Case: Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd Vs. Union Of India

become functus officio and ceased to have any power to recall the recommendation already made on any ground whatsoever. In this regard he relied upon Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho [2001) 4 SCC 181 ].174. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, & Ors., [1978) 1 SCC 405 ] it was submitted that the reasons originally given in an administrative order cannot be supplanted by other reasons in the affidavits or pleadings before the Court. He submitted that as regards Monnet, the initial reason by the State Government was not founded on reservation but later on it tried to bring the ground of reservation in fore by supplanting reasons.175. Mr. Ranjit Kumar vehemently contended that as per the State Government’s own case initially, the land that was recommended for mining lease to Monnet was not under the reserved area and, therefore, Monnet’s writ petition ought not to have been heard and decided with the group matters. He also referred to interim order passed by this Court on August 18, 2008, the meeting that took place between the Central Government and the State Government pursuant thereto and the subsequent interim order of this Court dated December 15, 2008. 176. I have carefully considered the submissions of Mr. Ranjit Kumar. Most of the above submissions were not argued on behalf of Monnet before the High Court. The submissions were confined to the issue of reservation, the legality and validity of 1962, 1969 and 2006 Notifications, consequent illegal action of the State Government in recalling the recommendation and of the Central Government in summarily rejecting the appellant’s application.177. In paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment, the arguments of the learned senior counsel for Monnet have been noticed. It transpires therefrom that many of the above arguments were not advanced including the issue of overlapping with the area of Rungta. In the list of dates/synopsis of the special leave petition, Monnet has not raised any grievance that arguments made on its behalf before the High Court were not correctly recorded or the High Court failed to consider any or some of its arguments. Criticism of the High Court judgment is thus not justified and I am not inclined to go into above submissions of Mr. Ranjit Kumar for the first time.178. It is too late in the day for Monnet to contend that its case could not have been decided with group matters and in any case the matter should be remanded to the High Court for reconsideration on the issues, namely, (a) whether the area recommended for the appellant was overlapping with Rungta only to the extent of 102.25 hectares out of total 705 hectares recommended for appellant; (b) whether after expiry of lease Rungta’s area was renotified for grant in 1996; (c) what was the reason for the State Government to withdraw the recommendation made in favour of the appellant when the alleged overlapping with Rungta was only to the extent of 102.25 hectares and (d) is withdrawal of appellant’s recommendation arbitrary when reservation vide 1962 Notification did not apply to the area recommended in favour of the appellants. Monnet’s writ petition was decided by the High Court with group matters as the arguments advanced on its behalf were identical to the arguments which were canvassed on behalf of other writ petitioners. The State Government recalled its recommendations by a common communication and the Central Government returned the recommendations and rejected applications for mining lease made by the writ petitioners by a common order.179. The State Government had full power to recall the recommendation made to the Central Government for some good reason. Once 1962 and 1969 Notifications issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar and 2006 Notification issued by the State of Jharkhand have been found by me to be valid and legal, the submissions of Mr. Ranjit Kumar noted above pale in insignificance and are not enough to invalidate the action of the State Government in recalling the recommendation made in favour of Monnet. The valid reservation of subject mining area for exploitation in public sector disentitles Monnet - as well as other appellants - to any relief.180. It is well settled that no one has legal or vested right to the grant or renewal of a mining lease. Monnet cannot claim a legal or vested right for grant of the mining lease. It is true that by the MOU entered into between the State Government and Monnet certain commitments were made by the State Government but firstly, such MOU is not a contract as contemplated under Article 299(1) of the Constitution of India and secondly, in grant of mining lease of a property of the State, the State Government has a discretion to grant or refuse to grant any mining lease. Obviously, the State Government is required to exercise its discretion, subject to the requirement of law. In view of the fact that area is reserved for exploitation of mineral in public sector, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the State Government suffers from any legal flaw.181. The case of discrimination vis-a-vis M/s Bihar Sponge Iron Limited argued on behalf of Monnet was not pressed before High Court and is not at all established. The argument with regard to violation of principles of natural justice is also devoid of any substance. The recommendation in favour of Monnet to the Central Government was simply a proposal with certain pre-conditions. For withdrawal of such proposal by the State Government, in my view, no notice was legally required to be given. Moreover, no prejudice has been caused to it by not giving any notice before recalling the recommendation as it had no legal or vested right to the grant of mining lease. The area is not available for grant of mining lease in the private sector. For all these reasons, I do not find that the case of Monnet stands differently from the other appellants.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]104. The appellants have applied for mining leases in a land belonging to Government of Jharkhand (erstwhile Bihar) and it is for iron- ore which is a mineral included in the First Schedule to the 1957 Act in respect of which no mining lease can be granted without the prior approval of the Central Government. It goes without saying that no person can claim any right in any land belonging to Government or in any mines in any land belonging to Government except under 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. No person has any fundamental right to claim that he should be granted mining lease or prospecting licence or permitted reconnaissance operation in any land belonging to the Government. It is apt to quote the following statement of O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in M/s. Hind Stoneo , albeit in the context of minor mineral, ‘The public interest which induced Parliament to make the declaration contained in Section 2……. has naturally to be the paramount consideration in all matters concerning the regulation of mines and the development ofHe went on to say, ‘The statute with which we are concerned, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, is aimed ………..at the conservation and the prudent and discriminating exploitation of minerals. Surely, in the case of a scarce mineral, to permit exploitation by the State or