LexSTATE OF HARYANA versus RAM KISHAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,
~
•
.4~.·
>-
STAIB OF HARYANA
A
v.
RAM KISHAN & ORS.
MAY 6, 1988
[R.S. PATHAK, C.J, AND LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J.)
B
Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957-
Whether a mining lease can be prematurely terminated in purported
exercise of powers under Section 4A of-Without notice to the party
affected and opportunity to that party to place its view point-Whether
such termination is violative of principles of natural justice.
These appeals were directed against the common judgment of the
High Court in Writ applications itled by different petitioners, cballeng-
ing the termination of the mining leases granted to. them. The State of
Haryana which had executed the mining leases in favour of the wdt
petitioners for ten years under the provisions of the Mines & Minerals
(Regulation & Development)' Act (the Act), terminated the said leases
prematurely in· the purported exercise of powers under Section 4A of
the Act without prior notice to the writ petitioners or any opportunity to
them to defehd their cases. The leases were so terminated on the ground
that the Haryana Minerals limited-a public sector undertaking-bad
fully equipped itself to undertake the mining operations. The High
Court allowed the writ petitions. The State of Haryana and Haryana
Minerals Limited appealed to this Court by Special leave against the
decision of the High Court .
According to the appellant, the necessary consultation between
the Central Government and the State Government was held, fulf"dling
the conditions under Section 4A of the Act and the decision impugned
was taken. The appellant contended that the writ petitioners-lessees
had no locus standi to place their view point and it was not necessary to
give them notice, and. that there was no violation of the principles of
natural justice.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court,
HELD: The language of Section 4A indicates that the Section
by itself does not permaturely terminate any mining lease. A decision in
this regard bas to be taken by the Central Government. The question of
c
D
E
F
G
the State Government granting a fresh mining lease in favour of a
H
1015
A
B
c
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
I 19881 3 S.C.R.
Government Company or a Corporation arises only after the existing
mining lease is terminated, the section does not direct termination of all
mining leases merely for the reason that a Government Company or a
Corporation has equipped itself for the purpose. It is not correct to say
that an existing mining lease can be· terminated for the reason that a
Government Company or a Corporation is ready to undertake the
work. Viewed thus, the section must be interpreted to imply that a
person who may be affected by such a decision should be afforded an
opportunity to prove that the proposed step would not advance the
interest of mines and mineral development. Not to do so will be violative
of the principles of natural justice. Since there is no suggestion in the
section to deny the right of the affected persons to be heard, the provi-
sions have to be interpreted asimplyi"g to preserve such a right. A final
decision to prematurely terminate a lease can be taken only after notice
to the lessee. [IOJ9C-H; J020E]
The Writ Petitioners-respondents before the Court were never
given an opportunity to be heard. If such an opportunity had been
D
afforded, they would have shown that their standard of mining
operations was very high and favourably measured against the ex-
pected standard and was superior to that of the Haryana Minerals
Limited. [1021G]
.There was no effective consultation between the Union of India
'E
and the State Government, and the Central Government did not form
any opinion as required under Section 4A of the Act; The respon-
'F
G
dents before the Court were entitled to be heard before a decision
•
to prematurely terminate their leases was taken but they were not
given any opportunity to place their cases. The respondents must
succeed. [1022A-BJ
)>
Baldev Singh and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others,
{1987] 2 SCC 510; Union of India and anotherv. Cynamide India Ltd.
and another, AIR 1987 SC 1802; D.C. Saxena v. State of Haryana, AIR
1987 SC 1463 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone, etc., [1981] 2
SCR 742, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals No.
'~
1472-77of1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.1986 of the Delhi High
Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 21Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.