DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 557 · Decided: 28-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
557
DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 12202 of 2018 etc.)
OCTOBER 28, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Mining Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963:
Rules 68 and 40(h) – Mining lease – Extension of – Sought
by the lease-holders – For the obstructed period of lease, due to
judicial pronouncements – Held: The proposition that interdicts
posed by a competent Court should not put a party at a disadvantage,
cannot be a blanket proposition – The court has to consider the
context in which the interdict was passed, in the present case it is to
preserve the forest area – The right to extension of lease either flow
from the statutory provisions or from the terms of the lease – The
obstructed period by reason of judicial interdict, by itself will not
give window to extend the lease – Extension of lease cannot be
granted in exercise of Rule 68 as the same is worded in restrictive
manner – The new mining policy of the State also has no provision
for grant of extension of time for the obstructed period – Terms of
the lease too do not provide for any such consequences – Only
Rule 40(h) provides for the consequences of disruption – Therefore,
the appropriate course would be not to extend the lease for the
obstructed period, but to refund the security deposit and the amount
deposited by lease-holders as advance royalties, in terms of Rule
40(h) – Since the monies have remained blocked and the mining
was prevented for no fault of the lease-holders, in order to do
complete justice, in exercise of power u/Art. 142 of the Constitution,
the monies are directed to be refunded with simple interest @ 9%
p.a.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. 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
   [2020] 12 S.C.R. 557
557
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
extend the lease by not following the statutory provisions,
especially when the terms of the lease do not provide for any
consequences thereof.  [Para 36][578-D-E]
Vijay Kumar Dwivedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016)
4 All LJ 690 – approved.
2.1 The statutory provision of Rule 68 of the Uttar Pradesh Mining
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 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. 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. [Para 35][577-F-G; 578-A-B]
Sukhan Singh v. State of UP & Ors. (2015) 2 All LJ
619 – approved.
Mohammad Yunus Hasan v. State of UP & Ors. (2016)
4 All LJ 4 – referred to.
2.2 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. 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. [Para 35][578-B-
C]
Delhi Transport Corporation v. Balwan Singh and Ors.
2019 SCC Online SC 276 – relied on.
3. 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 e-tendering 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, it cannot be accepted
that this should relate back to the date of the lease and not as on
date. [Para 39][579-B-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
559
4. Rule 40(h) of the Mining Rules 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 i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.