its agency and to prohibit exploitation by private agencies is the most effective method of conservation and prudent exploitation. If you want to conserve for the future, you must prohibit in the present.It is not in dispute that all rights and interests, including rights in mines and minerals in the subject area, had vested absolutely in the erstwhile State of Bihar free from all encumbrances. At the commencement of Constitution, the erstwhile State of Bihar was a Part-A State specified in the First Schedule of the Constitution and prior thereto the Province of Bihar. By virtue of Article 294, all properties and assets which were vested in His Majesty for the purposes of the Government of Province of Bihar stood vested in the corresponding State of Bihar. By 1950 Bihar Act, all other lands i.e., estates and tenures of whatever kind, including the mines and minerals therein, stood vested in the State of Bihar. Thus, all lands and minerals on or under land situate in the erstwhile State of Bihar came to vest in it. Thereafter with effect from November 15, 2000, the State of Jharkhand was carved out of the State of Bihar pursuant to the Bihar Re-Organisation Act, 2000. Accordingly, all lands, inter alia, belonging to the then State of Bihar and situated in the transferred territories of Singhbhum (East) and Singhbhum (West) Districts, passed to the newly created State of Jharkhand. The admitted position is that the State Government (erstwhile Bihar and now Jharkhand) is the owner of the subject area. Mines and minerals within its territory vest in it absolutely. As a matter of fact it is because of this position that the appellants made their application for grant of mining lease to the State Government. The question now is, the regulation of mines and development of minerals having been taken under its control by the Central Government, whether the provisions contained in 1957 Act or 1960 Rules come in the way of the State Government to reserve any particular area for exploitation in the public sector.106. The legislation on the subject of mines and minerals as contained in 1957 Act and 1960 Rules has been extensively quoted in the earlier part of the judgment. Suffice it to say that Section 4 is a pivotal provision around which the legal framework for the regulation of mines and development of minerals as laid down in 1957 Act revolves.107. The character of the impugned Notifications making reservation of the area set out therein for exploitation of iron ore in public sector has to be judged in light of the provisions in 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. The object and effect of declaration made by Parliament in Section 2 and the provisions that follow Section 2 in 1957 Act, which have been extensively referred to above, even remotely do not suggest that the Government of the erstwhile State of Bihar lacked authority or competence to make reservation of subject mining areas within its territory relating to iron ore which vested in it for public sector undertaking by 1962 and 1969 Notifications. Whatever way it is seen, whethertopic was covered by 1957 Act when 1962 and 1969 Notifications were issued and published by the State Government or whether the provisions of 1957 Act, as were then existing, enabled the State Government to reserve the subject area for its own use through the agency in public sector, I am of the opinion that since the Stateparamount right over the iron ore being the owner of the mines did not get affected by 1957 Act, the power existed with the State Government to reserve subject areas of mining for exploitation in public sector undertaking. It was, however, argued that by 1957 Act theownership rights insofar as ‘development ofwas concerned stood frozen.includes exploitation of mineral resources and to allow to exploit or not to allow to exploit is all covered by 1957 Act and by Section 4 the right of the State Government with regard to development of minerals was taken away and the State Government ceased to have any inherent right of reservation.108. I do not agree. In the first place, the declaration made by Parliament in Section 2 and the provisions that follow Section 2 in 1957 Act have left untouched theownership of mines and minerals within its territory although the regulation of mines and the development of minerals have been taken under the control of the Union. Section 4 deals with activities in relation to land and does not extend to extinguish theright of ownership in such land. Section 4 regulates the right to transfer but does not divest ownership of minerals in a State and does not preclude the State Government from exploiting its minerals. Section 4(1) can have no application where the State Government wants to undertake itself mining operations in the area owned by it. On consideration of Section 5, I am of the view that the same conclusion must follow. Section 5 or for that matter Sections 6, 9, 10, 11 and 13(2)(a) also do not take away theownership rights in the mines and minerals within its territory. The power to legislate for regulation of mines and development of minerals under the control of the Union may definitely imply power to acquire mines and minerals in the larger public interest by appropriate legislation, but by 1957 Act that has not been done. There is nothing in 1957 Act to suggest even remotely – and there is no express provision at all – that the mines and minerals that vested in the States have been acquired. Rather, the scheme and provisions of 1957 Act themselves show that Parliament itself contemplated State legislation for vesting of lands containing mineral deposits in the State Government and that Parliament did not intend to trench upon powers of State Legislatures under Entry 18, List II. As noted above, the declaration made by Parliament in Section 2 of 1957 Act states that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in the Act itself. The declaration made in Section 2 is, thus, not all comprehensive.109. The regulation of mines and development of minerals has been taken over under its control by the Central Government to the extent it is manifested in 1957 Act which does not contemplate acquisition of mines and minerals. By the presence of keynote expression ‘to the extent hereinafterin Section 2, the Union has assumed control to the extent specified in the provisions following Section 2. In my view, although the wordmust in the context receive wide interpretation, but the extent of control by Union as specified in 1957 Act has to be construed strictly. The decisions of this Court in M.A. Tulloch & Co.b, Baijnath Kadioc, Bharat Coking Coali and few other decisions where this Court has held with reference to declaration made by Parliament in Section 2 of 1957 Act and the provisions of that Act that the whole of the legislative field was covered were in the context of specific State legislations under consideration. In the context of subject State legislation, the whole legislative field was found to be occupied by the Central law. The same is the position in the case of Hingir-Rampur Coal Co.a where whole of the legislative field relating toSecondly, after enactment of 1957 Act and 1960 Rules made thereunder, the Central Government has all throughout understood that the State Governments as owner of mines and minerals within their territory have inherent right to reserve any particular area for exploitation in the public sector. This position