Page 1 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6209-6211 OF 2016

(Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos.9823-9825 of 2012)

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. …………APPELLANTS

Vs.

NIRMALABEN S. MEHTA & ANR.ETC. ………RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Leave granted.

2.These appeals are directed against the common

judgment and order dated 13.12.2011 passed by the High

Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA No. 683 of 2011 in

SCA No. 6897 of 2010, LPA No. 684 of 2011 in SCA No. 6899

of 2010 and LPA No. 685 of 2011 in SCA No. 6898 of 2010

urging various legal grounds and praying to set aside the

same.

3.Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to

appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of

Page 2 2

both the parties:

One Kantilal Mohanlal Mehta entered into lease

agreement with the appellant-State on 20.02.1964 for

mining lease for bauxite in respect of lands described in

Part I of the Schedule to Mines and Minerals (Development

and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the “MMDR

Act”). The said lease was for 20 years and was given

effect from 09.10.1963.

4.On 26.02.1964, the appellant-State issued a

notification bearing no.MND 1760/3788G.V. reserving all

areas of Jamnagar and Junagadh district for exploitation

of bauxite for public sector. However, on 02.08.1978,

again a notification was issued by the appellant-State,

whereby the lands, specified in the schedule thereto,

which were earlier reserved vide notification dated

26.02.1964, for exploitation of bauxite for the public

sector were de-reserved and thus, made available for

grant of mineral concession w.e.f. 02.09.1978.

The same day, i.e., on 02.08.1978, the

appellant-State addressed a letter to the Central

Government seeking permission for de-reservation of the

areas of bauxite in Jamnagar and Junagadh districts,

which were earlier reserved for exploitation of bauxite

Page 3 3

in public sector for setting up of alumina plant on the

ground that many applications were received by it for the

establishment of small scale industries in the State

based on bauxite as raw material. The appellant-State,

therefore, desired to release areas, which were earlier

reserved, to industrial units for their captive

consumption only. By this letter the appellant-State

sought permission not only for de-reservation of the

areas, which were earlier reserved for public sector but

also to impose certain conditions upon the mining of

bauxite with a view to protect the interest of the State

and at the same time extending help to industries which

require bauxite as a raw material for bonafide captive

use. The relevant portion of the aforesaid letter dated

02.08.1978 reads thus:

“5. Central Government may kindly be moved in the

interest of mineral development to grant

permission under Rule 27 of the Mineral

Concession Rules, 1960 for imposing the following

conditions for protecting the interest of the

State Government and at the same time extending

help to industries which need bauxite for its

bonafide captive use.

(1) the lessee shall establish an industrial unit

consuming bauxite as main raw material within a

period of two years from the date of grant of the

mineral concession.

(2) the State Government shall have right to

review and reduce the areas of mining lease for

bauxite granted, if the industrial unit set up

works continuously below the rated capacity and

Page 4 4

areas granted is found excess of its

requirements.

(3) the lessee shall utilize maximum quantity of

bauxite excavated in his own industrial unit and

shall be allowed to sell the bauxite not suitable

for its own industrial unit to other industrial

unit in the State for their own consumption,

provided the quantity of bauxite for sale does

not exceed 20% of the total production and also

provided that the prior permission of the D.G.M.

or an officer authorizes by the State Government

is obtained for the sale.

(4) the lessee shall have to sell the bauxite at

prevailing market rate to government or the

person to whom the State Government may direct,

as and when such need arise.

(5) Briefly the Central Government’s approval to

the following proposal is required;

(1) to de-reserve the areas of Kalyanpur

Taluka of Jamnagar-District mentioned in the

Govt. of India letter dated 17.03.1962.

(2) to stipulate conditions mentioned above.”

5.On 16.01.1980, Central Government addressed a letter

bearing No.4(2)/78-NVI to the appellant-State, whereby,

it granted permission for de-reservation of areas of

Jamnagar for exploitation of bauxite mineral, which were

earlier reserved, and for the imposition of conditions on

mining lease. The relevant portion of the aforesaid

letter reads thus:

“2. As regards the proposal contained in Para 5

of the State Government’s letter dated

02.08.1978, I am directed to say that the Central

Government has no objection if such clauses are

included under Rule 27(3) of Mineral Concession

Rules, 1960 for the de-reserved area.”

