LexAMBICA QUARRY WORKS & ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A AMBICA QUARRY WORKS & ANR. v .. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. DECEMBER 11, 1986 B [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966: Rule 18-Renewal of lease- ~ Lease granted prior to coming into operation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980-Renewal whether mcndatory. C Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Pre-existing mining leases- Renewal of-Whether could be daimed as a matter of right. J. D Interpretation of statutes--/nterpretation must sub-serve and help implement intention of Act. Expressiorr 'may' when not construed as ~ 'shall'. Constitution of India:· Article 141-Precedent-Ratio of a deci- sion to be understood in the background of facts of the case. Sub-clause (b)(i) of rule 11! of Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1%6, which were framed under Act fi7 of 1957, provides that the lease for all E minerals specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) may be renewed by the competent officer for one or m11.re periods not exceeding ten years at one time. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, brought into force on 25.th October, 1980 provides that notwithstanding anything F contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other au1tbority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Gover1lllllent, any order directing (i) dereserva· tion of reserved forest, and (ii) the use of forest land for non-forest purposes. G The appellants had bet'n granted leases for quarrying minor minerals prior to the cominJ!; into operation of the 1980 Act. Their applications for renewal of leases under r-18 of the Rules were rejected by the competent authority on the ground that the lands fell under the reserved forests which were governed by the 1980 Act. Their revision applications failed, and the High Court also rejected the writ petitions H filed by them. 562 - '- AMBICAQUARRYWORKSv. STATEOFGUJ . 563 .... _.., In the appeals by special leave, it was contended for the appel- A lants that the conditions preced~nt for. the operation or the Act were not existing, that there was no question of extending for non-forest purposes forest lands, since their's were existing quarry leases in areas which were at the _relevant time dereserved fQrests, that they had not committed any breach or the terms or grant uor there were any other ;. ..... " factors disentitling them to such renewal, that the "words 'may be re- B newed' in r.18(h)(i) should be read as 'shall be renewed', and so read they make it incumbent on the Government to renew the lease if the lessee so desired, and as they had invested large sums or money in mining operations a duty was cast on the authorities to exercise the J power granting permission in a manner that they ·could receive full benefit of their investments. c -.- For the respondents it was contended that after the coming into operation of 1980 Act there was no . question or renewal of the leases because it had prevented renewal or lease without the approval of the Central Government. D Dismissing the appeals, the Court, HELD: I. Whether the power is one coupled with a duty must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and must be so 1-- decided by the ~ourts in each case. [569D I E 1.2 The Gujarat Minor Minerals Rules, 1966 dealt with a situa- lion prior to the coming into operation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. While under r.18 orthe Rules there was power to grant renewal, which might have cast a duty on account of the investments made by the appellants in the areas covered by the quarrying leases, they could not -..; claim renewals as a matter or right after the Act was brought into force. F ~ Their applications were rejected on good grounds. The orders of the ; appropriate authorities deal with the situation. [569G, F, 570B] Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford, [1880] 5 Appeal Cases 214 and Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn. 229, referred to. G 2.1 All interpretations mtist subserve and help implement the ...... intention of the Act. The primary purpose of the Act of 1980 is to prevent further deforestation and ecological imbalances. Therefore, the concept that power coupled with duty enjoined upon the respondents to renew the lease, stands eroded by the mandate of the legislation manifest in the Act. The primary duty was to the community and that H 564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R. A took precedence over the obligation to th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.