is reflected from the order of the Central Government that was passed by it and which was under challenge in Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd. In its order the Central Government had stated, ‘….The State Government had the inherent right to reserve any particular area for exploitation in the public sector. Mineral vest in them and they are owners of minerals…….and Central Government are in agreement with the State Government in so far as the reservation of areas is concerned…..The above position held by the Central Government has been approved by this Court in Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd. I have already referred to the facts in the case of Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd and the issue involved therein – an issue similar to the controversy presented before us – in earlier part of this judgment. In Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd, the Court referred to Section 4 of 1957 Act and it was held that there was nothing in 1957 Act or 1960 Rules to conclude as to why the State Government could not , if it so desired,any land for itself, for any purpose, and such reserved land would then not be available for the grant of a prospecting licence or a mining lease to any person. The Court then pointed out, ‘the authority to order reservation flows from the fact that the State is the owner of the mines and the minerals within itsIt was also held that quite apart from that, Rule 59 of 1960 Rules clearly contemplated reservation by an order of the State Government. The above legal position has been reiterated by this Court in Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd.p .Learned senior counsel for the appellants, however, vehemently contended that Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd is not a binding precedent being per incuriam inasmuch as earlier judgments of this Court have not been considered and applied. It was argued that decision in Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd was limited to its own facts and that decision did not deal with reservation prior to amendment in Rule 59. In that case Notification was of December 31, 1963 whereunder lands in particular areas had been reserved for exploitation of bauxite in the public sector. At that time Rule 59 of 1960 Rules had been amended and, moreover, that was a case of exploitation of mineral by the State itself and in case of exploitation other than by State it could only be done in accord with the 1957 Act and 1960 Rules.114. I am afraid that the distinguishing features highlighted by learned senior counsel for the appellants are not substantial and do not persuade me not to follow Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd. The judgment of this Court in Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd establishes the distinction between the power of reservation to exploit a mineral as its own property on the one hand and the regulation of mines and mineral development under the 1957 Act and the 1960 Rules on the other. The authority of the State Government to make reservation of a particular mining area within its territory for its own use is the offspring of ownership; and it is inseparable therefrom unless denied to it expressly by an appropriate law. By 1957 Act that has not been done by Parliament. Setting aside by a State of land owned by it for its exclusive use and under its dominance and control, in my view, is an incident of sovereignty and ownership. There is no incongruity or inconsistency in the decisions of this Court in Hingir-Rampur Coal Co.a, M.A. Tulloch & Co.b, Baijnath Kadioc and Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd . The Bench in Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd was alive to the legal position highlighted by this Court in Hingir-Rampur Coal Co.a, M.A. Tulloch & Co.b and Baijnath Kadioc although it did not expressly refer to these decisions. This is apparent from the observations made in para 3 wherein it has been stated that in pursuance of its exclusive power to make laws with respect to the matters enumerated in Entry 54 of List I in the Seventh Schedule, Parliament specifically declared in Section 2 of the 1957 Act that it was expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control, regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent provided therein. The Bench noticed that Statepower under Entry 23 of List II was, thus, taken away and regulation of mines and mineral development had therefore to be in accordance with the 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. The legal position exposited in Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd is that even though the field of legislation with regard to regulation of mines and development of minerals has been covered by the declaration of the Parliament in Section 2 of the 1957 Act, but that can not justify the inference that the State Government has lost its right to the minerals which vest in it as a property within its territory and hence no person has a right to exploit the mines other than in accordance with the provisions of the 1957 Act and the 1960 Rules. The authority of the State Government to order reservation flows from the fact that it is the owner of the mines and the minerals within its territory. Such authority is also traceable to Rule 59 of 1960 Rules.On October 27, 2006, the State Government issued a Notification declaring its decision that the iron ore deposits at Ghatkuri would not be thrown open for grant of prospecting licence, mining licence or otherwise for private parties. In the said Notification, it was noted that the deposits were at all material times kept reserved by 1962 and 1969 Notifications issued by the State of Bihar. It was further mentioned in the Notification that mineral reserved in Ghatkuri area has now been decided to be utilized for exploitation by public sector undertaking or joint venture project of the State Government as they would usher in maximum benefits to the State and would generate substantial amount of employment in the State. 2006 Notification states that it has been issued in the public interest and in the larger interest of the State for optimum utilization and exploitation of the mineral resources in the State and for establishment of mineral based industry with value addition thereon. It was argued that 2006 Notification is bad for the same reasons for which 1962 and 1969 Notifications are bad in law and invalid. The argument is noted to be rejected. For 1962 and 1969 Notifications are not and have not been found by me to suffer from any legal infirmity. 