the period of subsequent renewals, is of no significance,
insofar as the present controversy is concerned, it may be mentioned,
G
that all subsequent renewals including the second, third or further
renewals, could individually extend to a period not exceeding twenty
years.
8. The interpretation placed by us, on Section 8 of the MMDR
Act (as it existed in 1994), finds support from Rule 24A of the Mineral
H
Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as, the Mineral
•
....
J
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
249
ConcessionRules)-astheruleexistedpriorto 18.7.2014. Rule24Ain A
the manner in which it was then structured, is extracted below:
"24A. Renewal of mining lease. -( 1) An application for the
renewal of a mining lease shall be made to the State Government
in Form J, at least twelve months before the date on which the
lease is due to expire, through such officer or authority as the
B
State Government may specify in this behalf
(2) The renewal or renewals of a mining lease granted in respect
of a mineral specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule
to the Act may be granted by the State Government with the
previous approval of the Central Government.
c
(3) The ren~wal or renewals of a· mining lease granted in respect
ofa mineral not specified in Part A and PartB of the First Schedule
to the Act may be granted by the State Government:
Provided th~t before granting approval for second or subsequent
renewal of a mining lease, the State Government shall seek a
report from the Controller General, Indian Bureau ofMines, as to
D
whether it would be in the interest of mineral development to
grant the renewal of the mining lease.
Provided further that in case a report is not received from Controller
General, Indian Bureau of Mines in a period of three months of
receipt of the communication from the State Government, it would
E
be deemed that the Indian Bureau of Mines has no adverse
comments to offer regarding the grant of the renewal of mining
lease.
(4) An application for the renewal of a mining lease shall be
disposed of within a period of six months from the date of its
receipt.
( 5) If an application is not disposed of within the period specified
in sub-rule ( 4) it shall be deemed to have been refused.
(6) If an application for renewal of a mining lease made within
F
the time referred to in sub-rule(!) is not disposed of by the State
G
Government before the date of expiry of the lease, the period of
that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further
period till the State Goyernment passes order thereon .
xxx
xxx
xxx"
(emphasis is ours)
H
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 2 S.C.R.
A
A perusal of sub-rule ( 1) of Ru le 24A reveals, that an application for
renewal of a mining lease, had to be made at least twelve months before
the date of expiry of the existing mining lease. It is therefore essential
for us to record, that unless such an application had been made at least
twelve months before the date of expiry of an existing mining lease
B
c
D
E
F
under Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules, the same could not
have been entertained. And also that, the term of the mining lease held
by the leaseholder would be deemed to have come to an end, on the
expiry of the period depicted in the lease document, if such an application
had not been preferred.
9. The next relevant provision is sub-rule (4) of Rule 24A of the
Mineral Concession Rules. The instant sub-rule required, that an
application for renewal, would be disposed of within six months, from
the date of receipt of such application. We have extracted hereinabove,
sub-rule (5) of Rule 24A, wherein it was mandated, that an application
for renewal, which had not been disposed of within the period of six
months, as provided for under Rule 24A(4) of the Mineral Concession
Rules, would be deemed to have been refused. It is however relevant to
notice, that the aforementioned sub-rule (5) came to be omitted by an
amendment, with effect from 7.1.1993. It is significant to record, that
sub-rule ( 6) came to be substituted by an amendment, with effect from
27 .9 .1994. Sub-rule ( 6) of Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules,
is of extreme importance for the determination, whether the applicantleaseholder is possessed of subsisting mining lease because a large
number of applicants rely on the instant rule in support of their claim for
being possessed of a subsisting mining lease. Sub-rule (6) aforementioned
postulated, that if an application for renewal of a mining lease (made
within twelve months, before the date on which the existing lease was to
expire), had not been disposed of by the competent authority, the period
oflease would be deemed to have been extended, by a further period till
the State Government passed an order disposing of the renewal
application. It is therefore, that the right to continue mining operations
would seemingly continue ad infinitum, for the simple reason that the
G
State Government which was the competent authority, had not passed
any order(s) on most of the pending applications seeking renewal.
