1

2026:CGHC:9584

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 1943 of 2020

Reserved on 30/01/2026

Pronounced on 24/02/2026

• M/s Shri Bajrang Power And Ispat Limited, A Company Duly

Incorporated Under The Provisions of The Companies Act, 1956,

Having Its Registered Office At Village Borjhara, Urla Guma

Road, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Its Whole Time

Director Shri S. K. Goyal.,

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Department of Mineral

Resources, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur

Chhattisgarh,

2 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department

of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur

Chhattisgarh,

3 - The Collector, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh,

4 - The Chief Conservator of Forest, Kanker, District Kanker

Chhattisgarh,

5 - The Divisional Forest Officer, East Bhanupratappur Forest Division,

District Kanker Chhattisgarh

6 - Union of India, Represented Through Secretary to Government of

India, Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001,

7 - Union of India, Represented Through Secretary to Government Of

India, Ministry Of Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira

Paryavas Bhawan, Jor Bagh, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi 110001

------ Respondents

2

________________________________________________________

For Petitioner :Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate appears

along with Mr. Mehal Jethani, Mr. Ashish Mittal

and Mr. Amartya Bajpai, Advocates.

For State/Res.No.1 to 5:Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. A. G.

For Res. No.6 and 7 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate appear along

with Mr. Shayon Kar, Advocate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

C A V Order

1.By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality

and propriety of the order dated 13.07.2020 passed by

respondent No.1- Secretary, Department of Mineral Resources,

State of Chhattisgarh and, the letter dated 31.07.2020 issued by

the Collector, District Kanker, respondent No.3 herein and, also

the demand notice, dated 20.09.2019 issued by the Divisional

Forest Officer, East Bhanupratappur, Forest Division, Kanker,

respondent No.5 herein, whereby, the petitioner- M/s Shri

Bajrang Power and Ispat Limited, a Company duly incorporated

under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

petitioner-company’), was directed to deposit a sum of

Rs.68,28,480/- (Rs. Sixty Eight Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand

Four Hundred Eighty only) towards compensation on pro rata

basis payable to the villagers in the name of grazing, collection

of tendu leaves and other Non Timber Forest Produce (in short

‘NTFP’), presently accruing from forest land which was proposed

for diversion for mining activities for the petitioner-company.

2.(i)According to the petitioner-company, an application dated

19.06.2006 for obtaining mining lease for iron-ore over an area

3

of 75 hectares land in forest compartment No.641 and 642 (old

No.364 and 365) near the village Hahaladdi, Durgkondal Forest

Range and Bhanupratappur East, Forest Division, District

Kanker, was made and, the respondent No.6- Union of India,

granted prior approval for the said purpose vide its order dated

23.10.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Section 5 of the Mines and

Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act, 1957’) and thereafter, the respondent

No.1 sought consent from the petitioner-company vide its letter,

dated 18.02.2008 (Anenxure P-2) in order to incorporate certain

terms and conditions as mentioned therein for the proposed

mining lease and, the petitioner-company has given its consent

vide its letter dated 19.02.2008 (Annexure P-3). After

considering the terms and conditions, the respondent No.7-

Union of India granted ‘in-principle’ approval vide its letter dated

03.05.2013 (Annexure P-4) for diversion of 76.5 hectares of

forest land (75 hectares for lease while 1.5 hectare for approach

road to the mining lease area) for iron-ore mining for the

concerned area subject to fulfilling the terms and conditions

mentioned therein.

(ii)It is pleaded by the petitioner-company that as per the

condition No.30 mentioned in the said ‘in-principle’ approval

granted by the Union of India, the final study report was

submitted on 14.08.2013 (Annexure P-5), whereby, a sum of

Rs.6,85,500/- (Rs.Six Lacs Eighty Five Thousand Five Hundred

only) was assessed per year for all the times to come, if the said

4

area would not be diverted for mining and that by applying the

‘faustmann formula’ for capitalization of forest reserve, the

amount of compensation payable to the villagers was calculated

to the tune of Rs.13,37,580/- (Rs. Thirteen Lacs Thirty Seven

Thousand Five Hundred Eighty only) with regard to the

assessment of benefits, such as grazing, collection of tendu

leaves and other NTFP, accruing from the forest land proposed

for diversion and the report, so submitted, was forwarded by the

respondent No.5- The Divisional Forest Officer, East

Bhanupratappur, Forest Division, District Kanker, on 02.12.2013

(Annexure P-6) to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur, for its

recommendation, who in turn, vide its letter, dated 19.03.2014

(Annexure P-8) has recommended the amount of compensation

as determined by the petitioner-company in its final report to the

Secretary for the Department of Forest, State of Chhattisgarh

and the amount, so determined, i.e. Rs.13,37,580/- (Rs.Thriteen

Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Eighty only) was

deposited by the petitioner-company on 02.04.2014.