2006 Notification mentions factum of reservation made by 1962 and 1969 Notifications. It is founded on the policy of the State Government that such reservation will usher in maximum benefits to the State and would also generate substantial amount of employment in the State. The public interest is, thus, paramount. The State Government had authority to do that under Section 17A(2) of 1957 Act read with Rule 59(1)(e) of 1960 Rules.Yet another considerable point was made that 1962 and 1969 Notifications are not relatable to statutory provisions contained in 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. Reference was made to Sections 17 and 18 and Rules 58 and 59 of 1960 Rules and it was argued that these provisions are indicative of the position that reservation made by the State Government for exploitation of minerals in public sector was unsupportable and unsustainable in law.Section 17 – not all - comprehensive provision116. I am of the opinion that Section 17 is not all - comprehensive on the subject of refusal to grant prospecting licence or mining lease. Section 17 has nothing to do with public or private sector. It does not deal directly or indirectly with the Stateright for reservation of its own mines and minerals. Its application is not general but it is confined to a specific situation where the Central Government proposes to undertake prospecting or mining operations in any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease. The above view with regard to Section 17 finds support from Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd. Insofar as Section 18 is concerned, it basically confers additional rule making power upon the Central Government for achieving the objectives, namely, conservation and systematic development of minerals articulated therein. If the State Government makes reservation in public interest with respect to minerals which vest in it for exploitation in public sector, I fail to see how such reservation can be seen as impairing the obligation cast upon the Central Government under Section 18.Rule 59 and Janak Lal117. It is true that Rule 58 as it existed originally did not enable the State Government to reserve any area in the State for exploitation of minerals in public sector. But Rule 59 did recognise the Stateauthority to make reservation for any purpose. It was, however, argued by Dr. Rajiv Dhavan that Rule 59, as it then stood, allowed reservation for anypurpose other than prospecting or miningminerals. He relied upon decision of this Court in Janak Lalj. In Janak Lalj, admittedly the disputed area was reserved for nistar purposes. When an application for grant of mining lease was earlier made by a third party it was rejected on the ground that it was so reserved. It was also an admitted position before this Court that the procedure under Rule 58 was not followed before grant was made in favour of respondent no. 4 therein and no opportunity was given to any other person before entertaining application of respondent no. 4. In the backdrop of the above admitted position, the Court considered the question whether Rule 59 was attracted or not. The High Court had accepted the argument of the respondents that the expression ‘reserved for anyin Rule 59 did not cover a case where the area was reserved for nistar purposes or for any purpose other than mining. This Court did not accept the Highview. While construing Rule 59 as it originally existed and the amendment brought in Rule 59 by deleting the words, ‘otherthan prospecting or mining forthe Court said that the result of the amendment was to extend the rule and not to curtail its area of operation. It was held that words ‘anywas of wide connotation and there was no reason to restrict its meaning.118. Janak Lal,j in my opinion, does not help the contention canvassed on behalf of the appellants. The expression, ‘otherthan prospecting or mining forthat formed part of original Rule 59, in my view, was not of much significance and did not impede the Stateauthority to make reservation of any area for exploitation in public sector founded on its ownership over that area. It was because of this that this insignificant and inconsequential expression was later on deleted from Rule 59 in 1963. Rule 59, accordingly, continued to recognise the Stateright to reserve any area for mining within its territory for any purpose including exploitation in public sector. In Amritlal Nathubhai Shahd, this position has been expressly affirmed when it said,quite apart from that, we find that Rule 59 of the Rules which have been made under Section 13 of the Act, clearly contemplates such reservation by an order of the Stateof Rule 58 and Section 17A119. Rule 58 was amended in 1980 whereby it expressly provided that the State Government may by Notification in the official gazette reserve any area for exploitation by the Government, a corporation established by the Central, State or Provincial Act or a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act. Rule 58 has been omitted from 1960 Rules as the provision for reservation has now been expressly made by insertion of Section 17A in 1957 Act. According to Section 17A(2), the State Government withthe approval of the CentralGovernment may reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease to undertake prospecting or mining operations through a Government company or a corporation owned or controlled by it. In terms of Section 17A(2), any reservation made by the State Government after coming into force of that Section must bear approval of the Central Government.120. From the above, it becomes clear that what was implied by the provisions originally contained in 1957 Act and 1960 Rules insofar as authority of the State Government to reserve any area within its territory for mining in public sector has been made explicit first by amendment in Rule 58 in 1980 and later on by introduction of Section 17A in 1957 Act by virtue of amendment effective from 1987.121. It was also argued by Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for one of the appellants that even if 1962 and 1969 Notifications were held to be validly issued with proper authority of law at that point of time, the fact that Rule 58 was omitted in 1988 without any saving clause necessarily meant that these Notifications were no longer valid and could not be relied upon. He argued that current power of reservation contained in Section 17A of 1957 Act is consistent with erstwhile Rules 58/59 since Section 17A expressly requiresthe approval of the CentralGovernment before any State Government issues any notification for reservation of mining area in public sector.122. The impact of omission of Rule 58 in 1988 from 1960 Rules and the introduction of Section 17A in 1957 Act in the context of reservation of the mining area by the State Government for public sector exploitation came up for direct consideration by this Court in Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd.p. In the earlier part of the judgment I have already quoted the relevant portion of the decision of this Court in Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd.p. The Court referred to the relevant amendments in 1957 Act and 1960 Rules and categorically held that reservations made prior to insertion of Section 17A continue in force even after the introduction of Section 17A. The reservations made by the State Government in 1977 before omission of Rule 58 and amendment in Rule 59 and insertion of Section 17A in 1957 Act were, thus, held to be unaffected.123. Having carefully considered Section 17A, I have no hesitation in holding that the said provision is prospective. There is no indication in Section 17A or in terms of the Amending Act that by insertion of Section 17A the Parliament intended to alter the pre-existing state of affairs. The Parliament does not seem to have intended by bringing in Section 17A to undo the reservation of any mining area made by the State Government earlier thereto for exploitation in public sector. The Parliament has no doubt plenary power of legislation within the field assigned to it to legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively. As early as in 1951 this Court in Keshavan Madhavav. State ofBombay [AIR 1951 