Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P No. 8426/2013

Advocates

Shri V.K Bharadwaj, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Anand V. Bharadwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghvendra Dixit, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

Judges

S.K Gangele
D.K Paliwal, JJ.

Acts

Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;5. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;6. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;7. The biological Diversity Act, 2002.18.
SECTION 15 A MINES AND MINERALS DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION ACT 1957
provisions of M.P Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Rules of 1996)
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT 2010
Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;3. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;4.
provision of statutory Rule 30(26) of the Rules of 1996, that provision
provisions of Rules of 1996. Chapter V, Rule 30 of the Rules of 1996
provisions of Rule 30(26) of the Rules of 1996
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;2.
Rule 30(26) of the Rules of 1996
provisions of Act of 2010.19.
sub-rule(1), (2), (3), (4), (11), (12) or(13)
Rule 6 of the Rules of 1996
Rule 6 of the Rules

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Order by Justice Gangele J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner was granted a quarry lease of 4.892 hectares (survey Nos. 416 and 417, Village Mau, District Gwalior) under the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 for ten years from 19.5.2004 to 18.5.2014. The petitioner obtained necessary NOCs from relevant departments, established a crusher to produce B.T. metal and obtained bank loans.

The Collector cancelled the lease by order dated 29.10.2011. The petitioner challenged that cancellation in W.P. No. 7573/2011. The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 30.01.2012, quashed the cancellation subject to conditions (including compliance directions and a committee to ensure compliance). The Court also held that an order of the M.P. Pollution Control Board cancelling the NOC became inoperative though the Board remained free to act in accordance with law.

Subsequently, the Collector permitted continued mining operations by order dated 03.03.2012. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.04.2012 alleging inadequate water-sprinkler operation, use of GDA roads for transport, and deep hole blasting. The petitioner replied, denying violations and stating corrective measures (including a 40,000-litre tank and continuous operation of sprinklers).

The Collector constituted a Committee which inspected the site on 03.06.2012 and recorded findings (reported as compliant with the petitioner’s assertions). A later Committee inspection on 04.12.2012 (conducted suddenly and without prior notice to the petitioner) recorded contrary findings (water sprinkler not in operation, absence of NOC, deep hole drilling). Relying on the second committee's memorandum, the Collector terminated the lease on 24.12.2012.

The petitioner filed further proceedings (W.P. No. 18/2013 was withdrawn with liberty to refile) and took statutory appeals and revisions. An appellate order dated 29.06.2013 dismissed the appeal, and a State Government revision dated 23.11.2013 dismissed the revision on the basis of the enquiry committee’s findings. The Gwalior Development Authority filed an SLP in the Supreme Court which was dismissed as infructuous. An NGT application was closed because the matter was pending before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the order passed by the Collector terminating the petitioner's lease on 24.12.2012 was within the Collector's power and authority and whether it violated the earlier order dated 30.01.2012 in W.P. No. 7573/2011.
Whether the Collector complied with the mandatory procedure laid down in Rule 30(26) of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (specifically, issuance of a show cause notice and grant of sixty days to remedy a breach), before terminating the lease.
Whether this Court's jurisdiction to hear the writ petition was ousted by the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (specifically Section 14 and Schedule I of that Act).
Whether the Collector had jurisdiction/power under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1996, as amended, to cancel or grant the quarry lease of the petitioner's area (4.892 hectares) at the time the cancellation order was passed.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The Collector failed to follow the mandatory provision of Rule 30(26) of the Rules of 1996: no fresh show cause notice was issued based on the findings of the second committee, and the petitioner was not given the statutory opportunity and 60 days to remedy any alleged breach.
The petitioner denied violations and asserted compliance (sprinklers in operation, constructed 40,000-litre tank, use of trenches to avoid use of GDA roads, no deep hole blasting) and expressed willingness to comply with conditions.
Reliance was placed on precedent(s), specifically Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 126 and Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 1417), to support the contention that natural justice requires an opportunity to be heard before termination of a mining lease.