H
10. An extremely significant event pertaining to the statutory
regime of mining leases under the MMDR Act, and the Mineral
Concession Rules, took place on 21.4.2014, when this Court passed an
'
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
251
order in Goa Foundation v. Union oflndia, (2014) 6 SCC 590, and held
A
as under:
"27. Sub-section (I) of Section~ of the MMDR Act, which
provides the maximum and minimum periods for which a mining
lease may be granted will not apply to deemed mining leases in
Goa because sub-section (I) of Section ~ of the Abolition Act
provides that the period of such deemed mining leases will extend
upto six months from the date of assent notwithstanding anything
contained in the MMDR Act. In other words, notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section_!! of the MMDR
Act, the period ofa deemed mining lease in Goa was to expire on
22.11. I 987 (six months from the date ofassent). Under sub-section
(2) of Section 8 of the MM DR Act, a mining lease mav be renewed
B
c
for a period not exceeding twentv years. Sub-section (3) of
Section 8, however, provides that notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (2), if the State Government is of the
opinion that in the interest of mineral development, it is necessary
D
so to do, it may for reasons to be recorded, authorise the renewal
ofa mining lease in respect of minerals not specified in Part A
and Part B of the First Schedule for a further period or periods
not exce-eding twenty years in each case-. Thus, renevJal beyond
the first renewal for a period of twenty years is conditional upon
the State Government forming an opinion that in the interest of E
mineral development, it is necessary to do so and also conditional
upon the State Government recording reasons for such renewal
of a mining lease in respect ofiron ore which is not specified in
Part A and Part B of the First Schedule. In TISCO Ltd. v. Union
oflndia {1996) 9 SCC 709, this Court has held that the language
F
of sub-section (3) of Section 8 is quite clear that ordinarily a lease
is not to be granted beyond the time specified in sub-section (2)
and ollly if the Government is of the view that it would be in the
interest of mineral development, it is emp"owered to renew lease
of a lessee for a ftirther period after recording sound reasons for
doing so. This Court has further held in the aforesaid case that
G
this measure has been incorporated in the legislative scheme as a
safeguard against arbitrariness and the letter and spirit of the law
must be aclliered to in a strict manner .
28. The MC Rules have been made under Section l1 of the
MMDR Act by the Central Government and obviously could not
H
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 2 S.C.R.
A
have been made in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of
the Act. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules provides that:
"24-A.(6) If an application for the renewal of a mining lease
made within the time referred to in sub-rule (1) is not disposed
of by the State Government before the date of expiry of the
B
lease, the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been
extended by a further period till the State Go~rnment passes
order thereon."
This sub-rule cannot apply to a renewal under sub-section (3) of
Section 8 of the MMDR Act because the renewal under this
C
provision cannot be made without express orders of the State
yovernment recording reasons for renewal in the interest of
mineral development. In other words, so long as there is a right of
renewal in the lessee which in the case of a mining lease is for a
maximum period of twenty years, the12rovision regarding deemed
D
E
F
G
extension of a lease can operate, but if the right of renewal of a
mining lease is dependent upon the State Government forming an
opinion that in the interest of mineral development it is necessaty
to do so and th!l_State Government recording reasons therefor. a
provision regarding deemed extension till orders are passed by
the State Government on the application of renewal cannot apply.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that sub-rule (6) of Rule 24A of
the MC Rules will apply to a case of first renewal under subsection (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act other than a case
covered under sub-rule (9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules, but will
not apply to renewal under subcsection (3) of Section 8 of the
MMDRAct. Jn our view, the deemed mining leases of the lessees
in Goa expired on 22.11.1987 under sub-section ( 1) of Section~ of
the Abolition Act and the maximum of20 years renewal period of
the deemed mining leases in Goa as provided in sub-section (2) of
Section ]! of the MMDR Act read with sub-rules (8) and (9) of
Rule 24A of the MC Rules expired on 22.11.2007."