SC 128 ] had stated about a cardinal principle of construction that every statue is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only. In Principles of Statutory Interpretation (Seventh Edition, 1999) by Justice G.P. Singh, the statement of Lord Blanesburg in ColonialSugar Refining Co. v.Irving [1905) AC 369] and the observations of Lopes, L.J. inParish School Board Election, Bourke v.) 1 QB725, p. 737] have been noted as followsthe words of Lord Blanesburg,which touch a right in existence at the passing of the statute are not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessaryy statute, it has beenobserved Lopes, L.J.,Where an issue arises before the Court whether a statute is prospective or retrospective, the Court has to keep in mind presumption of prospectivity articulated in legal maxim nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis, i.e., ‘a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not theThe presumption of prospectivity operates unless shown to the contrary by express provision in the statute or is otherwise discernible by necessary implication.125. The aspects, namely, (i) 1993 mineral policy framed by the Central Government envisaged permission of captive consumption of minerals across the country; (ii) in 1994 Central Government asked all the state governments to de-reserve 13 minerals including iron ore and directed them to take steps accordingly; (iii) confirmation by the Government of Bihar to the Central Government in 1994 that no mining areas were reserved for public sector undertaking in the then State of Bihar; (iv) confirmation by the State Government in 2001 to Central Government that there are no reserved areas in the State and (v) in 2004, the recommendation by the State Government in favour of the appellants to the Central Government for grant of prior approval and reminder in 2005, in my view, have no impact and effect on the validity of 1962 and 1969 Notifications. The above acts of the Government of Bihar and the Government of Jharkhand in ignorance of 1962 and 1969 Notifications cannot be used as a sufficient ground for invalidating these Notifications. If a state government has power to reserve mineral bearing area for exploitation in public sector – and I have already held that the then Government of Bihar had such power – the act of reservation vide 1962 and 1969 Notifications is not rendered illegal or invalid. I am clearly of the view that lack of knowledge on the part of the State Government about the reservation of areas for exploitation in public sector vide 1962 and 1969 Notifications does not affect in any manner the legality and validity of these Notifications once it has been found that these Notifications have been issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar in valid exercise of power which it had.It was, however, argued on behalf of the appellants that 2006 Notification has attempted to reserve the area for exploitation by public sector undertaking or in joint venture project whereas Section 17A(2) of 1957 Act allows the State Government to reserve area for a government company or corporation owned or controlled by it and not in joint venture project. The submission was that 2006 Notification is an attempt to bring in indirectly private companies through joint venture project although, Section 17A clearly does not envisage private participation.128. The mineral reserved in the said area by 2006 Notification has been decided to be utilized for exploitation by public sector undertaking or joint venture project of the State Government. 2006 Notification does mention reservation for joint venture project of the State Government but, in my opinion, the said expression must be understood to be confined to an instrumentality having the trappings and character of a government company or corporation owned or controlled by the State Government and not outside of such instrumentality.129. The types of reservation under Section 17A and their scope have been considered by this Court in Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd.p in paragraphs 45 and 46 (pgs. 136-139) of the Report. I am in respectful agreement with that view. However, it was argued that Section 17A(2) requires prior approval of the Central Government before reservation of any area by the State Government for the public sector undertaking. The argument is founded on incorrect reading of Section 17A(2). This provision does not use the expression, ‘priorwhich has been used in Section 11. On the other hand, Section 17A(2) uses the words, ‘withthe approval of the CentralThese words in Section 17A(2) can not be equated with prior approval of the Central Government. According to me, the approval contemplated in Section 17A may be obtained by the State Government before the exercise of power of reservation or after exercise of such power. The approval by the Central Government contemplated in Section 17A(2) may be express or implied. In a case such as the present one where the Central Government has relied upon 2006 Notification while rejectingapplication for grant of mining lease, it necessarily implies that the Central Government has approved reservation made by State Government in 2006 Notification otherwise it would not have acted on the same. In any case, the Central Government has not disapproved reservation made by the State Government in 2006 Notification.130. Two more contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants, one, with regard to 2006 Notification and the other with regard to 1962 and 1969 Notifications may be briefly noticed. As regards 2006 Notification it was contended that it was not legally valid as it has been made operative with retrospective effect. In respect of 1962 and 1969 Notifications, it was argued that the State Government had never adopted these Notifications and, accordingly, these Notifications lapsed. None of these two arguments has any merit. 2006 Notification has not been given retrospective operation as contended on behalf of the appellants. I have already held that 2006 Notification is prospective. Mere reference to 1962 and 1969 Notifications in 2006 Notification does not make 2006 Notification retrospective.131. The other argument that 1962 and 1969 Notifications had lapsed as the State Government never adopted them is also without any merit and substance. The new State of Jharkhand was carved out of the erstwhile State of Bihar and it came into existence by virtue of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. Section 85 of that Act provides that the appropriate Government may before expiration of two years adapt and/or modify the law and every such law shall have effect subject to adaptation and modification so made until altered, repealed or amended by a competent Legislature. In light of Section 85 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act read with Sections 84 and 86 thereof, position that emerges is that the existing law shall have effect until it is altered, repealed and/or amended. Since the new State of Jharkhand had not altered, repealed and/or amended 1962 and 1969 Notifications issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar, it cannot be said that 1962 and 1969 Notifications had lapsed. Moreover, in 2006 Notification, 1962 and 1969 Notifications and their effect have been mentioned and that also shows that 1962 and 1969 Notifications continued to operate. The expression, ‘the deposit was