Respondents' / State's Arguments

The petitioner had violated terms, conditions and directions of this Court, and therefore the Collector was justified in cancelling the lease.
This Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition because adjudication falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
The State further contended that a subsequent amendment to the Rules conferred power on the Collector to grant leases up to 10 hectares, implying that the Collector’s actions were in accordance with law (this argument concerns the effect of a later rule change).
The State argued that the NOC granted by the Pollution Control Board had expired, which would prevent lawful operation of the quarry (a point the Court did not accept as the basis for cancellation).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1417	Affirmation that in event of premature termination of mining lease, affected persons must be afforded opportunity of hearing in accordance with principles of natural justice.	The Court invoked this authority to emphasize that the lessee must be heard before termination; it supports the conclusion that the Collector should have issued a fresh show cause notice and afforded an opportunity before cancelling the lease on the basis of the second committee's findings.
Ram Kishan's case, AIR 1988 SC 1301 (cited within Assam Sillimanite)	Principle that persons affected by termination of mining-related rights are entitled to be heard; used in Assam Sillimanite's reasoning.	The opinion reproduces the Assam Sillimanite passage referring to Ram Kishan; the Court relied on the same line of authority to find that failure to afford hearing violates natural justice.
Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 126	Relied upon by the petitioner (the filing cites it as supportive authority).	The petitioner cited this decision in support of the contention that the statutory procedure and principles of natural justice must be observed. The Court recorded that the petitioner relied on it but built its reasoning principally on Rule 30(26) and Assam Sillimanite.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the case in two principal strands: (A) procedural compliance with Rule 30(26) of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996; and (B) the Collector's jurisdiction to cancel the lease in light of the Rule 6 regime as it stood on the date of cancellation.

A. Interpretation and application of Rule 30(26)

Rule 30(26) requires that in case of breach of certain sub-rules the Collector/Additional Collector must give a written show cause notice asking why the lessee should not be penalised and must direct the lessee to remedy the breach within sixty days. If the breach is not remedied or no proper cause shown, the sanctioning authority may determine the lease or impose financial penalties.
The Court found that a show cause notice was issued on 02.04.2012 and the petitioner replied, and a Committee inspection on 03.06.2012 found the petitioner’s assertions (operation of sprinklers, not using GDA roads, no deep hole blasting) to be true.
However, a subsequent Committee (inspecting on 04.12.2012 without notice to the petitioner) recorded contrary findings. The Collector passed the cancellation order on 24.12.2012 on the basis of this later enquiry but did not issue a fresh show cause notice or permit the statutory opportunity to remedy the alleged breach as required by Rule 30(26).
The Court held that once the subsequent committee found breaches, it was obligatory for the Collector to follow the mandatory procedure under Rule 30(26) — namely, issue notice and grant the time to remedy. The Collector’s reliance on the earlier show cause notice did not suffice for breaches allegedly detected later.
The Court relied on Assam Sillimanite (and the principles of natural justice reflected therein) to reinforce the requirement of an opportunity to be heard before termination of leases.

B. Jurisdiction under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

The Government argued that this Court lacked jurisdiction because the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act, 2010. The Court examined Section 14 and the Schedule I list of enactments included for NGT jurisdiction.
The Court noted that Schedule I lists specific environmental statutes (Water Acts, Forest Conservation Act, Air Act, Environment Protection Act, etc.) and that termination of a lease itself is not an enactment enumerated in Schedule I.
On that basis the Court concluded that its jurisdiction was not ousted by the NGT Act in the present case concerning cancellation of a quarry lease.