(iii)It is pleaded further by the petitioner-company that the

proposal with regard to the condition No.30 incorporated in the

‘in-principle’ approval granted by the Ministry of Environment and

Forest on 03.05.2013 (Annexure P-4) was approved by the

respondent No.2- State of Chhattisgarh, vide its letter, dated

28.05.2014 (Annexure P-10) and, the respondent No.7- Union of

India has granted final approval vide its letter, dated 04.08.2014

(Annexure P-11), as per the provision prescribed under Section

5

2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 76.5

hectares of land (75 hectares for mining lease while 1.5 hectare

of approach road to the mining area) for iron ore mining in the

concerned area, subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions

mentioned therein.

(iv)Further plea of the petitioner-company is that after the final

approval made on 04.08.2014, the respondent No.1 vide its

letter dated 31.10.2014 (Annexure P-12) has obtained the

consent from the petitioner-company for incorporation of certain

additional terms and conditions, including condition No.10.7(2) in

the mining lease and, since it was not in a position to bargain

with the State government, a consent was, therefore, given. The

said additional condition reads as under :-

“10.7(2)

खनिपट्टाक्षेत्रकेअंतर्गत आवेदितवनएवंराजस्व

क्षेत्रमेंउत्पादितहोनेवालेवनोपजकाअनुमानितमूल्यके

आधारपरप्रोरेटाप्रतिपरिवारवार्षिकआयकीराशि

स्थानीय खनिजक्षेत्रविकासनिधीमेंजमाकीजायेगी।

तत्पश्चात यहराशिप्रभावित परिवारकेमुखियाकर्ताद्धके

नामपरटांसफरकीजाएगी। इसराशिमेंप्रतिवर्ष

10

प्रतिशतकीवृदिकीजाएगी

"।

(v)It is pleaded further by the petitioner-company that after

the incorporation of the aforesaid additional condition, the mining

lease (Ex.P-15) was executed on 21.11.2014 between the

petitioner-company and the respondent No.3- The Collector,

District Kanker and, thereafter on 31.03.2017 (Annexure P-16),

the respondent No.5- The Divisional Forest Officer, East

Bhanupratappur Forest Division, District Kanker, demanded

6

compensation amount from the petitioner-company to the tune

of Rs.30,39,810/- (Rs.Thirty Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Eight

Hundred Ten only) for the financial year 2015-16 and 2016-17

distributable amongst the villagers of the nearby villages in lieu

of forest produce with an increase of 10% every year till the

lease period and, the objection, so raised by the petitioner-

company in this regard on 25.04.2017, was turned down by the

respondent No.4-The Chief Conservator of Forest, Kanker

Circle, Kanker vide its letter, dated 19.05.2017 (Annexure P-18)

based upon the condition mentioned in the alleged mining lease

(Annexure P-15).

(vi)It is pleaded further by the petitioner-company that vide

letter, dated 05.07.2017 (Annexure P-21), it was requested to

the respondent No.1 for deletion of the said additional condition

incorporated in the mining lease as the same is contrary to the

terms and conditions mentioned in the ‘in-principle’ approval

granted by the Union of India on 03.05.2013, vis-a-vis, the final

approval issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest

Department.

(vii)While referring to the guidelines, i.e. F.No.11-306/2014-

FC, dated 08.08.2014, issued by the Ministry of Environment

and Forest, it is pleaded further by the petitioner-company that

the additional conditions cannot be made by the State

government in the mining lease without prior approval of the

Central Government. As such, the impugned demand notice,

dated 20.09.2019 (Annexure P-27) issued by the respondent

7

No.5- The Divisional Forest Officer, East Bhanupratappur Forest

Division, District Kanker, demanding a sum of Rs.68,28,480/-

(Rs. Sixty Eight Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Four Hundred

Eighty only) from the petitioner-company towards compensation

payable to the villagers in the name of grazing, collection of

tendu leaves and other NTFP, presently accruing from the forest

land proposed for diversion for mining activities for the petitioner-

company in compliance of the alleged additional condition

No.10.7(2) as mentioned in the mining lease, dated 21.11.2014

(Annexure P-15) and, consequent upon the issuance of letter

dated 31.07.2020 by the Collector, District Kanker and the order

impugned dated 13.07.2020 issued by the Secretary,

Department of Mineral Resources, State of Chhattisgarh,

deserves to be quashed.