Page 5 5

6.On 27.02.1992, a circular was issued by the State

Government permitting sale/export of Non-Plant Grade

(NPG) bauxite. During the period from 10.04.2003 to

04.03.2005 various notifications were issued by the

Central Government in exercise of its power under Section

9(3) of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Rule 64D of the Mineral

Concession Rules, 1960, laying down the guidelines for

computation of royalty on the basis of State wise mineral

value to be notified by the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM).

7.On 28.11.2007, respondent no.1- Nirmalaben S. Mehta

sought the permission of the appellant-State for sale of

NPG bauxite for a quantum of 1 lakh metric tonnes

(approx). The appellant-State vide its order dated

15.02.2008 granted permission for sale of NPG bauxite

subject to condition, interalia, that the respondent no.1

shall deposit royalty of Rs. 120 per metric tonne in

advance with the appellant-State.

8.The respondent no.1 again applied to the

appellant-State by letter dated 18.02.2008 for sale of

1,12,900 metric tonnes of NPG bauxite. The same was

rejected by the appellant-State vide order dated

19.06.2008 holding that the respondent no.1 has failed to

establish captive plant within a period of two years in

Page 6 6

accordance with prevailing policy. The relevant portion

of the aforementioned order reads thus:

“5. Sanction of lease area was accorded to the

lease holder for establishing bauxite base unit

for his own consumption use. However, such unit

is not yet setup by the lease holder and the

minerals at the lease area is not utilised for

its value addition purpose. Valuable and useful

mineral was being excavated in the bulk and the

same was exported/sold. This activity is not

found befitting to wider interest of the state.”

9.Aggrieved by the orders dated 15.02.2008 and

19.06.2008 passed by the appellant-State, the respondent

no.1 approached the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad by

filing Special Civil Application. The learned Single

Judge vide order dated 31.07.2008 dismissed the

application holding that the respondent no.1 had not

exhausted the statutory remedy available under Section 30

of the MMDR Act, 1957 read with Rule 54 of the Mineral

Concession Rules, 1960. Instead of approaching the High

Court, the respondent no.1 should have approached the

Central Government which is the Revisional Authority

under the MMDR Act, in the matter.

10.Thereafter, respondent no.1 approached the Central

Government by filing Revision Application No. 09/16 of

2008 against the order dated 19.06.2008 passed by the

appellant-State. The Central Government vide its order

Page 7 7

dated 27.08.2009 allowed the said Revision Application by

setting aside the order dated 19.06.2008 passed by the

appellant-State holding thus:

“5. ……We have gone through the case records

carefully and after hearing the both sides come

to the conclusion that-

(a) as far as the instant case is concerned, it

is not a case of fresh grant of mining lease but

one of renewal.

(b) no conditions of setting up of captive plant

of bauxite was mentioned while granting mining

lease.

(c) no restriction was put on export and mining

of bauxite in mining leases.

(d) applicant if exporting bauxite for more than

a decade.

(e) guidelines issued by the State Govt. vide

G.R. dated 04.02.2005 as only an administrative

in nature.

(f) the approval of Central Government given vide

letter No. 4(2)/78-VI dated 16.01.1980 in

pursuance of State Government communication dated

02.08.1978 is not applicable in respect of the

area already under lease and to which neither

reservation nor de-reservation would be

applicable.

6. In view of the above circumstances and taking

all aspects into consideration we come to the

conclusion that in the instant case while

rejecting the applicants renewal application

State Govt. has not followed the due process of

law under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession

Rules, 1960.”

11.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.08.2009

passed by the Central Government in exercise of its

revisional power under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957

read with Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960,

Page 8 8

the appellant-State approached the High Court of Gujarat

at Ahmedabad by filing Special Civil Application No. 6897

of 2010. The learned Single Judge vide order dated

22.12.2010 dismissed the said Special Civil Application

holding that the appellant-State ought not to have

suppressed the material fact of Writ Petition being filed

before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi with regard

to the same matter. The learned Single Judge further

imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant-State.

12.Aggrieved by the Order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the

learned Single Judge, the appellant-State approached the

Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.683 of 2011. The High

Court vide its common judgment and order dated 13.12.2011

partly allowed the appeals to the extent of setting aside

the order of the learned Single Judge imposing cost of

Rs.50,000/- upon the appellant-State. Hence, these

Appeals.

