IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.06.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.1788 of 1999 A.Rajagopal Proprietor Rajalakshmi Mines and Minerals Pamparapatti Semmandapatti Post Omalur 636 455 .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. Union of India rep.by its Secretary to Govt., Department of Mines Ministry of Mines Shastri Bhavan New Delhi 110 001 2. State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary to Government Industries (MMD.I) Department Fort St.George Madras 600 009 3. The District Collector Salem 636 001 .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records relating to G.O.(D) No.370, Industries (MMD.1) Department dated 10.12.1998 from the file of the 2nd respondent, quash the same. For Petitioner :: Mr.D.Shivakumaran For Respondents :: Mr.P.Wilson Asst. Solicitor General for R1 Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya Addl. Government Pleader for R2 & R3 ORDER The petitioner was a original leaseholder for mining https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ soapstone in Aranganur village, Mettur taluk to the extent of 2.62.0 hectares in Survey No.265/1 and 267/2. His first renewal was conceded and when it came to the second renewal, the petitioner made an application to the State Government seeking for renewal. The State Government by letter dated 17.1.97 recommended the case of the petitioner and sought for approval of the Government of India, (the first respondent herein) in terms of Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Rule 24(A)(7) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. 2. The Government of India communicated its views stating that the petitioner cannot be granted the second renewal since an objection was raised by the Indian Bureau of Mines and the said report given by the Indian Bureau of Mines was accepted by the Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines vide their letter dated 31.8.98. As per the report given by Indian Bureau of Mines, the following defects were found in the operation conducted by the petitioner:- "1. Overall performance of the lessee has been very poor and unsatisfactory. 2. Compliance of Mineral Concession Development Rules, 1988 is totally unsatisfactory. 3. Safety measures with regard to bench heights etc., have not been adopted. 4. Implementation of mining plan with regard to exploration, afforestation, dumping of waste etc., has not been carried out in accordance with the approved mining plan." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Based upon the said report, the State Government issued a show cause notice dated 6.10.98 under Rule 26(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The petitioner in their reply dated 2.11.98 did not deny the substance of the irregularities/defects pointed out. In paragraph-6, they had almost agreed with the defects pointed out, but only stated that in future they will prepare a modified mining plan and will carry on the same before the execution of the lease deed. However, not satisfied with the said reply, the State Government by G.O.(D) No.370, Industries Department dated 10.12.98 rejected the request for the second renewal of the mining lease. It is this order which is under challenge. 4. Pending the writ petition, this Court declined to grant any interim relief by order dated 5.9.2003. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the second respondent setting out the circumstances under which the second renewal was refused. In the present case, it is not as if the Central Government can be guided solely on the basis of the recommendations made by the State Government. On the contrary, even the petitioner had admitted the visit of a member of the IBM to the mines and the contention that it was a small mine owner and operating in a drought prone area cannot be the basis not comply with the safety standards. The petitioner's reply that no untoward incident had taken place during the mining lease held by him is not a consolation. The prospecting of a mine is entirely circumscribed by the provisions of the Mineral https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Development Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In the present case, the authorities who are competent to grant renewal had taken into account all relevant circumstances and had come to the conclusion that the second renewal is not permissible. There is no infirmity or illegality either in the procedure followed or in the substance of the order refusing the renewal. 5. Under these circumstances, it is not a fit case to entertain a writ petition under Article 226. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar ss To 1. The Secretary to Government of India Department of Mines Ministry of Mines Shastri Bhavan New Delhi 110 001 2. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Industries (MMD.I) Department Fort St.George Madras 600 009 3. The District Collector Salem 636 001 +1 cc to Mr.P.Wilson, Advocate, SR.No.33531 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.33806 W.P.No.1788 of 1999 ksk(co) pmk/10.7.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/