3.In response, it is pleaded by the respondents that the alleged

additional condition, i.e. condition No.10.7(2) in the alleged

mining lease (Annexure P-15) was incorporated after prior

consent from the petitioner-company, therefore, the impugned

demand notice/ order issued strictly in compliance of the said

condition, deserves to be upheld and the petition as framed is

liable to be dismissed, as no prior approval from the Central

Government as pleaded by the petitioner-company, is required to

be obtained.

4.Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-

company, submits that since the impugned demand notice/order

8

has been issued based upon the alleged additional condition

No.10.7(2) incorporated in the alleged mining lease dated

21.11.2014 even without prior approval from the Central

Government as required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 27 of the

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, therefore, it deserves to be

quashed. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decisions

rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of M/s. Ramlal

and Sons Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Sandur

Manganese and Iron Ores Limited Vs. State of Karnataka

and Ors., reported in (1976) 1 SCC 112 and (2010) 13 SCC 1,

respectively.

5.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents submits that since the alleged condition, i.e.

condition No.10.7(2) has been incorporated in the alleged mining

lease after due consent of the petitioner-company, therefore,

there is no infirmity in issuing the impugned demand notice/order

and, therefore, the petition as framed, is liable to be dismissed.

6.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the entire record.

7.From perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it appears that an

application was made by the petitioner-company on 19.06.2006,

seeking operation of mining lease for iron-ore over an area of 75

hectares of land in the forest compartment No. 641 and 642 (old

No.364 and 365) near the village Hahaladdi, Durgkondal, Forest

Range and Bhanupratappur East Forest Division, District Kanker

9

and, after obtaining the consent from the petitioner-company in

order to incorporate certain terms and conditions, ‘in-principle’

approval for grant of mining lease was granted by the Union of

India on 03.05.2013 and, the final approval was thereafter,

granted by the Central Government, vide its letter dated

04.08.2014 (Annexure P-11) and, one of the conditions, i.e.

condition No.30 made therein reads as under :-

“30. State Government shall assess the benefits

such as grazing, collection of tendu leave and Other

NTFP etc. presently accrued from the forest land

proposed for diversion to the tribal and other

residents of the adjoining habitations and recover its

consolidated commuted value or equivalent annuity,

from the user agency and distribute it among the

project affected families. Local inhabitants raised the

issues in public hearing about losses to be incurred

in collection of tendu leaves due to proposed mining

which was not satisfactory answered by the project

proponent”.

8.It is to be seen further that for incorporation of certain additional

terms and conditions, a consent was obtained from the

petitioner-company by the State government vide its letter dated

31.10.2014 (Annexure P-12), who in turn, vide its letter dated

01.11.2014 (Annexure P-13) accorded its consent and, a mining

lease was thereupon executed between the petitioner-company

and the respondent No.3- The Collector, District Kanker on

21.11.2014 (Annexure P-15) by incorporating additional terms

and conditions, including condition No.10.7(2). The said

condition mentioned in the precedent paragraph is reiterated as

10

under :-

10.7

खनिप‌ट्टाअनुबंधहेतुराज्यषासन

,

खनिजसाधनविभागके

पत्र क्र

.

एफ

3-60/2006/12,

दिनांक

31.10.14

एवंमेसर्सश्री

बजरंगपावरएण्ड इस्पातलिमिटेडद्वारापत्र क्रमांक

SBPIL/3447,

दिनांक

01.11.2014

केपरस्परस्वैच्छिक

स

हमति

,

केअनुपालनमेंअधिरोपितनिम्नांकितशर्ते।

1. ………… xxxx …...xxxx……..xxxx

2.