13.Mr. Parag Tripathi, the learned senior counsel for

the appellant-State contended that the High Court has

failed to consider that huge quantity of bauxite has been

exported by the lease holders without informing the

appellant-State and without paying due amount of royalty.

Page 9 9

Only with a view to regulate the trade of bauxite, vide

Resolution dated 04.02.2005 the appellant-State had

framed policy for taking prior approval before exporting

bauxite outside India. He further submitted that by way

of the said resolution a mechanism is framed so that the

trade of bauxite, especially the export can be regulated

by the appellant-State. Bauxite being a valuable mineral

which is available in rare pockets of the State of

Gujarat, such a step is necessary on the part of the

appellant-State which enables it to take necessary action

with regard to the same. It was further submitted by him

that as per the data available with the appellant-State

from 2004 onwards, around 70% to 90% of bauxite excavated

from the land in the areas by the lease holders was

exported from the leased areas. Thus, if such a huge

quantity of bauxite is exported outside India it would

certainly jeopardise the purpose of establishing the

bauxite based value addition projects in the State.

Further, export of bauxite in such a huge quantity might

lead to non-availability of bauxite for consumption in

the State. He further submitted that the resolution dated

04.02.2005 was indirectly accepted by the

lessee-respondents and even applications were filed in

Page 10 10

tune with the same. He further contended that the High

Court has committed error while not considering the

purpose and object advanced by the appellant-State vide

resolution dated 04.05.2005.

14.It was further contended by him that the application

dated 28.11.2007 made by the lessee-respondents to the

appellant-State seeking permission of sale/export of NPG

bauxite for quantum of 1,12,900 MTs, was based on the

premise that they were seeking permission to export the

bauxite which is not useful for the plant. However,

factually, from almost five decades, the

lessee-respondents have not taken any step for the

establishment of captive plant. He further submitted that

from the circumstances it is clear that the

lessee-respondents are only interested in excavation of

the bauxite for export purpose which would result in

irreparable depletion of the valuable mineral for

domestic purpose. The High Court has failed to take note

of this important aspect while passing impugned judgment

and order and therefore, the same is required to be

interfered with by this Court in exercise of its

appellate jurisdiction.

15.It was further contended by the learned senior

Page 11 11

counsel for the appellant-State that the High Court has

erred in coming to the conclusion that the permission

granted by the Central Government under Rule 27(3) of the

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 vide letter dated

16.01.1980 would not be applicable to the respondents’

mine for the reason that since the notification reserving

the area of bauxite mining did not affect their mines, it

must necessarily follow that the permissions granted by

the Central Government at the time of de-reservation also

would not apply to their mines. It was further

submitted by him that by the notification dated

26.02.1964 issued by the appellant-State the entire areas

of Junagadh and Jamnagar districts were reserved for

public sector. Admittedly, the respondents’ mine fell

within Jamnagar district, a reserved area, though the

respondents were not affected by the reservation as the

said reservation was made to operate prospectively.

16.He further submitted that the appellant-State wrote a

letter dated 02.08.1978 to the Central Government seeking

permission under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession

Rules, 1960 for de-reservation of the areas of Junagadh

and Jamnagar Districts and for imposition of certain

conditions, including establishment of an industrial unit

Page 12 12

for captive consumption of bauxite. The permission for

the said de-reservation was granted by the Central

Government vide letter dated 16.01.1980. He further

submitted that once it is admitted that the respondents’

mines fall within the area of the aforesaid Jamnagar

district, it would not be correct to say that the

permission of the Central Government under Rule 27(3) of

the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for de-reservation of

areas of bauxite mining would not be applicable to leases

granted prior to 16.01.1980 merely because the concerned

mines were not affected by the reservation. He further

submitted that any other interpretation in this regard

would lead to discrimination between fresh leases granted

post 16.01.1980 on the one hand and renewals of existing

lease granted after 16.01.1980 on the other and the same

is impermissible.

