IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3989 of 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3989 of 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3989 of 2008 The Deccan Minerals Private Ltd....Petitioner Versus District Mining Officer & Ors.....Respondents Mr. L.S. Deshmukh holding for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Prabhu, for the Petitioners Mr. Sumeer Patil, for the Respondents. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 10TH SEPTEMBER,2008 DATED : 10TH SEPTEMBER,2008 DATED : 10TH SEPTEMBER,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. This petition is directed against the order dated 11th June, 2007 passed by the Respondent No.2, the Hon’ble Minister for Mining, Maharashtra, whereby the petitioner was not allowed to remove the iron ore lying at the sight on Survey No.11, village Redi. . The factual matrix reveal that the respondent No.3-State of Maharashtra had granted mining lease in favour of the petitioner of the site located at village Redi, Taluka Vengurla, District Sindhudurga on 25th April, 1979 for the purpose of carrying out mining operation and raising iron ore. The same was renewed from time to time till the year 1985. 2. The State of Maharashtra , Respondent No.3, on 27th -2- June, 1988 rejected the petitioner’s application for further renewal of lease. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing Writ Petition No.1703 of 1988 and prayed for interim relief. A Division Bench of this Court was pleased to grant interim relief vide order dated 27th June, 1988 in terms of prayer clause (h), which was as under:- "that pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, the respondents their agents and servants be ordered and directed to permit the petitioners to carry out mining operations in accordance with the terms of lease executed on 31st March, 1979 on such terms as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper." The interim relief granted on 27th June, 1988 was in following terms:- "Heard parties. Interim relief in terms of prayer (h) confined to 55-46-50 hectares." 3. The petitioner on the basis of the above interim order carried out mining operations. The above petition was ultimately dismissed by this Court on merits. The petitioner made an application dated 13th March, 2006 addressed to the respondent No.1 seeking permission to remove the iron ore from the the above site showing its readiness to pay royalty to the respondents State. . The Respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner on 17th October, 2006 for hearing. After due hearing, he was pleased to pass an order rejecting their application. The order was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated -3- 11th June, 2007. . The above letter is the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India contending that the iron ore dumped on the site mentioned above was raised by the petitioner during the continuance of the interim relief. The petitioner is, therefore, legally entitled to collect the iron ore raised by them. Reliance is placed on the lease deed dated 31st March, 1979 and Clause 6 of Part IX thereof in particular. . It is further urged that the impugned order is without any reason as such it is in breach of the principles of natural justice and suffers from non-application of mind. . This petition is opposed by the learned Counsel appearing for the State. He has supported impugned order. CONSIDERATION: 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed on more than one count. Firstly, the petition is liable to be dismissed for having suppressed the material facts. The petitioner has in the present petition incorporated the interim order passed in Writ Petition No.1703 of 1988 and given a picture as if the said petition has been disposed of by this Court. The letter dated 27th April, 2005 written by the petitioner to -4- Ankush Ravji Rane whose petition bearing Writ Petition No.980 of 2008 is tagged with this petition (forming part of Writ Petition No.980 of 2008 as Exhibit "B") has not been disclosed in the petition. The letter reads as under:- " With reference to your letter dated 23.4.2005 we hereby inform you that Government of Maharashtra has cancelled the mining lease 1995 with regard to Survey No.(Huda) 142 New Number 11 Hissa No.13. Therefore, you can use the dumping and other area in the said land for the purpose of cultivation and other purpose. We are not using the said area since the year 1996 and in future also we do not need the said land." . The above letter shows absence of interest of the petitioner in the subject land since 1996, whereas petitioner approached State Government practically after 10 years to seek their permission. Apart from suppression of above documents even delay for approaching State Government has not been explained in the petition. 5. Be that as it may, learned Counsel while making his submission on merits placed reliance on clause 6 of Part IX 9 of the Lease Deed which reads as under:- "6.If at the end of six calendar months after the expiration or sooner determination of the said term under the provision contained in clause (4) Part VIII of this Schedule become effective there shall remain in or upon the said land any engines, machinery -5- plant, buildings, structures, tramways, railways and other work erections and conveniences or other property which are not required by the lessee/lessees in connection with operations in any other lands held by him/them under prospecting licence or mining lease the same shall if not removed by the lessee/lesees within one calendar month after notice in writing requiring their removal has been given to the lessee/lessees by the State Government be deemed to become the property of the State Government and may be sold or disposed of in such manner as the State Government shall deem fit without liability to pay any compensation or to account to the lessee/lessees in respect thereof." . Reading of the aforesaid clause would show that this clause was operative so long as the lease was in operation and for six months thereafter. So far as the lease period, in this case is concerned, admittedly that has expired in the year 1985. . The Petition was filed somewhere in the year 1988. Under the interim order, the petitioner was permitted to operate mining operations. Therefore, it is clear that from the date of the interim order dated 27th June, 1988 till dismissal of the petition i.e. on 28th September, 1995 the mining operations were carried out by the petitioner under the interim orders of this Court and not under the terms of the lease deed. . The petition, ultimately came to be dismissed by order dated 28th September, 1995. At the time of dismissal of the petition it was open for the petitioner to seek appropriate orders, with respect to the material lying on the site on the date of judgment. Since the petitioner -6- failed to seek the appropriate directions or relief in this behalf, which was available in Writ Petition No.1703 of 1988 at the time of its disposal of the petition, now, it is not open for the petitioner to claim that relief from the State Government that too after a long period of 10 years and to maintain this petition in the garb of challenging order of the State. . At the cost of repetition, it will not be out of place to mention that the interim orders are passed in aid of the final orders. The interim order merges in the final order. In the case in hand, interim order merged with the final order. At the time of dismissal of the petition, appropriate reliefs ought to have been claimed. Since no such relief was claimed in the Writ Petition No.1703 of 1988, now, it is not open for the petitioner to claim that relief in the present petition or from the State Government. 6. So far as contention regarding absence of reasons in the impugned order dated 11th June, 2007 is concerned, the order gives reasons and gives sufficient indication of the mind of the authority deciding the application of the petitioner. 7. It will not be out of place to mention that even the fact of filing Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Margao in Special Civil Suit No.118/95/B has also not been disclosed. Even the contents of the plaint are not made -7- available. For the first time this material has come on the record by way of counter affidavit along with factum of dismissal of the Writ Petition No.1703 of 1988 by this Court. 8. In the above view of the matter this petition is liable to be dismissed with costs quantified in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. Order accordingly. (V.C. DAGA, J.) (V.C. DAGA, J.) (V.C. DAGA, J.)