at all material times kept reserved vide Gazette Notification No. A/MM-40510/62-6209/M dated 21st December, 1962 and No. B/M-6-1019/68-1564/M dated 28th February, 1969 of the State ofleaves no manner of doubt that 1962 and 1969 Notifications continued to operate and did not lapse.I may now examine whether the doctrines of promissory estoppel and the legitimate expectation help the appellants in obtaining the reliefs claimed by them and whether the actions of the State Government and the Central Government are liable to be set aside by applying these doctrines.155. Each of the appellants has raised the pleas of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation based on its own facts. It is not necessary to narrate facts in each appeal with regard to these pleas as stipulations in the MOUs entered into between the respective appellants and the State Government are broadly similar. For the sake of convenience, the broad features in the matter of Adhunik may be considered. The MOU was made between the State Government and Adhunik on February 26, 2004. Adhunik is involved in diversified activities such as production of sponge iron and steel, generating power etc. The preamble to the MOU states that the Government of Jharkhand is desirous of utilization of its natural resources and rapid industrialization of the State and has been making efforts to facilitate setting up of new industries in different locations in the State. It is stated in paragraph 2 of the MOU,this context the Government of Jharkhand is willing to extend assistance to suitable promoters to set up new(emphasis supplied). Adhunik expressed desire of setting up manufacturing/generating facilities in the State of Jharkhand. Proposed Phase-I comprised of setting up Sponge Iron Plant and Pelletaisation Plant while Phase-II comprised of Sponge Iron Plant, Power Plant, Coal Washery, Mini Blast Furnace, Steel Melting/LD/IF and Iron Ore Mining and Phase-III comprised of establishment of Power Plant. Para 4 of MOU states that Adhunik requires help and cooperation of the State Government in several areas to enable them to construct, commission and operate the project. The Statewillingness to extend all possible help and cooperation is stated in the above MOU. Para 4.3 of MOU records that the State Government shall assist in selecting the area for Adhunik for iron ore and other minerals as per requirement of the company depending upon quality and quantity. The State Government also agreed to grant mineral concession as per existing Acts and Rules.156. In pursuance of the above MOU, the State Government through its Deputy Secretary, Mining and Geology Department recommended to the Government of India through its Joint Director, Mining Ministry on August 4, 2004 to grant prior approval under Section 11(5) and Section 5(1) of the 1957 Act for grant of mining lease to Adhunik for a period of 30 years in the area of 426.875 hectares. The reasons for such recommendation were stated by the State Government in the above communication. In the above communication, it was stated that Adhunik had signed MOU with the State Government for making a capital investment of Rs. 790 crores in establishment of an industry based on iron ore mineral in the State. The steps taken by Adhunik were also highlighted.157.case is that on the basis of definite commitment and firm promise made by the State Government for grant of captive mines as stipulated in the MOU and theIndustrial Policy, it acted immediately on the MOU and has invested more than Rs. 100 crores to construct and commission the plant and facilities in Phase-I of the MOU and it has employed about 3500 people directly and indirectly for construction and operation of plant in Phase-I. According to Adhunik, it has ordered equipments and machinery for Phase-II and Phase-III at a cost of Rs. 25 crores and has also made further financial commitments for more than Rs. 1000 crore to set up the expansion. Adhunik claims to have also borrowed a sum of Rs. 60 crores from banks and financial institutions and invested that sum in the proposed project.158. According to Adhunik, no integrated steel plant can be viable in the State of Jharkhand without captive iron ore mines and without the definite promise of the State Government to grant the captive mines and it would not have acted on the MOU to make such a huge investment if the State Government were not to make available captive iron ore mines. Adhunik has also stated that in the absence of grant of captive iron ore mines, it has been suffering huge and irreparable losses due to (a) shortage in supply of iron ore due to poor availability, (b) it has to purchase from the market poor quality of iron ore and (c) extra cost due to abnormal market prices compared to the actual cost of captive iron ore.159. What the State Government had expressed in MOU is its willingness to extend all possible help and cooperation in setting up the manufacturing/generating facilities by Adhunik. The clause in MOU states that the State Government shall assist in selecting the area for iron ore and other minerals as per requirement of the company depending upon quality and quantity. The State Government agreed to grant mineral concession as per existing Act and Rules. As a matter of fact, when the MOU was entered into, the State Government was not even aware about the reservation of the subject mining area for exploitation in the public sector. It was on November 17, 2004 that the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa informed the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand that certain portions of Mauza Ghatkuri and the adjoining areas were reserved for public sector under 1962 and 1969 Notifications issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar. The District Mining Officer suggested to the State Government that approval of the Central Government should be obtained for grant of leases to the concerned applicants. In his communication, he stated that the fact of reservation of the subject area in public sector vide 1962 and 1969 Notifications was brought to the knowledge of the Director of Mines, Jharkhand but he did not take any timely or adequate action in the matter. In view of the fact that the subject mining area had been reserved for exploitation in pubic sector under 1962 and 1969 Notifications, in my opinion, the stipulation in the MOU that the State Government shall assist in selecting the area for iron ore and other minerals as per requirement of the company and the commitment to grant mineral concession cannot be enforced. For one, the stipulation in the MOU is not unconditional. The above commitment is dependent on availability and as per existing law. Two, if the State Government is asked to do what it represented to do under the MOU then that would amount to asking the State Government to do something in breach of these two Notifications which continue to hold the field. