M/S. MUNEER ENTERPRISES versus M/S RAMGAD MINERALS AND MINING LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 6 S.C.R. 551 · Decided: 12-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 6 S.C.R. 551 
M/S. MUNEER ENTERPRISES 
v. 
MIS RAMGAD MINERALS AND MINING LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.2818 of 2015) 
MARCH 12, 2015 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Mines and Minerals: Mining lease - Transfer of - If C 
original lessee surrenders leased area to forest department 
of the State Government indicating that notice of 
determination of lease is given as required under the terms 
of mining lease deed and lease would expire after 12 months 0 
or any time earlier if permitted and lease deed book is 
surrendered and payment of arrears of mining lease is also 
made then subsequently permission to original lessee to 
transfer its mining lease to the first respondent was wrongly 
allowed by the State Government- There was no scope for E 
the lessee to resile from the said surrender and contend that 
it still had a right to transact the said licence for any other 
purpose including for effecting any transfer in favour of 
anyone - Mines and mineral being national wealth, dealing 
with the same as the largesse of the State by way of grant of F 
lease or in the form of any other right in favour of any party 
can only be resorted to strictly in accordance with the 
provisions governing disposal of such largesse and could 
not have been resorted to as has been done by the State 
Government and the Director of Mines and Geology of the G 
State of Karnataka - Such a conduct of the State and its 
authorities highly condemnable - Forest (Conservation) Act, 
1980-s.2- Mineral Concession Rules-r.9(1)-ForestAct, 
551 
H 
552 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
1980. 
Mineral Concession Rules: r.27 - Whether the act of 
surrender in order to become complete should have been 
accepted by the State - Held: Acceptance by the State though 
B not a statutory requirement, the provisions contained in the 
mining lease, in particular, Part VIII paragraphs 4 and 5 
impliedly require such acceptance - Pursuant to the act of 
surrender, delivery of possession is not mandatory required 
ulr.27(2)(1) of the Rules. 
c 
Forest Act, 1980: s. 2 - Mining lease - Renewal of lease 
- Requirement of prior approval of Central Government at 
the time of renewal as prescribed in s.2 of Forest Act not taken 
by Mls.Dalmia - By virtue of Godavarman /, the Director of 
o Mines and Geology directed Mls.Dalmia to stop all mining 
activities - The said order was complied by Mls.Dalmia -
Based on the subsequent judgment of Godavarman II, the 
MOEF granted conditional in-principle (Stage-I) approval for 
renewal of Mis. Da/mia's mining lease over 201.50 hectares 
E of forest land out of 331. 50 hectares - Violation of conditions 
of in-principle stage-/ approval -
Held: The violation had 
occurred at the time of order of first renewal itself striking at 
the root of the validity of lease as it was void at that very stage 
itself for non-compliance of the prior approval uls.2 of the 
F Forest Act and on blatant refusal to comply with the conditions 
imposed in the in-principle first stage approval granted -
Therefore, mining lease which was held by Mis Dalmia 
became void and inoperative for violation of the mandatory 
requirements of the conditions. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A cumulative consideration of sequence 
of events disclose that Mis. Dalmia surrendered major 
H part of the land covered by M.L. No.2010 and that by its 
MU NEER ENTERPRISES v. RAMGAD MINERALS & 553 
MINING LTD. 
letter dated 27 .3.2001, it expressed its decision to A 
determine the lease of the remaining area of 134.92 
hectares and wanted the Director of Mines to accept 
such surrender either after the expiry of twelve months' 
period or even earlier. The Director of Mines in response 
directed it to surrender the lease book of M.L. No.2010 B 
as well as the mining plan, and that M/s. Dalmia 
surrendered the lease book while stating that mining 
plan was not available with it at that point of time. Closely 
followed by that, when third parties applied for grant of 
lease, the Director of Mines stated in no uncertain terms C 
that those.lands were surrendered by M/s. Dalr11ia but 
lease cannot be granted based on applications and that 
Rule 59 (1) of MCR Rules will have to be followed for 
grant of such lease. In fact, subsequent to the above D 
development on 26.9.2001, the suit filed by M/s. Dalmia. 
against the appellant relating to the boundary dispute 
was also dismissed for non-prosecution. On 30.1.2002, 

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