M/S. SUNDER MARKETING ASSOCIATES versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 8 S.C.R. 438 · Decided: 11-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017) 8 S.C.R. 438 
MIS. SUNDER MARKETING ASSOCIATES 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
(Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19166 of 2017) 
AUGUST 11, 2017 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.f 
Mines and Minerals - Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, 
Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal 
C Mining Rules, 2012 - rr. 25, 41 (v) - Surrender of mining contract -
Auction of mining leases - Joint venture (JV), formed between 
Petitioner and one • K ', was the highest bidder with a bid of Rs.115 
crores as dead rent - Writ petition by JV contending that HS/DC, a 
public sector undertaking was granted mining lease in a different 
area at a negligible amount which was not disclosed to JV and this 
D seriously prejudiced its commercial interests - Writ petition dismissed 
by High Court granting time to JV to either continue with the 
contract or rescind it - However, 'K' decided to rescind the contract 
while the Petitioner wanted to continue with the contract -
Respondent No.1-State transferred the mining lease in the favour 
E of the Petitioner - However, later withdrew the permission for such 
transfer - Writ petition by Petitioner, dismissed by High Court - On 
appeal, held: In view of the peculiar facts of the case and the offer 
of surrender or rescission of the contract having been accepted by 
the State Government, the Petitioner is permitted to surrender the 
mining contract if the provisions of rr. 25 and 41 (v) are complied 
F 
with by the Petitioner and the State Government - Further directions 
issued in view of the prayer made. 
Disposing of the special leave petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 This is a classic case of someone (the petitioner 
in this case) apparently having influence in high places, using 
G that influence to violate the law and get a benefit that would 
ordinarily not be granted to anybody else. It cannot be said with 
any degree of certainty how high is the reach of the petitioner 
but it is quite apparent from the facts of the case, that the reach 
is pretty high. [Para 111440-G) 
H 
438 
MIS. SUNDER MARKETING ASSOCIATES v. STATE OF 
439 
HARYANA 
1.2 It was generally submitted by counsel for the petitioner A 
that the cancellation of the mining lease granted to the petitioner 
was illegal but that contention was not pressed beyond a point 
particularly because it was very clear that the petitioner alone or 
by itself was not a qualified bidder and that it was the JV between 
the petitioner and KJSL that was qualified to bid at the auction. 
B . 
That being the position, it was appreciated that under no· 
circumstance could the letter of intent or· the mining lease have 
been transferred from. the JV in favour of the petitioner. It is this 
totally illegal transfer carried out within 5 years of the execution 
of the mining lease that led to the belief that the petitioner could 
exercise influence in high places. [Para 29)[447-C-E) 
C 
2.1 In view of the peculiar facts of the case and the offer of 
surrender or rescission of the contract having been accepted by 
the State Government, no hurdle is placed in the ,'agreement', 
but the provisions of Rule 25 and Rule 41(v) of the Rules must 
be complied with by the petitioner and the State Government. D 
[Para 31)[448-C-D) 
2.2 The petitioner had made a prayer to the effect that the 
petitioner may be permitted to continue its mining operations till 
30th November, 2017 so that it could wind up its activities and 
put its mine closure plan into operation. Keeping in view the E 
prayer made: 
(i) The petitioner is permitted to continue its mining 
operations till 30th November, 2017 in accordance with the Mining 
Plan. On or before that date, it shall ensure implementation of 
the mine closure plan to the satisfaction of the concerned 
F 
authorities in the State of Haryana. 
(ii) The petitioner will be under an obligation to continue 
paying the dead rent or royalty whichever is higher till 30th 
November, 2017 regardless of whether it ceases its mining 
operations before that date or not. 
G 
(iii) The petitioner shall ensure that all the dues (including 
wages etc.) of all the persons (including labour) employed in the 
mining operations in terms of Rule 56(10) of the Rules are paid 
to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities in the State of 
Haryana. To ensure that the employees and labour (casual or H 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 8 S.C.R. 
A otherwise) are not left in the lurch, the petitioner is restrained 

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