(emphasis is ours)
11. At this juncture, it would be necessary to notice, that prior to
the decision in the Goa Foundation case, the State Government while
interpreting sub-rule ( 6) of Ru le 24A, had been allowing leaseholders to
continue mining operations without any outer limit. In view of the
H
conclusions drawn in the Goa Foundation case, it came to be rightfully
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
253
understood, that such operations could go on (within the mandate of A
Rule 24A(6), under which such application was made) till the expiry of
the maximum period postulated forthe first renewal, i.e., for a period of
twenty years. The second and subsequent renewal( s) were held to be
not automatic. Because the second and subsequent renewals required·
the satisfaction of the State Government, by way of recorded reasons,
B
as noticed hereinabove. Therefore, after the judgment in the Goa
Foundation case, it came to be understood, that in the absence of an
express order of second or subsequent renewal(s ), a mining lease would
expire after completion of the period of first renewal.
12. In ord~r to give effect to the conclusions recorded by this
Court in the Goa Foundation case, Rule 24A( 6) came to be amended on
C
18. 7.2014. The above amendment is reproduced below:
"Rule 24-A ·
xxx
xxx
xxx
(6) If an application for first renewal of a mining lease made
within the time referred to in sub-rule (1) is not disposed ofby the D
State Government before the date of expiry of the lease, the period
of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further
period of two years or till the State Government passes order
thereon, whichever is earlier:
Provided that the leases where applications for first renewal of E
mining lease have been made to the State Government and which
have not been disposed of by the State Government before the
date of expiry oflease and are pending for disposal as on the date
of the notification of this amendment. shall be deemed to have
been extended by a further period of two years from the date of
coming into force of this amendment or till the State Government
F
passes order thereon or the date of expiry of the maximum period
allowed for first renewal, whichever is the earliest:
Provided·further that the provisions of this sub-rule shall not apply
to renewaf" under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation)Act, 1957."
G
(emphasis is ours)
The above amendment, has to be carefully understood. Undoubtedly,.
the amendment of sub-rule (6) of Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession
Rules now provides, that the period of mining operations would be deemed
to be extended for a maximum period of two years, after the expiry of
H
254
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 2 S.C.R.
the period of the original grant, unless of course, the State Government
takes a conscious decision on the application for renewal. We are of the
view, that the instant provision, has to be read in continuation of the
erstwhile/previous Rule 24A (which subsisted till the instant amendment
came into effect on 18.7.2014). The unamended provision, postulated
an unlimited period of mining lease, in the absence of a determinative
order, on an application for renewal. Therefore, eveJ1 if the original
lease had expired many years ago, but if a renewal apph::ation had been
preferred within the permissible time contemplated under Rule 24A( 1 ),
the same would have continued to subsist, till the instant amendment
took effect on 18.7.2014. The importance of this conclusion is for the
reason, that the proviso to new Rule 24A(6)- amended on 18.7.2014,
consciously provided, that the lease period where applications had been
filed seeking "first renewal", would be deemed to have been extended
for a further period of two years, from the date of coming into force of
the amended sub-rule (6). Accordingly, in all cases wherein the "first
renewal" had been sought, but not determined, the mining operations
were extended, by operation of law, till 18. 7.2014.
13. The case of most of the applicants before this Court is, that
they had moved applications within the time permissible under Rule
24A(l ), and as such, on account of the unamended sub-rule (6) of Rule
24A, and thereafter, on the basis of the amended sub-rule (6) of Rule
24A, their right to continue mining operations, would be deemed to have
been extended up to 18.7.2016. We find that their claim is valid, and
accept the same, insofar as the legal position is concerned, but only with
reference to "first renewals". We may hasten to explain, that the instant
determination emerges from an interpretation of the unamended and
amended Rule 24A(6). Whether subsequent amendments would alter
the situation, is being determined hereinafter.
14. One clarification is imperative at this stage. After the passing
of the order on 21.4.2014, in the Goa Foundation case, subsisting "first
renewals" under Rule 24A, would expire on the completion ofa further
G
period of twenty years, after the expiry of the period contemplated under
the original grant, or as interpreted above. There was no similar automatic
grant of"second renewals", after the Goa Foundation case. Therefore,
for all intents and purposes, the conclusion recorded hereinabove, should
be deemed to be relevant only with reference to the grant of "first
renewals". It is necessary to reiterate, that in the Goa Foundation case,
H
this Court had held, that second renewals would be subject to an order
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
255
passed by the State Government recording reasons that it was in the
A
interest of mineral development to do so. Needless to mention, that a
second or subsequent renewal also required, the previous approval of
the Central Government - as provided for under Section 8( 4) of the .