खनिप‌ट्टाक्षेत्रकेअंतर्गत आवेदितवनएवंराजस्वक्षेत्रमें

उत्पादितहोनेवालेवनोपजकाअनुमानितमूल्यकेआधारपर

प्रोरेटाप्रतिपरिवारवार्शिकआयकीराषिस्थानीय खनिजक्षेत्र

विकासनिधिमेंजमाकीजायेगी

,

तत्पश्चात यहराषिप्रभावित

परिवारकेमुखिया

(क

र्ता

)

केनामपर

ट्रा

न्सफर

कोजायेगी

,

इसराषि

में

प्रतिवर्ष

10

प्रतिशतकीवृद्धिकीजायेगी।

9.In exercise of the aforesaid condition provided in the mining

lease, the concerned respondent authorities have issued the

impugned demand notice/order demanding a sum of

Rs.68,28,480/- (Rs. Sixty Eight Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand

Four Hundred Eighty only) from the petitioner-company on pro

rata basis, payable to the villagers, in the name of grazing,

collection of tendu leaves and other NTFP, presently accruing

from the forest land for diversion of mining activities for the

petitioner-company.

10.At the time of granting ‘in-principle’ approval for mining activities

by the Union of India on 03.05.2013, condition No.30, as

mentioned herein-above, was incorporated and, at the time of

execution of mining lease dated 21.11.2014, certain additional

conditions were incorporated after obtaining consent from the

petitioner-company by incorporating condition No.10.7(2), based

upon which, the alleged demand of Rs. 68,28,480/- (Rs. Sixty

11

Eight Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Eighty only)

was made by the respondent authorities. Before incorporating

the additional conditions, including the alleged condition No.

10.7(2), no prior approval was obtained from the Central

Government, therefore, Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner-company, while referring to sub-rule

(3) of Rule 27 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, submits

that since it was incorporated without prior approval of the

Central Government, therefore, the impugned demand notice,

deserves to be quashed as it was issued based upon the alleged

condition No.10.7(2) incorporated unauthorizedly by the State

government.

11.The question, therefore, arises for determination is :-

(1) Whether the incorporation of the alleged

condition No.10.7(2) in the mining lease dated

21.11.2014 without prior approval of the Central

Government, is liable to be deleted, and/or,

whether the impugned demand notice/orders,

issued consequent upon it, are liable to be set-

aside ?

12.In order to ascertain the answer of the aforesaid question, it is

necessary to examine the Rule 27 of the Mineral Concession

Rules, 1960, which provides as under :-

“27. Conditions.- (1) Every mining lease shall be

subject to the following conditions .

(a) to (u) ………… xxxx… xxxx… xxxx…..

(2) A mining lease may contain such other conditions

as the State Government may deem necessary in

regard to the following, namely :-

(a) to (j) ………… xxxx… xxxx… xxxx…..

12

(k) the indemnity to Government agaisnt claims of

third parties;

(l) to (o) ………… xxxx… xxxx… xxxx…..

(3) The State Government may either with the

previsous approval of the Central Government or at

the instance of the Central Government, impose such

further conditions as may be necessary in the

interests of mineral development, including

development of atomic minerals.

(4), (4A) and (5) ………… xxxx… xxxx… xxxx…..

13.According to clause (k) of sub-rule (2) of the aforesaid Rule, it

appears that the claims of third parties are to be indemnified by

the State government and, for which, the Central Government

would not be responsible and, a bare perusal of sub-rule (3) of it

would show that the State government may impose such further

conditions as may be necessary in the interests of mineral

development, including development of atomic minerals either

with the previous approval of the Central Government or at the

instance of the Central Government. The said provision, thus,

in two parts and may be read as under :-

Firstly, the State government may with the previous

approval of the Central Government impose such

further conditions as may be necessary in the

interests of mineral development, including

development of atomic mineral, or

Secondly, the State government may at the instance

of the Central Government impose such further

conditions as may be necessary in the interests of

13

mineral development, including development of

atomic minerals.

14.A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provision, particularly, the

expression “as may be necessary in the interests of mineral

development, including development of atomic minerals” used

therein, is significant as it would lead to an irresistible conclusion

that the State government may impose such further conditions

with previous approval of the Central Government or at its

instance only when it is necessary in the interests of the mineral

development, including development of atomic minerals.

Meaning thereby, such additional conditions may be imposed by

the State government either with the previous approval of the

Central Government or at the instance of the Central

Government, if it is required to be imposed for the interests of

the mineral development, including development of atomic

minerals, otherwise not.

15.In the instant matter, the imposition of alleged additional

condition, i.e. condition No.10.7(2), based upon which, the

alleged demand was made, was only with regard to satisfy the

claims of third parties by the State government, as required

under clause(k) of sub-rule (2) of the aforesaid Rule and for

which, the Central Government is nothing to do, or even

concerned remotedly, as the same is not pertaining to the

interests of mineral development, including development of

atomic minerals, so as to hold the applicability of sub-rule (3) of

14

the aforesaid Rules. In view of such circumstances, no prior

approval is, thus, required from the Central Government for the

imposition of the alleged additional condition by the State

government under sub-rule (3) of Rule 27 of the Mineral

Concession Rules, 1960, as alleged herein by the counsel

appearing for the petitioner-company.