17.With regard to the renewal of the lease, it was

contended by him that the High Court has erred in

concluding that a renewal of lease is not a fresh grant

and thus, at the time of renewal of lease the

appellant-State cannot impose conditions, interalia, of

setting up of a captive plant. In this regard it was

submitted by him that it is well settled position of law

Page 13 13

that a renewal of a lease is akin to a fresh grant and

hence, in the absence of either Lease Deed or the Rules

providing that renewal shall be granted on the same terms

and conditions as the original grant, a renewal is

governed by the law/conditions in force at the time of

grant of renewal of the lease of the mining area in

question. Therefore, in the case at hand, the

appellant-State, at the time of grant of renewal of

lease, can impose such condition/conditions, inter alia,

of setting up of a captive plant. With regard to

aforesaid legal submission he has placed strong reliance

upon the decision of this Court in the case of Gajraj

Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal

1

. The relevant

paras relied upon by him read thus:

“38. It is settled law that grant of renewal is a

fresh grant though it breaths life into the

operation of the previous lease or licence

granted as per existing appropriate provisions of

the Act, rules or orders or acts intra vires or

as per the law in operation as on the date of

renewal. The right to get renewal of a permit

under the Act is not a vested right but a

privilege subject to fulfillment of the

conditions precedent enumerated under the Act…

xx xx xx

41. In State of M.P. & Ors. v. Krishnadas

Tikaram this Court had held that it is settled

law that renewal is a fresh grant and must be

granted consistent with law in operation as on

1

(1997) 1 SCC 650

Page 14 14

that date……”

18.It was further submitted by him that the renewal

clause in the Lease Deed of 1964 makes it very clear that

any renewal of the lease shall be in accordance with the

provisions of the Act and Rules in force at the time of

grant of renewal. Therefore, the Revisional Authority and

the High Court, both have arrived at erroneous conclusion

that in the absence of condition of setting up of a

captive plant in the Lease Deed of 1964, such a condition

cannot be imposed at the time of grant of renewal of the

lease of the area in question.

19.Per Contra, Mr. Mihir Joshi, the learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended

that neither the Export Import policy nor the MMDR Act

enacted by the Central Government impose any restrictions

on sale/export of bauxite and hence, the appellant-State

could not have introduced its own policy for restricting

or regulating the sale/export of bauxite in conflict with

policies and decisions of the Central Government.

20.It was further submitted by him that there is no

question of general public importance in the instant

case. It was submitted by the learned senior counsel that

Page 15 15

under the scheme of Section 9 read with Section 13 of

MMDR Act and Article 162 of the Constitution of India, it

is the prerogative of Central Government to frame

policies with regard to major minerals. The State

Governments across the country are only supposed to

implement the policies made by the Central Government

with regard to the grant of lease as well as renewal of

lease in respect of major minerals. He further submitted

that when the Central Government has deemed it fit not to

impose any restrictions on sale/export of bauxite either

in export/import policy or under the MMDR Act, the

appellant-State being simply an implementing agency, has

no authority, whatsoever, to impose any restriction in

the renewal of grant order prohibiting the export of

bauxite to other countries by the respondents.

21.It was further submitted by the learned senior

counsel that merely because huge quantity of bauxite has

been exported by leaseholders, the same does not confer

any power under the MMDR Act upon the appellant-State to

frame any policy with regard to the export of bauxite

vide resolution dated 04.02.2005 under the guise of

regulating the export of bauxite without the sanction of

the Central Government. Furthermore, it is an admitted

Page 16 16

fact that the said resolution dated 04.02.2005 was passed

by the State Government without the permission of the

Central Government.

22.It was further contended that as per the terms and

conditions of the lease deed executed between the

respondents and the appellant-State there was no

restriction of any kind on the sale/export of bauxite. A

conjoint reading of the notification dated 02.08.1978

issued by the appellant-State, the letter addressed to

the Central Government by the appellant-State on the same

day seeking permission for de-reservation of bauxite

areas which were earlier reserved for exploitation by the

public sector undertakings and for imposing conditions of

captive consumption for industrial units, read with the

order dated 16.01.1980 of the Central Government make it

absolutely clear that the said permission of imposing the

condition of captive consumption, granted by the Central

Government to the appellant-State was only for new units

requiring the said lease. He further submitted that

respondents were already continuing with the mining

activity on the demised premises even during the alleged

period of reservation. It neither formed part of reserved

area nor de-reserved area. Thus, the sanction of the

Page 17 17

Central Government vide its letter dated 16.01.1980

certainly should not apply to the lease of bauxite mining

area belonging to the respondents as has been rightly

held by both the Revisional Authority and the High Court.