MMDRAct. The amendment to Rule 24A made on 18.7.2014, more
particularly, the second proviso to sub-rule ( 6), leaves no room for any
B
doubt, that the automatic extension postulated with reference to the first
renewal, would not apply to the second or subsequent renewals. It is
therefore necessary to further conclude, that in cases of second and
subsequent renewals, the amended Rule 24A( 6) would not extend the
lease period fo_r a further period of two years, from the date of
amendment. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, in relation to renewal
C
sought under Section 8(3) of the MMDRAct (read with Rule 24A(6) of
the Mineral Concession Rules - amended on 18.7.2014), all second
renewals which were assumed to be subsisting by State Governments,
would expire with effect from the date of the judgment in the Goa
Foundation case, i.e., 2 I .4.20 I 4, and expressly, with effect from I 8. 7.20 I 4,
D
when the second proviso to Rule 24A(6) provided accordingly. Unless
of course, the Government had passed an express order in writing, as
mandated under Section 8(3) oftheMMDRAct, extending the subsisting
mining lease by a second or subsequent renewal.
15. On 16.5.2014, thisCourt(in the Common Cause case),passed
an order requiring the State Government to dispose of pending applications
E
for second and subsequent renewals, within six months. The operative
part of the above order is being extracted below:
"IO. After considering the report of the CEC as well as the
submissions on behalf of the parties. we direct as an interim
measure that these 26 leases operating as second and subsequent
F
renewals without any express orders of renewal passed by the
State Government will not be allowed to operate by the State
Government until express orders are passed in terms of Section
8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957 and we also direct that all renewal applications under
G
Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, I 957 will be considered and disposed of by the
State Government within six months from today. We further direct
that the State Government will consider first the renewal
applications in respect ofleases which were granted for captive
mining for providing iron or manganese ore as raw material for H
256
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2016] 2 S.C.R.
industries and only thereafter consider the renewal applications in
respect of the other leases. In any case. the State Government
will ensure that the entire process of consideration and disposal
gfrenewal applications under Section S(3) of the Act is completed
within six months from today. With the aforesaid interim directions,
the interim matter stand disposed of."
(emphasis is ours)
It seems, that the above ·direction was breached, as the State
Governments, seemingly had no facility or potential, to comply with it.
Resultantly, a further order came to be passed in IA No.21 of 2014,
c which had been filed, for extension of time. The order granting further
time of three months, dated 16.5.2014, is extracted hereunder:
"I.A. No.21 of2014
After hearing Shri L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior. counsel
appearing for the State of Orissa, we deem it appropriate to grant
D
them another three months' time from today to comply with the
order dated 16.05.2014.
E
We reserve liberty to all the private respondents to object to the
orders that may be passed by the State Government while
complying with this Court's order dated 16.05.2014.
I.A. No.21 of2014 is disposed of accordingly."
(emphasis is ours)
16. The Parliament was alive to the predicament of the State
Governments. It was also felt, that the regime of grant of mining leases
and their renewal(s) needed to be changed, by introducing uniformity in
F
the process. It is therefore, that Section SA was amen~.d. The instant
amendment was inserted in the MMDRAct with effect from 12.1.2015.
Section SA introduced through the above amendment, is being extracted
hereunder:
G
H
"SA. Period of grant of a mining lease for minerals other than
coal, lignite and atomic minerals. -
( 1) The provisions of this
section shall apply to minerals other than those specified in Part A
and Part B of the First Schedule.
(2) On and from the date of the commencement of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015,
all mining leases shall be granted for the period of fifty years.
•
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
257
(3) All mining leases granted before the commencement of the
A
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment
Act, 2015 shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of
fifty years.
(4) On the expiry of the lease period, the lease shall be put up for
auction as per the procedure specified in this Act.
B
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2), (3)
and sub-section ( 4), the period oflease granted before the date of
commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulatioll) Amendment Act, 2015, where mineral is used for
captive purpose, shall be extended and be deemed to have been c
extended up to a period ending on the 3 lst March, 2030 with
effect from the date of expiry of the period of renewal last made
or till the completion of renewal period, if any, or a period of fifty
years from the date of grant of such lease, whichever is later,
subject to the condition that all the terms and conditions of the
lease have been complied with.
