1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD)No.5184 of 2011 M/s.Abirami Lime Industries, Through its Proprietor S.C.Sekar, Registered Officer at No.3, Alagappa Complex, 125, Veerapathira Street, Erode – 638 003. ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary, Industrial Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Director of Geology & Mining, Guindy, Chennai – 34. 3. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in the proceedings of the third respondent in Roc.M1/289/07 to quash the order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the third respondent as arbitrary and ultra vires and direct the respondents to grant the mining lease of lime stones in S.No.61 in Poovanthi Village, Sivagangai District to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahesh Raja Government Advocate O R D E R The Writ Petition is a clear abuse of process of law. The petitioner filed an earlier Writ Petition being W.P.(MD)No.2026 of 2010, seeking for a direction to consider his representation, dated 11.06.2009. 2. In that Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for the grant of mining lease for lime stone minerals, which is a major mineral in S.No.61 in Poovanthi Village, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District, belonging to the Government. This Court without going into the merits of the petitioner's representation directed the District Collector, Sivagangai to consider his representation, by an order dated 03.03.2010. 3. It is pursuant to the said direction, the District Collector considered the petitioner's mining lease application, dated 14.02.2007 as well as various correspondence that took place between the Government and the Department of Geology and Mining and passed the impugned order, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 30.04.2010. 4. The petitioner was informed by the impugned order that in respect of the same survey number for lime stone quarrying, the original lessee was Madurai Cements. They have sent a proposal to surrender and it was accepted by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.94, Industries Department, dated 14.07.1998. The State Government had not given permission to issue a re-grant notification in respect of the area held by the erstwhile Madurai Cements. Unless and until Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, framed under Section 13 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the question of getting petitioner's application considered in terms of Rule 59 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 will not arise. 5. Rule 60 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 deals with premature application. It was stated that if notification was not issued under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules or if notification has been issued and the period specified in the notification had not expired, they shall be deemed to be premature and shall not be entertained. These facts were brought to the notice of the petitioner and it was informed that since no notification was issued under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, the petitioner's application will be considered as a premature application. 6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Rule 29 of the Mineral Concession Rules, wherein, an existing lessee can be permitted to surrender mineral subject to the condition and the said surrender had already been made by the erstwhile Madurai Cements long before and accepted by the State Government. It should be an area which is free for considering the grant of fresh lease. 7. This Court is unable to accept the said submission. As rightly informed by the District Collector, unless a notification is issued under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules or in the event of a renewal of lease is sought for in the application will be considered only as a premature application in terms of Rule 60 of the Mineral Concession Rules, when the Collector has no power to entertain such an application made by the petitioner. Hence, there is no case made out to entertain the Writ Petition. 8. The Supreme Court had dealt with the scope of Rules 59 and 60 of the Mineral Concession Rules in very many judgments. In a very recent judgment in Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka reported in (2010) 13 SCC 1, where similar contentions were raised, the order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court was found to be repugnant to the rule of interpretation. The Supreme Court also dealt with the purpose for which Rule 59 was made and only by a public notification, applications can be called for. It is necessary to refer to the following passages found in paragraphs 63 to 66, which may be usefully extracted below: “63. As discussed earlier, Section 11(4) is consistent with Rules 59 and 60 when it provides for consideration only of applications made pursuant to a notification. On the other hand, the consideration of applications made prior to the notification, as required by the first proviso to Section 11(2), is clearly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 inconsistent with Rules 59 and 60. In such circumstances, a harmonious reading of Section 11 with Rules 59 and 60, therefore, mandates an interpretation under which notifications would be issued under Section 11(4) in the case of categories of areas covered by Rule 59(1). In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for Jindal and Kalyani with reference to those provisions. 64. The Division Bench has clearly erred in concluding that applications made prior to the notification under Rule 59(1) which are premature and cannot be entertained under Rule 60 would revive upon issuance of the notification. This conclusion goes against the basic principles of statutory interpretation. We have already pointed out the effect of Rule 60 which is couched in negative language that is mandatory in nature. Further, if that was the intention of the legislature, there was no reason for the legislature to take pains to state in Rule 60(b) that an application made during the blackout period of 30 days specified in the notification also would be premature and could not be entertained. Accordingly, the interpretation placed by the Division Bench on Rule 60 would result in reading in a proviso at the end of Rule 60 to the effect that once the 30 days’ blackout period specified in the notification contemplated by Rule 59(1) (ii) is over, premature applications would revive. After taking such pains to make it clear that the applications would not be entertained until the end of the 30 days’ period, surely the legislature itself would have inserted such a proviso at the end of Rule 60 if that were its intention. 65. In Amritlal Nathubhai Shah v. Union Govt. of India18, SCC at para 7, this Court observed as follows: (SCC pp. 111-12) “7. … Rule 60 provides that an application for the grant of a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of an area for which no such notification has been issued, inter alia, under Rule 59, for making the area available for grant of a licence or a lease, would be premature, and ‘shall not be entertained and the fee, if any, paid in respect of any such application shall be refunded’. It would therefore follow that as the areas which are the subject-matter of the present appeals had been reserved by the State Government for the purpose stated in its notifications, and as those lands did not become available for the grant of a prospecting licence or a mining lease, the State Government was well within its rights in rejecting the applications of the appellants under Rule 60 as premature. The Central Government was thus justified in rejecting the revision applications which were filed against the orders of rejection passed by the State Government.” 66. Even thereafter, this Court has consistently taken the position that applications made prior to a notification cannot be entertained. In our view, the purpose of Rule 59(1), which is to ensure that mining lease areas are not given by the State Governments to favour persons of their choice without notice to the general public would be defeated. In fact, the learned Single Judge correctly interpreted Section 11 read with Rules 59 and 60. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 The said conclusion also finds support in the decision of this Court in State of T.N. v. Hind Stone19, SCC at p. 218, where it has been held in the context of the Rules framed under the MMDR Act itself that a statutory rule, while subordinate to the parent statute, is otherwise to be treated as part of the statute and is effective. The same position has been reiterated in State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya20, SCR at p. 701 and Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishad v. State of Gujarat21.” 9. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Secretary, Industrial Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Director of Geology & Mining, Guindy, Chennai – 34. 3. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.36107 +1cc to Mr.V.Ramakrishnan, Advocate, Sr.No.36153 ps GH : 04.11.011 : 4p/6c W.P.(MD)No.5184 of 2011 18.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/