C. Collector's power under Rule 6 and temporal effect of rule amendments

The Court examined Rule 6 (as substituted by a State notification dated 19.4.2010) and noted the limits placed on the Collector's authority to grant or cancel quarry leases based on area thresholds (the petitioner’s lease area being 4.892 hectares).
On the date of the impugned cancellation (24.12.2012), the operative Rule 6 did not give the Collector authority to grant or cancel the petitioner's lease because the area exceeded the relevant threshold for Collector authority at that time.
The State had, after 24.12.2012, substituted Rule 6 again by notification dated 23.3.2013 to increase Collector power up to 10.00 hectares. The Court held that substitution came into effect only from its publication date and was not retrospective; therefore the later amendment could not validate an earlier act done without jurisdiction.
Because the Collector lacked power on 24.12.2012 to determine the petitioner's lease (area > 4 hectares under the then applicable rule), the cancellation order of that date was void ab initio.

D. Other subsidiary points addressed by the Court

The Court rejected the State's contention that the NOC period expiry justified cancellation; the Court found that lease cancellation was not predicated on NOC expiry.
The petitioner’s submission seeking extension of the lease period for the time he could not operate was rejected because the Court held it lacked jurisdiction under the Rules of 1996 to grant such extension.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 24.12.2012 (Annexure P/1), 29.6.2013 (Annexure P/2) and 23.11.2013 (Annexure P/23) are quashed.

Implications and Direct Consequences:

The immediate legal effect is that the Collector's termination of the petitioner's quarry lease on 24.12.2012 and the subsequent appellate/revisional orders are set aside as void. The Court found the cancellation void for two independent reasons: procedural non-compliance with Rule 30(26) (no fresh show cause/60-day remedy period on the basis of the later inspection) and lack of jurisdiction in the Collector to cancel the lease on the date it was done (Rule 6 as then in force restricted Collector's authority for leases of that area).
The authorities (State/Collector/etc.) are left at liberty to act in accordance with law (i.e., they may proceed again but must respect the statutory procedure and jurisdictional limits as applicable).
No broader new legal principle or precedent was announced beyond application of existing statutory rules and established principles of natural justice; the decision resolves the dispute between the parties on the facts and law stated in the opinion.

No order as to costs.

Show full summary ...

M/S. Aman Stone Crusher v. State Of M.P & Another

ORDER

Per Justice Gangele J.:

Short question is involved in deciding the writ petition that whether the order passed by the Collector is within his power and authority and whether it is in violation of order dt.30.1.2012 passed in W.P No. 7573/2011. Respondents have also filed their reply. Hence, the petition is heard and disposed of finally.

2. The petitioner was granted a quarry lease of a land area 4.892 hectare of survey No. 416 and 417, situate at village Mau, District Gwalior under the provisions of M.P Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Rules of 1996’) for a period of ten years from 19.5.2004 to 18.5.2014 He was granted NOC from the relevant departments. The petitioner established a crusher for converting minerals into B.T Metal. He had received loans from the banks. The lease was cancelled by the Collector vide order dt.29.10.2011 He challenged the aforesaid order in a Writ Petition, which was registered as W.P No. 7573/2011. Division Bench of this court vide order dt.30.01.2012 disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:-

(1) The impugned order, Annexure P-1, is hereby quashed subject to conditions that the petitioner shall ensure compliance of the directions mentioned in para 27 of this order and the Committee, as mentioned in the aforesaid para, shall ensure proper compliance and in the event of failure of the compliance, the department would be at liberty to take appropriate action.

(2) The M.P Pollution Control Board has cancelled the No Objection Certificate granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 09.11.2011, Annexure R-6. That order has been passed on the ground that Collector had cancelled the quarry lease of the petitioner. This Court has already quashed the impugned order in regard to cancellation of quarry lease, hence the order passed by the Regional Authority of the M.P Pollution Control Board, Annexure R-6 dated 09.11.2011 has became inoperative. However, the M.P Pollution Control Board is at liberty to take action in accordance with law as mentioned in this order.

(3) No order as to costs.”

