Usha Dwivedi vs State Of M.P. And Others

Ajay Kumar Mittal, CJ

The petitioner by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus against the respondents 1 to 3 to renew her quarry lease for minor mineral Stone for making Gitti by mechanical crushing in village Parwa, Tahsil Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur bearing Khasra No.1288, ad-measuring 3.000 Hectares in Government land.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid quarry lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of 10 years from 03.06.2010 to 02.06.2020, which was also registered in her favour. Before the said lease could expire on 02.06.2020, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent No.3 on 20.05.2019 (Annexure P-2) for renewal of the lease in terms of Rule 17 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (in short "the 1996 Rules"). The application was submitted within time as per Rule 17 of the said Rules but in view of an order dated 27.06.2019 passed by a Division Bench of Indore Bench of this Court in W.P. No.6215/2019 (Prathvi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of M.P.) making auction mandatory for grant of quarry lease over the Government land qua minor mineral of Stone for making Gitti by mechanical crushing (i.e. use of crusher) specified at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I of the 1996 Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Mineral-G"), the Mining Department has stalled the entire process for renewal of quarry lease for the said Mineral and thus, for this sole reason, the petitioners' renewal application is not being decided.

The question: as to whether in terms of the Division Bench decision in Prathvi Infrastructure's case (supra) the grant of Mineral-G could be only by way of open auction and whether under the 1996 Rules there can be two separate processes i.e. one by open auction for Government land and another by grant for private land in respect of Mineral-G particularly when Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules provides for grant and renewal of the quarry lease by the Authority prescribed under the Table appended thereto, came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No.25364/2019 (M/s Trinity Infrastructure vs. The State of M.P. & others) and vide order dated 21.09.2020, the said questions have been negatived and the decision in Prathvi Infrastructure's case (supra) has been overruled. The relevant paragraphs of the Full Bench judgment in M/s Trinity Infrastructure's case (supra) read, thus:-

"25. The words "Trade quarry" and "Quarry Lease" have been defined under the definition Clauses (xvi-a) and (xxv) of Rule 2 of the 1996 Rules respectively. According to it, the "Trade quarry" means a quarry for which the right to work is auctioned whereas the "Quarry Lease" is a mining lease granted to quarry minor minerals as mentioned in Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Thus, keeping in view the said two definition clauses as well, there is a clear distinction between the "Trade quarry" and "Quarry Lease" as to the nature of operation and minerals. Still further, Schedule-I of the 1996 Rules speaks about the specified minerals whereas Schedule-II relates to other minerals. Therefore, from distinction in the definition clauses of "Trade quarry" and "Quarry Lease", the aforesaid analysis of the Rules 6 and 7 and other relevant Rules of the 1996 Rules is fortified and therefore, it logically follows that the Mineral-G, which is included in Schedule-I under Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules is a separate and distinct mineral than the entry at Serial No.3 of Schedule-II governed by Rule 7 of the 1996 Rules. The Mineral-G at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I specifically covered by Rule 6 supported by Rules 9, 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, 29 and 30 of the 1996 Rules does not enlarge its scope to be covered by Rule 7 and 36 of the 1996 Rules.

***         ***         ***

Considering the true meaning and effect of the Rules 6 and 7 and the relevant entries in the Schedule-I and II coupled with the other relevant provisions of the 1996 Rules, which have been discussed hereinbefore, in the light of the principles of interpretation laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India vs. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth, (1977) 4 SCC 193; Nelson Motis vs. Union of India and another, (1992) 4 SCC 711; Nasiruddin and others vs. Sita Ram Agarwal, (2003) 2 SCC 577, Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umarji vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2004) 6 SCC 672, Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta, (2005) 2 SCC 271 and Aravali Golf Club vs. Chander Hass, (2008) 1 SCC 683, it is manifest that the Rules 6 and 7 of the 1996 Rules operate in different fields and they cover different minerals specified in Schedule I and II and even after reading the said provisions together with other Rules in the 1996 Rules, no likeness is established between the Mineral-G at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I and "Stone, Boulder, road metal Gitti, Rubble Chips etc." mentioned at Serial No.3 of Schedule-II. Under the entire scheme of the 1996 Rules, the quarries of Minerals specified at Serial No.5 of Schedule-I and Serial Nos.1 and 3 of Schedule-II situated in Government land alone are meant to be allotted by auction under Rule 7 of the 1996 Rules. A perusal of Column (3)(iii) of the Table appended to Rule 6 clearly goes to show that even the quarry of minerals specified at Serial No.3 of Schedule-II situated in private land is covered by Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules which prescribes the procedure for its grant and renewal by the Authority and not by auction as per Rule 7 of the 1996 Rules. The grant or renewal of quarry lease of Mineral-G at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I and rest of the minerals in Schedule-I and II (except Serial No.5 of Schedule-I and Serial No.1 and 3 of Schedule-II on the Government land) is governed by Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules and could not be by way of open auction. Since in the Table appended to the Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules, the grant of quarry lease of certain specified minerals on the private land has been specifically provided at column (3) e.g. at Column 3(ii) and (iii) at Serial No.(1) of the Table whereby Director is the Authority to grant the minerals and column 3(iii), (v) of Serial No.2 of the Table where the Collector is the Authority, therefore, it is apparent that except the minerals mentioned in the said Table which are on the private land, all other minerals could be on the Government or private land. Thus, under Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules, the nature of the land has not been mentioned. Accordingly, the Question No.(I) referred, is answered in the negative and it is held that the grant of quarry lease for Mineral-G at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I which is governed by Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules, on the Government land, cannot be by way of open auction.

Since the Mineral-G at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I is specifically held to be covered by Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules, which admits of the quarry lease for the said mineral by application for grant or renewal and not by auction, therefore, there cannot be two processes i.e. one by open auction for Government land and another by way of grant for private land in respect of Mineral-G. Thus, the Question No.(II) referred, is also answered in the negative.

***         ***         ***

Keeping in view the analysis of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1 and Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1, the Division Bench in Prathvi Infrastructure's case (supra) has not correctly read the legal conclusions enunciated by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Natural Resources Allocation's case (supra). Thus, the Question No.(III) referred, stands answered accordingly.

***         ***         ***

Consequently, we have no manner of doubt that the Mineral-G at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I governed by Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules cannot be taken for the "Stone, Boulder, road metal Gitti, Rubble Chips etc." mentioned at Serial No.3 of Schedule-II governed by Rule 7 of the 1996 Rules. Therefore, we regret our inability to concur with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Prathvi Infrastructure's case (supra) whereby it has held that grant of quarry lease for minor mineral stone for making Gitti by mechanical crushing (i.e. use of crusher) at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I would only be by way of open auction on the Government land and the said judgment is, thus, hereby overruled."

In view of the said fact, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall consider and decide the application of the petitioner for renewal dated 20.05.2019 (Annexure P-2) by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. It is made clear that the order passed by a Division Bench at Indore of this Court in Prathvi Infrastructure's case (supra) shall not come in the way of the Authority to decide the application of the petitioner for renewal of the quarry lease under the relevant provisions of the 1996 Rules.