23.With regard to the renewal of lease of the mining

area in question it was submitted by the learned senior

counsel that concept of deemed renewal or that each

renewal is a fresh lease, would not apply to the facts of

the instant case in view of the specific directions of

the Central Government in its order dated 16.01.1980.

24.After considering the rival legal contentions urged

on behalf of both the parties, following issues would

arise for our consideration:

1.Whether the appellant-State has the power at the

time of renewal of lease of the mining area in

question to impose the condition of setting up of

a captive plant by the respondents?

2.Whether the permission granted by the Central

Government under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral

Concession Rules, 1960 vide letter dated

16.01.1980 would be applicable to the

respondents’ mine?

3.What order?

Answer to Point No.1

Page 18 18

25.Both the Revisional Authority as well as the High

Court have erred in coming to the conclusion that a

renewal of lease of the mining area in question is not a

fresh grant and have wrongly concluded that at the time

of grant of renewal of lease of the area, the State

Government is not empowered to impose or enforce

condition inter-alia, of setting up of a captive plant by

the respondents.

26.The High Court has failed to appreciate an important

aspect of the matter namely that for imposition of

condition in the grant of renewal of lease, inter alia,

of setting up of a captive plant by the respondents, the

appellant-State had sought permission from the Central

Government vide communication dated 02.08.1978 and the

same was granted by the Central Government vide its

letter no.4(2)/78-NVI dated 16.01.1980. The relevant para

no.2 of the aforesaid letter, stated supra, makes it

abundantly clear that the Central Government had no

objection if clauses pertaining to the imposition of

certain conditions upon the leaseholders are included

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

with respect to the bauxite areas of Junagadh and

Page 19 19

Jamnagar districts de-reserved by the appellant-State

vide notification dated 02.08.1978, which were earlier

reserved for exploitation of bauxite by the public sector

undertakings.

27.Further, the High Court has erred in not noticing the

well settled legal proposition as laid down by this Court

in Gajraj Singh’s case supra, on the point that the grant

of renewal of the lease in respect of the mining area in

question is a fresh grant. The relevant paras read thus:

“37. In Provash Chandra Dalui v. Bisawanath

Banerjee this Court drew the distinction between

the meaning of the words extension and renewal.

It was held that:

“…a distinction between ‘extension’ and

‘renewal’ is chiefly that in the case

of renewal, a new lease is required

while in the case of extension the same

lease continues in force during

additional period by the performance of

stipulated act. In other words, the

word 'extension' when used in its

proper and usual sense in connection

with a lease, means prolongation of the

lease.”

38. It is settled law that grant of renewal is a

fresh grant though it breathes life into the

operation of the pervious lease or licence

granted as per existing appropriate provisions of

the Act, rules, or orders or acts intra vires or

as per the law in operation as on the date of

renewal. The right to get renewal of a permit

Page 20 20

under the Act is not a vested right but a

privilege subject to fulfilment of the conditions

precedent enumerated under the Act. Under

Section 58 of the Repealed Act, renewal of a

permit is a preferential right and refusal

thereof is an exception. But the Act expresses

different intention. Sections

66, 70 71 and 80 prescribe procedure for making

application and compliance of the conditions

mentioned therein. Existence of the provisions of

the Act consistent with the Repealed Act is a

precondition. Grant of renewal under

Section 81 is a discretion given to the authority

(STA or RTA) subject to the conditions and the

requirement of law. Discretion given by a statute

connotes making a choice between competing

considerations according to rules of reason and

justice and not arbitrary or whim but legal and

regular. Sections 70 and 71 read with

Section 81 do indicate that grant of permit or

renewal thereof is not a matter of right of

course. It is subject of rejection for reasons to

be recorded in support thereof. Therefore, right

to renewal of a permit under Section 81 is not a

vested or accrued right but a privilege to get

renewal according to law in operation and after

compliance with the preconditions and abiding the

law.”

(emphasis supplied by this Court)

The permission for de-reservation of bauxite areas in

the above districts of the State which were earlier

reserved for bauxite mining in the public interest as

well as for imposition of condition, interalia, of

setting up of a captive plant by the respondents the

permission in this regard was granted by the Central

Government vide letter dated 16.01.1980, whereby the

Page 21 21

Central Government showed no objection for the inclusion

of conditions mentioned in the letter dated 02.08.1978

addressed to it by the appellant-State under Rule 27(3)

of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for the de-reserved

area.

