ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT IN W.P.21793 OF 2005 AT
ANNEXURE-H AND ALSO ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE APEX
COURT IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.717 OF 2009 AT
ANNEXURE-J AS WELL AS ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT IN W.P.7194 OF 2009 AT ANNEXURE-L AND ALSO DIRECTIONS
ISSUED BY BIFR IN CASE NO.114 OF 2004 EXPEDITIOUSLY
WITHIN A TIME FRAME TO BE FIXED, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
This is a writ petition seeking for a direction on the authorities to grant mining lease in respect of Block No
2
13/1 of Ramadurga reserve forest area in Ramadurga village in Sandur taluk of Ballari district, for mining of iron ore, upon declaration that one Rama Rao Poal fraudulently obtained a mining lease in respect of 70 acres of land in the said block.
2. On September 14, 1993, the writ petitioner applied for grant of mining lease for extracting iron ore in Block No 13/1 of Ramadurga reserve forest area of Sandur village in Ballari district.
3. Mr R G Kolle, learned advocate for the writ petitioner, in his usual fairness, submits that in view of the amendment to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation), 1957 by Amendment Act of 2015, ['the said Amendment Act' for short] if a letter of intent has been issued by the State government, only then his client is entitled to a mining lease in respect of the area sought for.
4. Section 10A was inserted by the said Amendment Act of 2015. The Amended Act, inter alia, provides that an
3
application for grant of mining lease received prior to the date of commencement of the Amended Act shall remain eligible, where a letter of intent (by whatever name it is called) has been issued by the State government to grant a mining lease.
5. It is true that the writ petitioner had applied for grant of mining lease in the year 1993 and its case had come up for consideration before the authority concerned on several occasions.
6. Mr R G Kolle, learned advocate for the writ petitioner, draws our attention to Annexure-F, which is a proceeding concerning the request of the writ petitioner for allotment of land for iron ore mining lease. It was noticed that as the petitioner wanted to establish a steel manufacturing project, it required raw materials and for that it was necessary for the petitioner to get an iron ore mining lease to build a steel plant.
4
7. Our attention is drawn to a proceeding of a high level committee dated February 28, 1997. In such meeting discussions took place and it was proposed that the petitioner could be granted iron ore mining lease.
8. Mr Kolle, strenuously, submits before us that these two documents should constitute an intent by the State government and as the government has issued the intent, the writ petitioner is entitled to be considered for the mining lease.
9. Mr I, Tharanath Pujary, learned additional government advocate, submits that those documents are only proceedings in the process of consideration and they are not final intention of the authorities to grant mining lease in favour of the petitioner.
10. In spite of persuasive arguments of Mr Kolle, we are unable to accept such contention that those
5
documents, as referred to above, tantamount to issue of a letter of intent by the State government within the meaning of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Amended Act.
11. We, therefore, hold that there was no letter of intent in favour of the writ petitioner issued by the State government to grant a mining lease entitling the writ petitioner to come within the exception clause in Section 10A of the said Act for getting a mining lease.
12. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition.
13. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
*pjk
6