3. The Collector granted permission to the petitioner to continue mining operations vide order dt. 03.03.2012 A show cause notice was issued by the Collector on 2.4.2012 to the petitioner. By the aforesaid notice, the petitioner was directed to show cause that the petitioner installed water sprinkler system, however, the system was not sufficient to prevent air pollution and the petitioner had been using GDA roads for transportation of vehicles and he was also making deep hole blasting, hence, why the mining lease be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. He denied the fact that the water sprinkler system was insufficient. He further pleaded that he constructed a tank capacity of 40,000 ltrs. The sprinklers were in operation all the time. Some tranches were also constructed so it was not possible to use roads of GDA Shatabdipuram. The petitioner further pleaded that he was not using deep hole blasting. He further submitted that he was willing to obey all the conditions, which may be imposed by the Collector.

4. In pursuance to the show cause notice, the Collector constituted a Committee to verify the facts mentioned by the petitioner in the reply. The Committee inspected the spot on 3.6.2012, prepared a panchnama and recorded following findings:-

5. Another Committee was constituted by the Collector in December 2012 and it again inspected the mining sites and recorded following findings and submitted a memorandum to the Collector:-

6. On the basis of findings and memorandum, the Collector passed impugned order of termination of lease on 24.12.2012

7. Against the order of cancellation of lease, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court, which was registered as W.P No. 18/2013. Writ Petition was withdrawn with liberty to file the petition subsequently because an appeal was pending before the Government. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of cancellation of lease. The appellate authority vide order dt.29.6.2013 dismissed the appeal on the ground that a Special Leave Petition was pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the State Government, that was also dismissed vide order dt.23.11.2013 on the ground that the enquiry committee in its report recorded findings that the petitioner had violated the directions issued by this court.

8. In the meanwhile, Gwalior Development Authority filed Special Leave Petition against the order passed by this court alongwith other persons. It was registered as Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 36873/2012. Hon'ble Supreme Court issued notices. Thereafter, the SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the lease granted to the petitioner was cancelled and against the aforesaid order, a writ petition was filed and it was withdrawn. Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP as infructuous. An application was also filed before the National Green Tribunal. National Green Tribunal closed the case because the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Copy of the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Bench Bhopal dt.22nd April 2013 has been filed as Annexure P/14.

9. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the Collector has not followed the mandatory provisions of Rule 30(26) of the Rules of 1996 and no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before cancellation of mining lease. He further pleaded that the petitioner was not given time to rectify the mistakes in accordance with the provisions of rules. He further contended that the petitioner had not violated any terms and conditions and the petitioner is willing to abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed by the authority. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel relied on the following judgments:

(1) Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana-(2010) 1 SCC 126

(2) Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India-AIR 1990 SC 1417.

10. Contrary to this, learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions and directions issued by this court, hence, the Collector has rightly passed the order. Learned Govt. Advocate has further submitted that the petitioner could not be permitted to carry out the mining operations because he has violated terms and conditions. Learned Govt. Advocate has also contended that this court has no jurisdiction to hear the petition in view of the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to the ‘Act of 2010’).

11. The petitioner was granted quarry lease in accordance with the provisions of Rules of 1996. Chapter V, Rule 30 of the Rules of 1996 prescribes conditions of quarry lease. Rule 30(26) of the Rules of 1996 prescribes procedure, if there is any breach of conditions specified under the rule. The aforesaid provision is as under:-

“30. Conditions of quarry lease - (1) …. (26) In case of breach by the lessee or his transferee or assignee of any of the conditions in sub-rule(1), (2), (3), (4), (11), (12) or(13) of this rule, the Collector/Additional Collector shall give notice in writing to the lessee, or his transferee or his assignee asking him to show cause why he should not be penalised for the breach committed and directed him to remedy the breach within sixty days from the date of the notice and if the lessee or his transferee or assignee fails to show proper cause or if the breach is not remedied within such period the Sanctioning Authority without prejudice to any other action, may determine the lease and forfeit the whole or part of the security deposit or in the alternative may receive from the lessee such penalty for the breach not exceeding four times the amount of the said half yearly dead rent as the lessor may fix.”