D
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2), (3)
and sub-section ( 4), the period of lease granted before the date of
commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation)AmendmentAct, 2015, where mineratis used for other
than captive purpose, shall be extended and be deemed to have
E
been extended up to a period ending on the 31st March, 2020 with
effect from the date of expiry of the period of renewal last made
or till the completion ofrenewal period, ifany, or a period of fifty
years from the date of grant of such lease, whichever is later,
subject to the condition that all the terms and conditions of the
F
lease have been complied with.
(7) Any holder of a lease granted, where mineral is used for captive
purpose, shall have the right of first refusal at the time of auction
held for such lease after the expiry of the lease period.
(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the period
G
of mining leases, including existing mining leases, of Government
companies or corporations shall be such as may be prescribed by
the Central Government.
(9) The provisions of this section, notwithstanding anything
contained therein, shall not apply to a mining lease granted before H
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 2 S.C.R.
A
the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, for which
renewal has been rejected, or which has been determined, or
lapsed."
17. In terms of Section 8A(2) of the amended MMDR Act, all
B
future mining grants, would be for a uniform period of fifty years. Section
8A(3) envisages, that all original mining lease grants, made prior to the
insertion of Section 8A, in the MMDRAct (with effect from 12.1.2015)
would also be deemed to have been made for a period of fifty years.
18. Section 8A(5) pertains to mining leases granted for captive
c
purposes, and is principally aimed at leaseholders operating under a
renewal. Section 8A(5) postulates three different contingencies.
Firstly, the period ofall mining leases granted before 12.1.2015 " ... shall
be extended and be deemed to have been extended ... " up to 31.3 .2030,
" ... with effect from the date of expiry of the period of renewal last
D
made ... ". It is apparent, that the que;tion of an "extension" will ordinarily
arise only after an "expiry". Since both the terms - "extension" and
"expiry" find place in sub-section (5), we are of the view, that Section
8A(5) is attracted even after the expiry of a renewal. The instant inference
emerges from the use of the words "expiry of the renewal last made", in
sub-section (5). The issue whether, Section SA would be applicable to a
E
subsisting lease as on 12.1.2015 (when the amended MMDRAct was
notified), as was the contention of the non-applicant petitioner, will be
examined in further detail immediately hereinafter. The first contingency,
therefore, extends to renewed mining leases, which were scheduled to
expire before 31.3 .2030.
F
Secondly, the use of the phrase - "renewal last made;'; leaves no room
for any doubt, that the instant second contingency presupposes an existing
(first, second or subsequent) renewal, in favour of the leaseholder. The
difference between the first and the second contingency is, the date
when the renewal of the mining lease was scheduled to expire. The
G
first contingency, applies to renewed mining leases, which would expire
before 31.3 .2030. The instant - the second contingency, applies to
renewed mining leases, which would expire after 31.3.2030. A perusal
of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act reveals, that the second
contingency is aimed at extending the existing lease period, and not
reducing it. Therefore, if the period of the existing renewal would extend
H
beyond 31.3.2030, the period contemplated by the renewal itself, has
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
been mandated to be pre.serve~.
259
A
Thirdly, the regime sought to be introduced also has a reference to an
original grant. The scheme/course sought to be introduced under Section
8A(3) of the amended MMDR Act, is intended to be preserved even in
situations where a mining leaseholder, is (or has been) carrying on mining
operation under a renewal. Since the original lease period of fifty years
B
has been adopted as the overarching rule, the third contingency, aims at
allowing the leaseholder, the benefit of treating the original lease period
as of fifty years. Therefore, even during the renewal period, if the
period of mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period),
by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be
entitled to the said benefit under the third contingency.
C
For the leases governed by Section 8A(5), out of the above three
·contingencies, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest,
would be applicable.
19. A similar contingency. has been provided for under Section
0
8A(6) with reference to mining leases used for non-captive purposes.
Herein also, the same three contingencies are contemplated. Firstly, the
peiiod of al I ren~wals expiring before 3 I .3 .2020 " ... sh al I be extended
and be deemed to have been extended ...