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is not attracted in the present facts, particularly when promise was made – assuming that some of the clauses in the MOU amount to promise – in a mistaken belief and in ignorance of the position that the subject land was not available for iron ore mining in the private sector. I do not think that the State Government can be compelled to carry out what it cannot do in the existing state of affairs in view of 1962 and 1969 Notifications. In my opinion, the State Government cannot be held to be bound by its commitments or assurances or representations made in the MOU because by enforcement of such commitments or assurances or representations, the object sought to be achieved by reservation of the subject area is likely to be defeated and thereby affecting the public interest. The overriding public interest also persuades me in not invoking the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. For the self-same reasons none of the appellants is entitled to any relief based on these doctrines; their case is no better.160. As a matter of fact, on coming to know of 1962 and 1969 Notifications, the State Government withdrew the proposals which it made to the appellants and reiterated the reservation by its Notification dated October 27, 2006 expresslyThe act of the State Government in withdrawing the recommendations made by it to the Central Government in the above factual and legal backdrop cannot be said to be bad in law on the touchstone of doctrine of promissory estoppel as well as legitimate expectation. The act of the State Government is neither unfair nor arbitrary nor it suffers from the principles of natural justice. The Government of India upon examination of the proposals rejected them on the ground that subject area was under reservation and not available for exploitation by private parties. In these circumstances, if the clauses in the MOU are allowed to be carried out, it would tantamount to enforcement of promise, assurance or representation which is against law, public interest and public policy which I am afraid cannot be permitted.162. On behalf of the appellants, it was also argued that the 1962 and 1969 Notifications had remained in disuse for about 40 years and it is reasonable to infer that these two Notifications no longer operated. In this regard, the doctrine of quasi repeal by desuetude was sought to be invoked.The doctrine of desuetude and its applicability in Indian Jurisprudence have been considered by this Court on more than one occasion. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik & Ors. [1982) 3 SCC 519 ], the Court noted the decision of Scrutton, L.J. inv. London CountyR (1931) 2 KB 215(CA)] and the view of renowned author Allen inand observed that the rule concerning desuetude has always met with general disfavour. It was also held that a statute can be abrogated only by express or implied repeal; it cannot fall into desuetude or become inoperative through obsolescence or by lapse of time.164. In Bharat Forge Co. Ltd.v, inter alia, the argument was raised that the Notifications of June 17, 1918 have not been implemented till date and therefore these Notifications were dead letter and stood repealedA three-Judge Bench of this Court entered into consideration of the doctrine of desuetude elaborately. After noticing the English law and Scots law in regard to the doctrine of desuetude, the Court noted the doctrine of desuetude explained in FrancisStatutory Interpretation; Craies Statute Law (7th Edn.) and Lordte of Edinburghts Law Times Reports) 456, 458].165. The Court also referred toand Desuetude ofby Aubrey L. Diamond wherein a reference has been made to the view of Lord Denning, M.R. inv. Greater LondonCouncil [1970) 2 All ER 193]. Having noticed as above, the Court in paragraph 34 (pages 446-447) of the Report statedThough in India the doctrine of desuetude does not appear to have been used so far to hold that any statute has stood repealed because of this process, we find no objection in principle to apply this doctrine to our statutes as well. This is for the reason that a citizen should know whether, despite a statute having been in disuse for long duration and instead a contrary practice being in use, he is still required to act as per the. We would think it would advance the cause of justice to accept the application of doctrine of desuetude in our country also. Our soil is ready to accept this principle; indeed, there is need for its implantation, because persons residing in free India, who have assured fundamental rights including what has been stated in Article 21, must be protected from their being, say, prosecuted and punished for violation of a law which has become. A new path is, therefore, required to be laid and trodden.In Cantonment Board, MHOW and Anr. v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation [1997) 9 SCC 450 ], this Court had an occasion to consider the doctrine of desuetude while considering the submission that the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 stood repealed having been in disuse. The Court considered the earlier decision in Bharat Forge Co. Ltd.v and held that to apply principle of desuetude it was necessary to establish that the statute in question had been in disuse for long and the contrary practice of some duration has evolved. It was also held that neither of these two facts has been satisfied in the case and therefore the doctrine of desuetude had no application.167. From the above, the essentials of doctrine of desuetude may be summarized as follows :(i) The doctrine of desuetude denotes principle of quasi repeal but this doctrine is ordinarily seen with disfavour.ii) Although doctrine of desuetude has been made applicable in India on few occasions but for its applicability, two factors, namely, (i) that the statute or legislation has not been in operation for very considerable period and (ii) the contrary practice has been followed over a period of time must be clearly satisfied. Both ingredients are essential and want of anyone of them would not attract the doctrine of desuetude. In other words, a mere neglect of a statute or legislation over a period of time is not sufficient but it must be firmly established that not only the statute or legislation was completely neglected but also the practice contrary to such statute or legislation has been followed for a considerable long period.Whether doctrine of desuetude attracted in respect of 1962 and 1969 Notifications168. Insofar as 1962 and 1969 Notifications are concerned, I am of the view that doctrine of desuetude is not attracted for more than one reason. In the first place, the Notifications are of 1962 and 1969 non- implementation of such Notifications for 30-35 years is not that long a period which may satisfy the first requirement of the doctrine of desuetude, namely, that the statute or legislation has not been in operation for a very considerable period. Moreover, State of Jharkhand came into existence on November 15, 2000 and it can hardly be said that 1962 and 1969 Notifications remained neglected by the State Government for a very considerableAs a matter of fact, in 2006, the State Government issued a Notification mentioning therein about the reservation made by 1962 and 1969 Notifications. Thus, the first ingredient necessary for invocation of doctrine of desuetude is not satisfied. Secondly, and more importantly, even if it is assumed in favour of the appellants that 1962 and 1969 Notifications remained in disuse for a considerable period having not been implemented for more than 30-35 years, the second necessary ingredient that a practice contrary to the above Notifications has been followed for a considerable long period and such contrary practice has been firmly established is totally absent. As a matter of fact, except stray grant of mining lease for a very small portion of the reserved area to one or two