12. From the aforesaid provision it is clear that the Collector/Additional Collector shall issue a show cause notice to the lease holder that why he should not be penalised for the breach of conditions and he shall also give 60 days time from the date of notice to remedy the breach and if the lease holder fails to show proper cause or does not remedy the breach, sanctioning authority may forfeit the whole or part of the security deposit or impose a penalty for breach not exceeding four times the amount of the half yearly dead rent. In the present case, the Collector issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 2.4.2012 The petitioner submitted reply. He also submitted that he had not violated any terms and conditions of the order passed by this court earlier. The Collector appointed a Committee to verify the facts that whether the reply submitted by the petitioner was correct or not. The Committee submitted its report to the Collector and findings of the Committee have been reported earlier in the order. The Committee has clearly observed that the petitioner installed a water sprinkler system and he was not using the roads of GDA Shatabdipuram and there was no deep hole blasting in the area and the mine was also covered by a wired fencing. The facts mentioned by the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice were found true.

13. Thereafter, another Committee inspected the site on 4.12.2012 all of a sudden. The petitioner was not noticed about the inspection and the Committee recorded findings that Water Sprinkler System was not in operation and the petitioner did not receive NOC and he was carrying mining operations by way of deep whole drilling. Report of the Committee was submitted to the Collector vide memorandum dt.11.12.2012 and thereafter on 24.12.2012 the impugned order was passed. The Collector did not issue any show cause notice to the petitioner on the basis of second enquiry conducted by the Committee on 4.12.2012 neither the petitioner had been given time to remedy the breach. The statutory provision provides that the lease holder be given time to remedy the breach of 60 days and a show cause notice be also issued to him giving him an opportunity to show cause that why he should not be penalised for the breach committed by him. The Collector simply observed that earlier the show cause notice was issued and the petitioner was granted 30 days time and thereafter he filed the reply and then the Committee was constituted. The Committee inspected the spot on 4.12.2012 and found certain breach of conditions and passed the order. The order of cancellation of lease is based on the findings of the subsequent Committee dt.4.12.2012 Earlier show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 2.4.2012 At that time, it was found that the petitioner did not commit any breach. When subsequent Committee noticed that the petitioner had committed certain breach, then it was obligatory on the part of the Collector to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and grant him time to remedy the breach in accordance with Rule 30(26) of the Rules of 1996. Earlier this court in the Writ Petition clearly observed that if there was any violation, then the authority was at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. It means that it was obligatory on the part of the Collector to follow mandatory provision of statutory Rule 30(26) of the Rules of 1996, that provision has not been followed.

14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 1417 has held that in the event of premature termination of mining lease, an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner must be accorded in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Court has held as under:-

“11. We do not propose to reconsider this matter as, in our opinion, the contention raised by Shri P.C Jain is directly and squarely concluded by the decision in Ram Kishan's case (AIR 1988 SC 1301) (supra). It is no doubt true that in that case the Central Government appears to have been willing to rehear the parties but the Court did not proceed on the basis of any concession. The Court discussed the provisions of S.4A at great length and held that there was no suggestion in the section to deny the right of the affected persons to be heard and that the section must be interpreted to imply that the 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, it was held, would be violative of the principles of natural justice. The Court concluded that the lessee-respondents were entitled to be heard before a decision to prematurely terminate their leases was taken and that, since it was not done, the High Court was right in quashing the order passed under S.4A”

15. The appellate authority and revisional authority have not considered the aforesaid provision of law properly. Hence, the order passed by the authority is contrary to law.

16. The argument raised by the learned Government Advocate that this court has no jurisdiction to hear the Writ Petition in view of the provisions of Act of 2010 is liable to be rejected because Section 14 of the Act of 2010 gives power and jurisdiction to the Tribunal to settle the dispute. The provision is as under:-

“14. Tribunal to settle disputes.-(1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.

(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in sub-section(1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon.

(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose.

