Case: DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &amp; ORS

a restricted window and this legislative intent ought not to be defeated by supplanting it with any other interpretation. It is a well settled principle of interpretation that when the words of a statute are clear and unambigous, recourse to different principles of interpretation, other than the rule of literal construction, cannot be resorted to. (Delhi Transport Corporation v. Balwan Singh and Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 276) If a fresh grant or extension has to be made under the Mining Rules, it must be in accordance with Chapter II, and the provision for auction of leases in Chapter IV is in furtherance of a transparent procedure. 36. We do find ourselves in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the State that the right to extension of lease either flow from a statutory provision or from the terms of the lease between the concerned parties. If there has been an obstructed period by reason of a judicial interdict, that itself will not give window to extend the lease by not following the statutory provisions, especially when the terms of the lease do not provide for any consequences thereof. 37. We may notice that this view has been adopted by the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Kumar Dwivedi (supra) case where the same question was examined. The leaseholders were obstructed/restrained from carrying out the mining activity during the subsistence of their leases upon the orders of the High Court or of the competent authority. The High Court adopted the view that after the issuance of the G.O. dated 31.5.2012 this could not be done. 38. We are conscious of the fact that the G.O. dated 31.5.2012 also finds elucidation in certain other judicial pronouncements and that this aspect was clarified by the subsequent G.O. dated 26.2.2013 and then both the G.Os. were cancelled vide G.O. dated 22.10.2014, which would hold the field. In pursuance thereof, 35 mining leases are stated to have been issued but that itself would not make a difference because we have to see what are the subsequent developments and what course to adopt as on date. Even if we consider the interpretation sought to be put forth by learned senior counsel for the appellants of an expanded view of Rule 68, giving power to the State to extend the lease for the obstructed period, would it now be exercisable is the question. 39. The State of UP had issued a New Mining Policy on 12.6.2017 and this policy has no provision for grant of extension of time for obstructed period of mining lease and all mining leases were to be permitted by etendering or e-auction alone. If the mining lease is extended for the obstructed period, it would amount to violation of this New Mining Policy and since the extension would have to be granted now, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that this should relate back to the date of the lease and not as on date. 40. We may also notice that the statutory rule, Rule 40(h) of the Mining Rules, extracted in para 16 itself, provides for the consequences of the disruption of mining operations in a lease area owing to any special circumstances and requires the DM, with the prior approval of the State Government, to adjust the amount equivalent to the installments payable during the disrupted period against forthcoming installments. Thus, monetary adjustment is all that has been provided for by the statute making the legislative intent obvious, i.e., that if some amounts have been paid as installments under the mining lease for the period when the beneficiary is not able to operate the mining area, only that amount is liable to be refunded. This is what forms the basis of the submission made on behalf of the State of UP that they are only liable to refund (i) any security deposit; or (ii) advance royalties paid to them, for this obstructed period – something to which the State of UP has already consented before us as recorded in our order dated 10.8.2020. The view taken by the High Court in Nar Narain Mishra (supra) case no doubt was in the context of the applicability of the G.O. dated 31.5.2012 and received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court in Sulekhan Singh (supra) case. But we have also to note that the observations dealt with the issue also on the submission advanced that imarti patthar or building stone is not covered by the G.O. dated 31.5.2012 and that contention was not accepted. The word boulder was held to be included in the heading of building stone as well as when found in a mixed form in riverbeds and the prayer of the leaseholder was not accepted. 41. We are conscious of the fact, as already noticed, that the appellants have suffered in the second round and the plea advanced on their behalf that if there were interdicts posed by a competent court that should not put a party at a disadvantage. This rule is ordinarily to be accepted for placing a successful party in the same position, which they had been in, if the wrong complained against them would not have been done to them. (Beg Raj Singh case (supra)) However, this cannot be a blanket proposition and we have to consider the context in which the interdict was passed, i.e., to preserve the forest area. It is a different matter that some leases were ultimately found as within the restricted area and some outside (as is the case of the appellants). Even if we take the notification of the State of UP dated 31.7.2014 into account, and the authorisation of the DMs to extend the lease where no third party interest was created and the leases were prevented from operation for no fault attributable to the leaseholders, the subsequent transparent policy of 2017 would weigh in favour of not exercising the jurisdiction to extend the leases for the obstructed period.