28.It is clear that in the absence of any provision in

the lease deed or in the Act, Rules or Orders etc in

operation as on the date of renewal of lease of the

mining area in question providing renewal of lease in

favour of the respondents shall be granted on the same

terms and conditions, is governed by the law or

conditions in force at the time of renewal.

29.Thus, from the factual matrix, the relevant legal

provisions and the case law referred supra upon which

strong reliance is placed by the learned senior counsel

on behalf of the appellant-State, it is clear that in the

instant case the appellant-State after 16.01.1980 had the

power to impose condition interalia, for setting up of a

captive plant for bauxite by the respondents at the time

of renewal of their lease. Therefore, the impugned order

passed by both the Revisional Authority and High Court

are vitiated in law and therefore, the same are liable to

be set aside.

Page 22 22

Thus, point no.1 is answered accordingly.

Answer to Point No.2

30.The factual matrix of the instant case further

reveals an important undisputed fact that the

respondents’ mines were located in the Jamnagar district,

which area along with Junagadh district area was declared

a reserved area for exploitation of bauxite in public

interest vide notification dated 26.02.1964 issued by the

appellant-State. However, the said notification did not

affect the mine belonging to the respondents as the said

notification was made to operate prospectively. The facts

of the instant case further reveals that on 02.08.1978

the appellant-State issued a notification whereby the

bauxite areas of Jamnagar and Junagadh districts were

de-reserved, which were earlier reserved and on the same

day addressed a letter to the Central Government seeking

permission for the same along with permission for

imposition of certain conditions on the leaseholders of

the above area with a view to protect the interest of the

State Government and at the same time extending help to

the industries which require bauxite for its bona fide

captive use. The Central Government vide letter dated

Page 23 23

16.01.1980 granted permission in favour of the State

Government for both i.e., it allowed de-reservation of

the bauxite areas of Jamnagar and Junagadh districts,

which were earlier reserved, and also allowed the

appellant-State to read clauses referred by it in its

letter dated 02.08.1978 under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral

Concession Rules, 1960 for the de-reserved area.

31.As it is an admitted fact that the respondents’ mines

were located in the area of the above Jamnagar district,

it would not be correct as contended by the learned

senior counsel for the respondent that the permission for

inclusion of certain conditions including condition for

setting up of a captive plant by the leaseholders under

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

de-reserved area granted by the Central Government vide

letter dated 16.01.1980 would not be applicable to the

respondents’ lease which was granted prior to 16.01.1980

merely because their mines were not affected by the

notification of reservation dated 26.02.1964 issued by

the appellant-State.

32.It has been rightly contended by the learned senior

counsel on behalf of the appellant-State that any other

interpretation of the above order of the Central

Page 24 24

Government in this regard would lead to discrimination

between fresh leases granted post 16.01.1980 on the one

hand and renewals of the existing leases granted after

16.01.1980 on the other. Such a distinction sought to be

made by the respondents’ counsel is impermissible in law

as after 16.01.1980, a fresh grant and a renewal of

existing lease of the mining area stands on the same

footing.

33.The aforesaid important legal aspect of the matter

has not been taken note of by the High Court as well as

the Revisional Authority. Therefore, the impugned order

dated 13.12.2011 passed by the High Court confirming the

order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Revisional Authority

being contrary to the approval given by the central

government vide letter dated 16.01.1980 is not only

erroneous but also suffer from error in law. For the

reasons stated supra the impugned orders of both the High

Court as well as the Revisional Authority are liable to

be set aside as they are vitiated in law.

Answer to Point No.3

34.Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, we accept the

legal submissions made by the learned senior counsel on

Page 25 25

behalf of the appellant-State as the same are well

founded and based on law laid down by this Court in the

case referred to supra. The civil appeals are allowed by

setting aside the order of the High Court dated

13.12.2011 and the order of the Revisional Authority

dated 27.08.2009. The State Government is at liberty to

impose such terms and conditions in the renewal of lease

of the mining area in question granted in favour of the

respondents. A cost of Rs.5 lakhs is awarded to the

appellant-State Government in respect of these

proceedings.

…………………………………………… J.

[V. GOPALA GOWDA]

…………………………………………… J.

[ARUN MISHRA]

New Delhi,

July 13, 2016