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”

17. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment and enforcement of enactments specified in Schedule I is involved. In the Schedule I following enactments have been mentioned:

1. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;

2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;

3. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;

4. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;

5. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;

6. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;

7. The biological Diversity Act, 2002.

18. In the aforesaid Schedule, there is no mention of the termination of lease granted to a lease holder. In the present case, the lease of the petitioner was cancelled. Hence, in our opinion, the jurisdiction of this court is not ousted in view of the provisions of Act of 2010.

19. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also made a submission that the period for which the petitioner could not operate the quarry be extended. However, this court has no such jurisdiction to extend the period, for which the petitioner could not operate his quarry, under the provisions of Rules of 996. Hence, this argument is rejected.

20. The arguments of learned Government Advocate that period of NOC granted to the petitioner by Pollution Control Board has expired, hence, petitioner could not operate quarry could not be accepted because on this ground lease has not been cancelled.

21. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Collector had no power and authority to cancel the lease because the area of the lease is more than four hectare.

22. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/State has contended that subsequently the rule was amended and the Collector was granted power to grant lease up to the area of 10 hectare of land, hence the order passed by the Collector is in accordance with law.

23. It is an admitted fact that the area of the lease of the petitioner is 4.892 hectare. The State Government had made amendment in the Rules of 1996 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (No. 67 of 1957) vide notification dt. 19th April 2010. In accordance by the aforesaid notification, for Rule 6, following rule is substituted:-

“6. Power to grant quarry lease - Quarry lease in respect of minerals specified in Schedule I and II shall be granted and renewed by the authority mentioned in column(2) for the minerals specified in column(3) subject to the extent as specified in the corresponding entry in column(4) thereof of the Table below:-

S. No. Authority Minerals Extent of powers

“----------------

2. Collector/(i) Minerals specified

(i) Where the area Additional in serial numbers applied for does Collector 1 to 3 of Schedule I. not exceed 5.00 (Senior hectares.

IAS Scale)(ii) Minerals specified (ii) Where the area in serial numbers applied for does 4 of Schedule I. Not exceed 4.00 hectares.

(iii) Minerals specified (iii) Where the area in serial numbers 6 applied for and 7 of Schedule I. exceeds 2.00 hectares and does not exceed 4.00 hectares.

(iv) Minerals specified (iv) Where the area in serial number 2 applied for of Schedule II exceeds.

kilns/kilns.

(v) Minerals specified (iii) Where the area in serial numbers 5 applied for to 12 of Schedule II. exceeds 4.00 hectares.

24. When the Collector passed the order of cancellation of lease of the petitioner i.e on 24.12.2012, on the aforesaid date, in accordance with the Rule 6, which is in vogue, at that time, the Collector had no power and authority to grant or cancel the lease of minerals accorded to the petitioner because the area of the land is more than 4 hectare. The lease was for making gitti by mechanical crushing mentioned at Sl. No. 6 of Schedule I of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1996.

25. The State Government subsequently vide another notification dt.23.3.2013 substituted Rule 6 of the Rules of 1996 and accorded power to the Collector/Additional Collector (Senior IAS Scale) in respect of grant of quarry lease of minerals specified in Schedule I and Schedule II having an area of 10.00 hectares. The aforesaid rule is not retrospective in nature. It came into effect from the date of publication of notification in the gazette i.e w.e.f 23.3.2013 Hence, the order passed by the Collector in regard to cancellation of the lease is void ab initio being without any power and jurisdiction and authority, hence, it could not be cured at subsequent stage.

26. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dt.24.12.2012 (Annexure P/1), dt.29.6.2013 (Annexure P/2) and dt.23.11.2013 (Annexure P/23) are hereby quashed. The authorities are at liberty to act in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.

M/S. Aman Stone Crusher v. State Of M.P & Another

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Order by Justice Gangele J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondents' / State's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

M/S. Aman Stone Crusher v. State Of M.P & Another

Comments