16.Now, insofar as the reliance placed by Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner-company, in the matter of

Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd . [(2010)13 SCC 1]

(supra) is concerned, the same is, however, noted to be

distinguishable from the facts involved herein, as in the said

matter, it was held by the Supreme Court that the State

government has no power, whatsoever, to frame a policy dehors

the Act, 1957 or the Rules, framed thereunder, in exercise of the

powers provided under Section 13 of the Act, 1957. The relevant

observations made at paragraphs 34 to 41 and 43 read as

under:-

“ 34.We have already adverted to Section 2 of the

MMDR Act, which is a parliamentary declaration, makes it

clear that the State Legislature is denuded of its legislative

power to make any law with respect to the regulation of

mines and mineral development to the extent provided in

the MMDR Act. (Vide State of Orissa vs. M.A. Tulloch &

Co. (AIR 1964) 4 SCR 461).

35. In Baijnath Kadio vs. State of Bihar, (1969) 3 SCC

838, a Constitution Bench of this Court reiterated the

above view. The argument of the appellant in that case

was that, apart from the provisions of the 2nd proviso to

Section 10 added to the Land Reforms Act, 1950 in 1964,

by Act IV of 1965 and the second sub-rule added to Rule

20 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964,

there is no power to modify the terms. It was further

15

contended that these provisions of law are said to be

outside the competence of the State Legislature and the

Bihar Government. With regard to the State Legislature, it

was contended that the scheme of the relevant entries in

the Union and the State List is that to the extent to which

regulation of mines and mineral development is declared

by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest,

the subject of legislation is withdrawn from the jurisdiction

of the State Legislature and, therefore, Act 67 of 1957 (the

MMDR Act) leaves no legislative field to the Bihar

Legislature to enact Act 4 of 1955 amending the Land

Reforms Act.

36. Answering those questions, the Constitution Bench

has held thus:

(Baijnath Kadio case, paras 13-15)

"13. .... Entry 54 of the Union List speaks both

of Regulation of mines and minerals

development and Entry 23 is subject to Entry

54. It is open to Parliament to declare that it is

expedient in the public interest that the control

should rest in Central Government. To what

extent such a declaration can go is for

Parliament to determine and this must be

commensurate with public interest. Once this

declaration is made and the extent laid down,

the subject of legislation to the extent laid down

becomes an exclusive subject for legislation by

Parliament. Any legislation by the State after

such declaration and trenching upon the field

disclosed in the declaration must necessarily

be unconstitutional because that field is

abstracted from the legislative competence of

the State Legislature. This proposition is also

self-evident that no attempt was rightly made to

contradict it. There are also two decisions of

this Court reported in the Hingir Rampur Coal

Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1961 SC 459),

and State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch and Co.

(AIR 1964 SC 1284), in which the matter is

discussed. The only dispute, therefore, can be

to what extent the declaration by Parliament

leaves any scope for legislation by the State

Legislature. If the impugned legislation falls

within the ambit of such scope it will be valid; if

outside it, then it must be declared invalid.

14. The declaration is contained in Section 2 of

Act 67 of 1957 and speaks of the taking under

the control of the Central Government the

regulation of mines and development of

minerals to the extent provided in the Act itself.

We have thus not to look outside Act 67 of

1957 to determine what is left within the

competence of the State Legislature but have

16

to work it out from the terms of that Act. In this

connection we may notice what was decided in

the two cases of this Court. In the Hingir

Rampur case a question had arisen whether

the Act of 1948 so completely covered the field

of conservation and development of minerals

as to leave no room for State legislation. It was

held that the declaration was effective even if

the Rules contemplated under the Act of 1948

had not been made. However, considering

further whether a declaration made by a

Dominion Law could be regarded as a

declaration made by Parliament for the

purpose of Entry 54, it was held that it could

not and there was thus a lacuna which the

Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950 could not

remove. Therefore, it was held that there was

room for legislation by the State Legislature.

15. In M.A. Tulloch case the firm was working a

mining lease granted under the Act of 1948.