parties there is nothing to suggest much less establish the contrary usage or contrary practice that the reservation made in the two Notifications has been given a complete go by.I have carefully considered the submissions of Mr. Ranjit Kumar. Most of the above submissions were not argued on behalf of Monnet before the High Court. The submissions were confined to the issue of reservation, the legality and validity of 1962, 1969 and 2006 Notifications, consequent illegal action of the State Government in recalling the recommendation and of the Central Government in summarily rejecting theapplication.177. In paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment, the arguments of the learned senior counsel for Monnet have been noticed. It transpires therefrom that many of the above arguments were not advanced including the issue of overlapping with the area of Rungta. In the list of dates/synopsis of the special leave petition, Monnet has not raised any grievance that arguments made on its behalf before the High Court were not correctly recorded or the High Court failed to consider any or some of its arguments. Criticism of the High Court judgment is thus not justified and I am not inclined to go into above submissions of Mr. Ranjit Kumar for the first time.178. It is too late in the day for Monnet to contend that its case could not have been decided with group matters and in any case the matter should be remanded to the High Court for reconsideration on the issues, namely, (a) whether the area recommended for the appellant was overlapping with Rungta only to the extent of 102.25 hectares out of total 705 hectares recommended for appellant; (b) whether after expiry of leasearea was renotified for grant in 1996; (c) what was the reason for the State Government to withdraw the recommendation made in favour of the appellant when the alleged overlapping with Rungta was only to the extent of 102.25 hectares and (d) is withdrawal ofrecommendation arbitrary when reservation vide 1962 Notification did not apply to the area recommended in favour of the appellants.writ petition was decided by the High Court with group matters as the arguments advanced on its behalf were identical to the arguments which were canvassed on behalf of other writ petitioners. The State Government recalled its recommendations by a common communication and the Central Government returned the recommendations and rejected applications for mining lease made by the writ petitioners by a common order.179. The State Government had full power to recall the recommendation made to the Central Government for some good reason. Once 1962 and 1969 Notifications issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar and 2006 Notification issued by the State of Jharkhand have been found by me to be valid and legal, the submissions of Mr. Ranjit Kumar noted above pale in insignificance and are not enough to invalidate the action of the State Government in recalling the recommendation made in favour of Monnet. The valid reservation of subject mining area for exploitation in public sector disentitles Monnet - as well as other appellants - to any relief.180. It is well settled that no one has legal or vested right to the grant or renewal of a mining lease. Monnet cannot claim a legal or vested right for grant of the mining lease. It is true that by the MOU entered into between the State Government and Monnet certain commitments were made by the State Government but firstly, such MOU is not a contract as contemplated under Article 299(1) of the Constitution of India and secondly, in grant of mining lease of a property of the State, the State Government has a discretion to grant or refuse to grant any mining lease. Obviously, the State Government is required to exercise its discretion, subject to the requirement of law. In view of the fact that area is reserved for exploitation of mineral in public sector, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the State Government suffers from any legal flaw.181. The case of discrimination vis-a-vis M/s Bihar Sponge Iron Limited argued on behalf of Monnet was not pressed before High Court and is not at all established. The argument with regard to violation of principles of natural justice is also devoid of any substance. The recommendation in favour of Monnet to the Central Government was simply a proposal with certain pre-conditions. For withdrawal of such proposal by the State Government, in my view, no notice was legally required to be given. Moreover, no prejudice has been caused to it by not giving any notice before recalling the recommendation as it had no legal or vested right tothe grant of mininglease. The area is not available for grant of mining lease in the private sector. For all these reasons, I do not find that the case of Monnet stands differently from the other appellants.The next question which arises is, even if the cess is a fee and as such may be relatable to Entries 23 and 66 in List II its validity is still open to challenge because the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 23 is subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union; and that takes us to Entry 54 in List I. This Entry reads thus:of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the publicThe effect of reading the two Entries together is clear. The jurisdiction of the State Legislature under Entry 23 is subject to the limitation imposed by the latter part of the said Entry. If Parliament by its law has declared that regulation and development of mines should in public interest be under the control of the Union to the extent of such declaration the jurisdiction of the State Legislature is excluded. In other words, if a Central Act has been passed which contains a declaration by Parliament as required by Entry 54, and if the said declaration covers the field occupied by the impu8gned Act the impugned Act would be ultra vires, not because of any repugnance between the two statutes but because the State Legislature had no jurisdiction to pass the law. The limitation imposed by the latter part of Entry 23 is a limitation on the legislative competence of the State Legislature itself. The position is not in dispute.In M.A. Tulloch & Co. (supra), the Constitution Bench was concerned with legality of certain demands of fee under the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952, and the same question arose as to whether the provisions of the Orissa Act were hit by the MMDR Act, 1957 in view of Entry No.54 of the Union List. The validity of the state act was canvassed under Entry No.23 of the State List and was accepted as not hit by the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957. The Court held the Orissa Act and the demand of fee to be valid. What this Court observed in Para 5 is relevant for our purpose………..………….It does not need much argument to realise that to the extent to which the Union Government had taken underhe regulation and development ofso much was withdrawn from the ambit of the power of the State Legislature under Entry 23 and legislation of the State which had rested on the existence of power under that entry would to the extent of thatbe superseded or be rendered ineffective, for here we have a case not of mere repugnancy between the provisions of the two enactments but of a denudation or deprivation of State legislative power by the declaration which Parliament is empowered to make and has made.