- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Basant Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant applied on 2 December 1993 under Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 for a ten-year mining lease over Plots 2, 3 and 5 in the Morwad area for extraction of marble, a minor mineral. The Mining Engineer forwarded the application to the Director of Mines and Geology, stating that the matter had to be decided by the State Government because the dead rent involved was Rs 1,25,000. No further action was taken on the application.
Consequently, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court seeking (i) invalidation of Rule 21 and Rule 65-A of the 1986 Rules, (ii) quashing of the State Government’s marble policy notified on 10 October 1994, and (iii) a direction to grant the requested mining lease. The High Court dismissed the petition, relying on its earlier Division Bench decision in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 865 of 1995. The present appeals challenge that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Rule 21 and Rule 65-A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 are ultra vires Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, particularly the proviso to Section 15(3) restricting enhancement of royalty and dead rent.
- Whether the State Government’s marble policy of 10 October 1994, issued under Rule 65-A, validly caused all pending lease applications—including the appellant’s—to lapse.
- Whether the court should adjudicate the validity of the impugned rules and policy when no lease had yet been granted to the appellant and the question of fixing dead rent had not arisen.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Section 15 of the 1957 Act forbids the State Government from enhancing royalty or dead rent more than once in any four-year period; Rule 21, Rule 65-A and the 1994 marble policy violate this limitation.
- The impugned provisions allow the Government to adopt procedures different from those prescribed in the Rules, rendering them inconsistent with the parent statute.
- Relied heavily on the Supreme Court decision in D.K. Trivedi & Sons v. State of Gujarat, 1986 Supp SCC 20, to contend that the proviso to Section 15(3) controls the State’s power.
Respondents' Arguments
- Raised a preliminary objection that the appellant’s lease application stood deemed rejected under clause 9 of the marble policy read with Rule 65-A; therefore, no live dispute regarding dead rent exists.
- Contended that without a granted lease, the appellant lacks standing to challenge the rules or policy.
- Supported the High Court’s earlier rulings, including the Full Bench decision in Krishna Murari Goyal v. State of Rajasthan, which upheld the Government’s power to revise dead rent within statutory limits.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| D.K. Trivedi & Sons v. State of Gujarat, 1986 Supp SCC 20 | Proviso to Section 15(3) limits enhancement of royalty and dead rent to once in four years. | Cited by the appellant; the Supreme Court noted the reliance but chose not to apply or interpret it because the dispute was deemed academic. |
| Krishna Murari Goyal v. State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan HC, Full Bench) | Rule 21 excludes standard formulae for calculating dead rent; Government may revise within Second Schedule limits. | Referenced as authority supporting the High Court’s approach; not substantively examined by the Supreme Court. |
| D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 865 of 1995 (Rajasthan HC) | Held that Government may revise dead rent every five years subject to statutory ceiling. | High Court relied on this decision to dismiss the appellant’s writ; Supreme Court noted but did not engage with its reasoning. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court declined to adjudicate the substantive validity of Rule 21, Rule 65-A, or the marble policy. It observed that:
- The appellant had not been granted a mining lease; hence, the question of fixing dead rent—central to the constitutional challenge—had not arisen.
- Under the 1994 marble policy, all pending applications stood rejected, requiring fresh applications. The appellant’s original application could at best be considered pending on the policy’s commencement date and therefore lapsed.
- Courts should avoid delivering academic or advisory opinions. Because no immediate determination of dead rent or royalty was necessary, examining the compatibility of the Rules with Section 15 would serve no practical purpose at this stage.
- The appellant is free to submit a new application under the current policy; any future grievances can then be raised in an appropriate proceeding.
Holding and Implications
APPEALS DISMISSED. No order as to costs.
Direct Effect: The appellant receives no relief and must file a fresh application for a mining lease if so advised. The court issued no mandamus to process the lapsed application.
Broader Implications: The judgment refrains from ruling on the validity of Rule 21, Rule 65-A, or the marble policy, setting no new precedent on those questions.
S. Rajendra Babu, J.— The appellant before us filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the validity of Rule 21 and Rule 65-A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”); for quashing the notification dated 10-10-1994 declaring the marble policy of the State Government; and for the relief of directing the grant of lease of minor mineral in respect of certain lands delineated as Plots Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in Morwad area and for certain other incidental reliefs. The High Court dismissed the said writ petition in view of its earlier decision in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 865 of 1995. Hence these appeals.
