LexSUDARSHAN MINERAL CO. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
SUDARSHAN MINERAL CO. LTD.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
February 13, 1975
\
54 7
LK. K. MATHEW, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWAUA, JI.]
Tlze Mines & Minerals (Regulation &
Developmelll) Act 1951-,Mi11erai'
Concession Rules 196Q-.:.Whet/ier detailed rule making power restricts the General·
Rule making power-Maximum drild m1t spei:ified whether void on account of
uncertainty-Whether renewal of tl/c lease .has to oc granted 011 the same· term.•.
and c;onditions.
·
The appellarrt was granted a Mining Lease by the erstwhile State of Shahapurn
for a period 20 years commencing from 12th August, 1941. The area of the
lease was 1500 sq. miles. The said area later on, formed part . of the State
of Rajasthan. The Mines & Minerals (Regulation .& Development) Act, 1957,
came into force from 1st June, 1958. Under section 61 of the Act the area of
a mining lease in the case of Mica could not be more than 10 sq. miles and.
its maximum p~riod could not exceed 20 years as provided in section 8. Section
16 confers powers to modify a mining lease accorded before 1949 to bring it
in conformity with the Act and the Rules.
In exercise of this
power. the.
Controller of Mica leas~s reduCed the mining area to 10 sq. miles· and the.
rent . was ~duced from Rs. 8 per acre as fixed by the original lease to Rs. 6 /-
per acre. The period of 20 years of original lease .;a e to an end iu 196h
The appellant applied to the Crllvemment of Rajasthan f r renewal of its lease
for another 20 years under rule 28.
The renewal was
ranted but the. dead:
rent was increased from Rs. 6 to Rs. 8 per ocre. The a
Hant challenged· t11e
order of Rajasthan Government by filing a Revision befor the Central Oov~rn·
ment which was dismissed. Thereafter. the appellant fil
the present suit for
a decree of injooction restraining respondents from chargin dead rent @.·Rs. 8
per acre and for a declaration that ·they are entitled to c . arge only @ Ril •. 6
per acre. The suit was decreed by the trial court but .was dismissed by the
First App!llate Court. The ·dismissal was maintained b~ the. Higb Court iro.
'ict,ind Apir.al. On appeal by Spe~ial Leave, the appellant contended :
· ·
(I) Under tho- agreement. dated. 20-11-1959 the l~ase was to be
governed· by· the A,ct and the Rules except in/" regard to dea.d.
re'nt was fixed at Rs. 6/- per ar.:re.
~
·
·
···
.
'
( 2) Under Rule 28 of the Rules, the State Governnlent while reney.--
ing .the lease had power to reduce the «rea ~ut no power· k '·
increase the dead rent. .
.
.
.. :
.
/
.
·
· i3) Ruk 'J.7 does not apply to renewal of· a le.as~.
(4) ciause (c) of si1Ji:Rule (ly ~t Ruic 27
i~ ultra Vires us .it
transgresses the rnle making power under ~ction 13(2}{g) of.
the
A~I.
.,
.
.
..
.
.
(5) Rule 270}(c) if.made appllcabldo renewal of a minin11 Iea~c
introduces 001 element of uncertainty il\id is therefore void.
HELD: Rukmaklng power is to be found in section 13 (!). · Section f3(2J
merely illustrates the nature of the power, it does not restrict the general power
under section 13 (I) .. The rule could ha· ·e beeri framed even under section
13(2){g). [549C]
HELD FURTIIBR : There is no element of uncertainty in the rule either
le> the grant of fresh leas~ or in respect of the renewal. The maximum limi1
is contained in Chapter IV .. ·To provide for payment of dead rent it ha~
specified rates· slibf~ct to variation within the limit specified. These cttnnot hi:
said to be void on account of uncertainty.
[550C]
.548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975) 3, S.C.lt.
HELD FURTHER :
The contention that the renewed lea5e had to be
~ranted on the same twns and conditions and that no term and c:onditioo
could be varied while granting the renewal of the lease except in regard to
the reduction of the area in accordance with rule 28(5) was negatived was not
corm:!. If in the original lease of 1941 there was a renewal clause one could
probably say th:kt the renewal had to be on the same terms and conditions
. but in the absenee of such a right of rcn:wat to the ks~cc the argument was
not sound. '.rhe deman,1 of Rs. 8 per acre was within the limit spedfied by
Schc<lule JV and w:t5 in accordance with law.
The appeal was dismis!1ed with
:o\tS.
[55 JB .. D)
CIVlL APPELL\JE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2305 of 1969.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order <lated the 8th
August, 1969 of the Raja~than High Court in S. B. Civil Second
. AppealExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.