M.P. STATE MINING CORPORATION LTD. versus SANJEEV BHASKAR & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 386 · Decided: 02-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 386 
M.P. STATE MINING CORPORATION LTD. 
v. 
SANJEEV BHASKAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4950 of 2013) 
JULY 2, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
Mines and Minerals: 
Mining lease - Granted for a period of 20 years - But 
after a period of 14 years; State Government determined the 
lease - The determination challenged by Jessee - During 
pendency of the petition, death of lessee - Legal heirs not 
0 
substituted - Subsequently High Court set aside the order of 
the Government - After 14 years from the death and 10 years 
from the order of High Court, legal heirs of the Jessee filed 
application for substitution and sought permission for mining 
operation for the remaining period - State Government 
denied the same and granted lease in favour of Mining 
E Corporation - High Court held that the legal heirs of Jessee 
were entitled to extension of lease and grant of lease in favour 
of Mining Corporation was wrong - Held: Legal heirs of the 
lessee were neither entitled to continue the original lease nor 
entitled for renewal thereof - On death of the original lessee 
F his petition before High Court, abated in absence of any 
substitution petition - Hence, the legal heirs of the Jessee 
cannot derive advantage of the order of High Court whereby 
the order determining lease of the original lessee was set 
aside, as the order was inadvertently passed in absence of 
G knowledge of the lessee - Moreover, at the time, when the 
lessee had died, there was no provision for orders to continue 
the application for a mining lease - Mines and Minerals 
(Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 -
Mineral 
Concession Rules, 1960 - r. 25A. 
H 
386 
M.P. STATE MINING CORP. LTD. v. SANJEEV BHASKAR 387 
& ORS. 
The predecesssor of the first respondent was 
A 
granted mining lease by the State Government for a 
period of 20 years. After about a period of 14 years from 
the date of grant of lease, State Government determined 
B 
the lease on the ground of contravention of Mineral 
Concession Rules, 1960. The original lessee challenged 
determination by filing petition before High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh. During pendency of the petition, the 
petitioner-original lessee died. No application for 
substitution was filed. Subsequently, the High Court set 
aside the order whereby the lease was determined by the c 
State Government and further directed the State 
Government to decide afresh the . question of 
determination of lease in accordance with law. After the 
order, the lease also expired. After about 10 years from 
the date of the judgment of High Court, legal heir of the 
0 
original lessee to respondent No.1 filed an application 
before State Government for bringing him on record and 
to allow him to do mining for the rest of the period of 6 
years, 6 months and 29 days because of illegal 
determination of the lease. State Government then, 
declined to extend the mining lease. Respondent No.1 
challenged the order of State Government. During 
pendency thereof, State Governm.ent granted lease for 
five hectares out of the mining area in favour of the 
appellant-mining Corporation. Central Government 
directed not to grant mining lease to the third party. But 
when Mining Corporation filed writ petition, High Court 
E 
F 
of Madhya Pradesh by interim order directed the State 
Government to execute a lease deed in favour of Mining 
Corporation. Respondent No.1 challenged the grant of 
lease in favour of Mining Corporation·. High Court of Delhi 
G 
held that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of 
remaining expired period of the original lease, subject to 
his complying with all the requirements of the Mines and 
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and 
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960; and that the lease could 
H 
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A not have been granted in favour of the Mining 
Corporation. The order of the Single Judge of High Court 
was upheld by the Division Bench of High Court. Hence 
the present appeals by the State and Mining Corporation. 
B 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HE.LO: 1.1. Much before the decision of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court, the original lessee died. The 
Miscellaneous Petition pending before the High Court 
abated in absence of any petition for substitution filed by 
C the legal heirs. The legal heirs including the first 
respondent cannot derive the advantage of the order 
which was inadvertently passed by the High Cou

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