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We may notice that some of the leases expired during the obstructed period while other leases have continued and thus in the latter cases the issue would only be to further extend the lease for the obstructed period while in case of the earlier situation permission would have to be given to mine for an extended period relatable to the obstructed period. The delay on the part of the State of UP in issuance of the Section 20 notification has been placed at the door of an apprehension that it should not be construed as violative of the orders passed in Banwasi Seva Ashram (supra) case.15. In the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and judicial pronouncements, the developments which have taken place post this situation were set out. The State of UP issued a New Mining Policy on 12.6.2017. In terms of this policy there is no provision for grant of extension of time for obstructed period of mining lease and all mining leases were to be permitted by e-tendering or e-auction alone.30. We have given considerable thought to the issue at hand, keeping in mind the past litigation, the statutory provisions and the narrow compass in which we have to examine the issue at hand.31. There is no doubt that the prior rounds of litigation resulted in orders favouring the appellants. The present round of litigation, however, arose on account of an endeavour to prevent alleged illegal mining in the vicinity of the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary located in Village Billi Markundi in Sonbhadra District. The Notification dated 20.3.2017 of the MoEFCC declared the area in question as an ESZ under the provisions of the EPA. The sequitur was that the State of UP placed before the NGT the factual position relating to the grant of leases and according to them, there were stated to be 33 leases operational outside the ESZ. The NGT wanted to examine this on account of the orders passed on 4.5.2016 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad (supra) case for cancellation of all mining leases and all other non-forestry activities on areas notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act. The whole object was to find out as to what lay outside of the reserved limit of the forest area and it was found that there were some active leases still in force on the lands which were covered under the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act. But despite this, the notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act had not been issued. The directions which arose from the impugned order of the NGT on 13.7.2018, were towards this objective. 32. We have already noted that the leaseholders were, however, not made parties, not even in a representative capacity. This is the reason that these aspects could not be examined with the assistance of the appellants by the NGT, and the mining activity was stopped resulting in the appeals before us. We, thus, called upon the State of UP to perform their statutory duty of issuance of the notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act and after some delay, the same was issued only on 15.6.2020. It is only at that stage that the leases which were not covered, as in the case of the appellants, had a final clarity and the issue, received a closure. However, this did prevent the mining activity till then, from the time it was banned by the NGT. In the mean time, there are leases which have expired and there are other leases which are still in force as is apparent from the detailed chart which we have set out at the inception of our judgment.33. Insofar as the questionwhether to adopt the course of extending the leases for the obstructed period or in some way compensating the appellants for the same,is what was debated and we have already noted the rival contentions of the two parties.34. We have, at the inception, stated that we are conscious of the statutory provisions and, thus, would not like to infringe the same, apart from the fact that it may not be an appropriate course of action as it may open other floodgates as if these rounds are not enough!35. The judicial opinions referred to by learned counsel for the State of UP no doubt lead to a more or less consistent view that a mere filing of an application either for the grant of a lease or for the renewal of a lease does not confer a vested right for either grant or renewal of a lease (Sukhan Singh(supra) case). The statutory provision of Rule 68 of the Mining Rules, which has been strongly relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, is in the nature of a relaxation rule in special cases and has to be read with the Rules which provide the manner in which the exploitation of minerals should take place (Mohammad Yunus Hasan (supra) case). Thus, the expression used is in the interest of mineral development it is necessary so to do… The idea, thus, is that the objective of exercising such power should be to aid the development of minerals and such judicial view is of significance as there was always a possibility of the misuse of such power, considering the history of mineral exploitation in our country. The statute was worded in a restrictive manner deliberately giving only a restricted window and this legislative intent ought not to be defeated by supplanting it with any other interpretation. It is a well settled