LexCOMMON CAUSE versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 243 COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Writ Petition (C) No. 114 OF 2014) APRIL 04, 2016 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 A B - s. 8, 4A(4) - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 - s. 8A - Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - . C rr. 24A, 24A(6)(as amended) - Suspension of mining operations to mining leaseholders since not in possession of clearances/approvals/ consent, required for carrying on the mining operations by order of this Court - However, permitted to modify the said order as and . when clearances/approvals/consent were obtained - Applications by the mining companies seeking revocation of the suspension order D - Whether leaseholders have subsisting right to carry on mining operation - Held: Unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting, upto the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document - Vital vested rights in a E leaseholder, cannot be curtailed without affording him an opportunity - In situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, mining operations were not carried out for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on . such application - Where no order has been passed, the lease shall F be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years - Leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period of the original grant was still in currency on 12.1.2015 - Leaseholder whose original lease has since expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original G lease having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on 12.1.2015 - Leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a mining lease at least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, under the provisions of the unamended MMDR Act and the Rules, will be considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period - Leaseholder who H 243 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R. A has moved an application for renewal (original/first or subsequent renewal), at least twelve months before the existing /ease was due to expire, and if such an application has been rejected, it would not be a valid/subsisting leaseholder and in case application is moved for first renewal and the same has not been rejected, it will be B considered as valid/subsisting leaseholder having right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of two years after 18. 7.2014, i.e., up to 17. 7.2016 - Leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent) renewal application uls. 8(3) of the unamended MMDR Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to expire, and whose application is rejected (though not entitled to C any benefit under the unamended s.8A and the amended r. 24A(6) up to 12.1.2015, would still have the benefit of s. 8A(5) and (6) of the amended MMDR Act. D Common Cause v. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 155:2014 (7) SCR 561 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2014 (7) SCR 561 referred to. Paral CIVIL ORIGJNAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114 of2014 E UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JNDIA] WITH W. P. (C) NO. 194 OF 2014 A.D.N. Rao, Ms. Aparajita Singh, Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, F Amicus Curiaes. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Maninder Singh, ASGs, P.Chidambararn, Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Gopal Jain,Ashok K. Parija, DushyantA. Dave, Nidhesh Gupta, Krishnan Venugopal,Arvind P. Datar, Gopal Subrarnanium, Ashok Kumar Panda, A.K.Ganguly, Rakesh Dwivedi, Manas Ranjan G Mahapatra, Sr. Advs. Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Ms.Neha Rathi, Nischal Kumar Neeraj, Samar Singh Kachwaha, Ms.Meenakshi Grover, Neeraj Kumar Shanna, Vibhu Shankar Mishra, Sudhir Aggarwal, Sunil Kumar Jain, Pawan Shree.Agrawal, Kaushik Choudhary, Jagmohan Sharma, K.P.S. Chani, Ajay Bhargava, Ms.Vanita Bhargava, Jeevn B.Panda, Kubrat Dev, Raj at Jariwal, Akash Bajaj, Sanjeev K. Kapoor, H (for Mis. Khaitan & Co.), Gaurav Kejriwal, Keshav Mohan, Sujit Keshri, COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 245 Ms.Nandini Gore, Ms.Tahira Karanjawala, Ms. Khushboo Bari, A Ms.Devina Sehgal, Ms.Neha Khandelwal, (For Mis. Karanjawala & Co.), Naveen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.