2. The facts leading to the writ petition are that the appellant filed an application on 2-12-1993 under Rule 5 of the Rules in the prescribed form before the Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology for grant of mining lease in respect of marble which is a minor mineral for a period of 10 years in respect of delineated Plots Nos. 2, 3 and 5. The Mining Engineer forwarded the said application to the Director of Mines and Geology stating that the dead rent of the area applied for by the appellant comes to Rs 1,25,000 and the application is to be decided by the State Government. However, the application was not further processed. In those circumstances, he preferred the writ petition as aforesaid.
3. The appellant contended that grant of mining lease in respect of minor minerals is governed by the Rules framed under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Rule 21 provides for grant of mining lease by auction or tender and Rule 65-A provides for grant of mining lease by adopting prescribed procedure different from that given in the Rules. It is in exercise of Rule 65-A of the Rules, the Government has issued the notification, which was under challenge before the High Court. The principal contention raised by the appellant is that the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 15 of the Act cannot frame rules contrary to the said provision and that by reason of the prohibition contained in the proviso to Section 15(3) of the Act the State Government cannot enhance the rate of royalty in respect of any minor mineral more than once during any period of 4 years. In a similar manner, the State Government cannot also enhance the rate of dead rent more than once during any period of 4 years. During any period of 4 years, the State Government can enhance both dead rent and royalty but only once. However, such a period of four years for the purpose of enhancing the rates of dead rent and royalty is to be reckoned from the date of coming into force of the Rules made by the State Government. Strong reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in D.K Trivedi & Sons v. State of Gujarat 1986 Supp SCC 20.
4. The High Court, however, adverted to the scheme of the Act discussed in the decision on which reliance is placed and it is on this basis that the writ petition was disposed of. The High Court in the earlier case held that the Government is empowered to revise the rate of dead rent after every five years from the date of grant of the lease, but that would not exceed the maximum limit specified in the Second Schedule to the Act. There is a similar Full Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Krishna Murari Goyal v. State of Rajasthan that in cases falling under the Second Schedule, Rule 21 would exclude the standard formulae for arriving at the dead rent and a circular laying down such formulae for giving dead rent at the time of renewal of lease is not arbitrary.
5. The contention put forth before us is that the view taken by the High Court in either of the decisions is not in conformity with the decision in D.K Trivedi case 1986 Supp SCC 20 and, therefore, it is submitted that interference is called for. Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the respondents, raised the preliminary point to the effect that the appellant had merely made an application for grant of lease and no lease has been granted. In any event, the application filed by the appellant should be deemed to have been rejected in terms of clause 9 of the marble policy read with Rule 65-A of the Rules. Therefore, the stage at which the dead rent has to be fixed in respect of the land to be leased to the appellant for exploitation has not arisen at all and hence at the instance of the appellant the Rules cannot be declared to be void. Apart from the submission made above, he also supported the two decisions rendered by the High Court of Rajasthan.
6. On the facts arising in this case, we feel that we are not called upon to decide the scope of the relevant Rules and particularly at the instance of the appellant who had not been given any lease for the time being. It is only when he gets the lease in respect of land the question of fixing dead rent would arise. In the present case, what has happened is that after the marble policy was framed in 1994, all pending applications stood rejected and fresh applications had to be made. The application of the appellant, if at all, could only be treated as pending at the time when the marble policy came into force. It is certainly open to the respondents to frame appropriate policy in regard to the minerals in which they can dispose of the rights in relation to the minor minerals. Therefore, our conclusion should be that the stage at which the dead rent has to be fixed in a case of this nature has not arisen and, therefore, we shall not engage ourselves in an academic exercise of finding out whether the relevant Rules are in conformity with the view expressed by this Court or not and such an exercise can be undertaken only in a case where it is necessary to do so. We also do not think that any mandamus can be issued to the respondents to process the application filed by the appellant in the light of the marble policy of the State Government that all applications pending on the date of coming into force of the marble policy stood lapsed. The appropriate course for the appellant is to file fresh application to pursue this matter in accordance with law and it is only thereafter if he finds it necessary the question raised in this case can be agitated in an appropriate manner.
7. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the appeals shall stand dismissed. No costs.
Alert