principle of interpretation that when the words of a statute are clear and unambigous, recourse to different principles of interpretation, other than the rule of literal construction, cannot be resorted to. (Delhi Transport Corporation v. Balwan Singh and Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 276) If a fresh grant or extension has to be made under the Mining Rules, it must be in accordance with Chapter II, and the provision for auction of leases in Chapter IV is in furtherance of a transparent procedure.36. We do find ourselves in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the State that the right to extension of lease either flow from a statutory provision or from the terms of the lease between the concerned parties. If there has been an obstructed period by reason of a judicial interdict, that itself will not give window to extend the lease by not following the statutory provisions, especially when the terms of the lease do not provide for any consequences thereof.37. We may notice that this view has been adopted by the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Kumar Dwivedi (supra) case where the same question was examined. The leaseholders were obstructed/restrained from carrying out the mining activity during the subsistence of their leases upon the orders of the High Court or of the competent authority. The High Court adopted the view that after the issuance of the G.O. dated 31.5.2012 this could not be done.38. We are conscious of the fact that the G.O. dated 31.5.2012 also finds elucidation in certain other judicial pronouncements and that this aspect was clarified by the subsequent G.O. dated 26.2.2013 and then both the G.Os. were cancelled vide G.O. dated 22.10.2014, which would hold the field. In pursuance thereof, 35 mining leases are stated to have been issued but that itself would not make a difference because we have to see what are the subsequent developments and what course to adopt as on date. Even if we consider the interpretation sought to be put forth by learned senior counsel for the appellants of an expanded view of Rule 68, giving power to the State to extend the lease for the obstructed period, would it now be exercisable is the question.39. The State of UP had issued a New Mining Policy on 12.6.2017 and this policy has no provision for grant of extension of time for obstructed period of mining lease and all mining leases were to be permitted by etendering or e-auction alone. If the mining lease is extended for the obstructed period, it would amount to violation of this New Mining Policy and since the extension would have to be granted now, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that this should relate back to the date of the lease and not as on date.40. We may also notice that the statutory rule, Rule 40(h) of the Mining Rules, extracted in para 16 itself, provides for the consequences of the disruption of mining operations in a lease area owing to any special circumstances and requires the DM, with the prior approval of the State Government, to adjust the amount equivalent to the installments payable during the disrupted period against forthcoming installments. Thus, monetary adjustment is all that has been provided for by the statute making the legislative intent obvious, i.e., that if some amounts have been paid as installments under the mining lease for the period when the beneficiary is not able to operate the mining area, only that amount is liable to be refunded. This is what forms the basis of the submission made on behalf of the State of UP that they are only liable to refund (i) any security deposit; or (ii) advance royalties paid to them, for this obstructed period – something to which the State of UP has already consented before us as recorded in our order dated 10.8.2020. The view taken by the High Court in Nar Narain Mishra (supra) case no doubt was in the context of the applicability of the G.O. dated 31.5.2012 and received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court in Sulekhan Singh (supra) case. But we have also to note that the observations dealt with the issue also on the submission advanced that imarti patthar or building stone is not covered by the G.O. dated 31.5.2012 and that contention was not accepted. The word boulder was held to be included in the heading of building stone as well as when found in a mixed form in riverbeds and the prayer of the leaseholder was not accepted.41. We are conscious of the fact, as already noticed, that the appellants have suffered in the second round and the plea advanced on their behalf that if there were interdicts posed by a competent court that should not put a party at a disadvantage. This rule is ordinarily to be accepted for placing a successful party in the same position, which they had been in, if the wrong complained against them would not have been done to them. (Beg Raj Singh case (supra)) However, this cannot be a blanket proposition and we have to consider the context in which the interdict was passed, i.e., to preserve the forest area. It is a different matter that some leases were ultimately found as within the restricted area and some outside (as is the case of the appellants). Even if we take the notification of the State of UP dated 31.7.2014 into account, and the authorisation of the DMs to extend the lease where no third party interest was created and the leases were prevented from operation for no fault attributable to the leaseholders, the subsequent transparent policy of 2017 would weigh in favour of not exercising the jurisdiction to extend the leases for the obstructed period.