The State Legislature of Orissa then passed

the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund

Act, 1952 and levied a fee for the development

of mining areas within the State. After the

provisions came into force a demand was

made for payment of fees due from July 1957

to March 1958 and the demand was

challenged. The High Court held that after the

coming into force of Act 67 of 1957 the Orissa

Act must be held to be non existent. It was held

on appeal that since Act 67 of 1957 contained

the requisite declaration by Parliament under

Entry 54 and that Act covered the same field as

the Act of 1948 in regard to mines and mineral

development, the ruling in Hingir Rampur's

case applied and as Sections 18(1) and (2) of

the Act 67 of 1957 were very wide they ruled

out legislation by the State Legislature. Where

a superior legislature evinced an intention to

cover the whole field, the enactments of the

other legislature whether passed before or

after must be held to be overborne. It was laid

down that inconsistency could be proved not

by a detailed comparison of the provisions of

the conflicting Acts but by the mere existence

of two pieces of legislation. As Section 18(1)

covered the entire field, there was no scope for

the argument that till rules were framed under

that Section, room was available."

37. The Constitution Bench in Baijnath Kadio case

(1969) 3 SCC 838 after considering Hingir Rampur

Coal Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa and M.A. Tulloch

(supra) held that in view of the two abovementioned

rulings of this Court and by enacting Section 15 of

Act 67 of 1957, the Union of India has taken all the

17

power to itself and authorized the State Government

to make rules for the regulation of leases. By the

declaration and the enactment of Section 15, the

whole of the field relating to minor minerals came

within the jurisdiction of Parliament and no scope

was left for the enactment of the second proviso to

Section 10 in the Land Reforms Act. The enactment

of the proviso was, therefore, without jurisdiction.

38. In State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries

Ltd. and Others, (2004) 10 SCC 201, after referring

to earlier judgments including M.A. Tulloch (supra)

and Baijnath Kadio (supra), the Constitution Bench

held as under: (Kesoram Industries Ltd.(2004) 10

SCC 201, SCC pp.306-07. para 95))

"95. .... All that the Court has said is that the 1957

enactment covers the field of legislation as to the

regulation of mines and the development of

minerals. As Section 2 itself provides and

indicates, the assumption of control in public

interest by the Central Government is on: (i) the

regulation of mines, (ii) the development of

minerals, and (iii) to the extent hereinafter

provided. The scope and extent of declaration

cannot and could not have been enlarged by the

court nor has it been done. The effect is that no

State Legislature shall have power to enact any

legislation touching: (i) the regulation of mines,

(ii) the development of minerals, and (iii) to the

extent provided by Act 67 of 1957. "

39. In the same way, the State is also denuded of its

executive power in regard to matters covered by the MMDR

Act and the Rules. [vide Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of

Bihar, (1990) 4 SCC 557].

40. In view of the specific parliamentary declaration as

discussed and explained by this Court in various decisions,

there is no question of the State having any power to frame

a policy de hors the MMDR Act and the Rules.

41. In State of Assam & Ors. v. Om Prakash Mehta, (1973)

1 SCC 584, this Court in SCC para 12 held that the MMDR

Act, 1957 and the MC Rules, 1960 contain a complete code

in respect of the grant and renewal of prospecting licences

as well as mining leases in lands belonging to the

Government as well as lands belonging to private persons.

42…...xxxx…...xxxx…….xxxx…..

43. It is not open to the State Government to justify grant

based on criteria that are dehors the MMDR Act and the MC

Rules. The exercise has to be done strictly in accordance

with the statutory provisions and if there is any deviation,

18

the same cannot be sustained. It is the normal rule of

construction that when a statute vests certain power in an

authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the

said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided

in the statute itself. This principle has been reiterated in CIT

v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, (2002) 1 SCC 633, SCC at p. 644;

Captain Sube Singh v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (2004) 6 SCC

440 and State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh (AIR 1964 SC

358).”

17.The principles laid down in the above-referred matters are, thus,

entirely on different footings and would be of no use being

distinguishable from the facts involved herein, therefore, no

reliance, could be placed upon it.

18.Likewise, the further reliance of Mr. Ankit Singhal in the matter of

M/s. Ramlal and Sons [(1976) 1 SCC 112] (supra) is also of no

use, as in the said matter, a realization of “Premium”, collected

dehors the Rules, which provides only for the collection of “dead

rent” or the “royalty” in respect of different minerals, was held to

be illegal. However, such an issue is not involved herein,

therefore, no reliance could be placed upon it as well.

19.Consequently, I do not find any substance in this petition. The

petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

No order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal)

JUDGE

sunita