Summary
The Court refused to extend mining leases for periods when operations were obstructed by judicial orders pending forest notification. An extension had to rest on statute or contract and comply with the governing mining policy. Instead, it directed refund of eligible security deposits and advance royalties for the obstructed period, adding nine per cent simple interest under Article 142 because the leaseholders’ money had remained blocked without fault on their part.
Issues
- Whether mining leases should be extended to compensate for periods of court-ordered obstruction.
- What monetary relief should be granted for sums retained during that period.
Provisions considered
- Rules 68 and 40(h), Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963Confined relaxation to its mineral-development purpose and treated the monetary-adjustment provision as the statutory response to disruption. (¶¶ 14, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaGranted simple interest on refundable sums to do complete justice without extending leases contrary to the governing framework. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44, 45)
Held
- A right to extension must flow from statute or the lease terms. Judicial obstruction alone does not justify bypassing those requirements. Rule 68’s restricted relaxation power must serve mineral development and be read with the prescribed grant procedures. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36)
- The 2017 mining policy required e-tendering or e-auction and contained no provision for extending leases for the obstructed period. An extension sought now could not be related back to evade that framework. Rule 40(h) provided monetary adjustment for disruption rather than an automatic additional mining term. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40)
- The principle that an act of court should prejudice no one was relevant but not an unconditional basis for extension. The forest-preservation context and later transparent allocation policy supported refund rather than further mining rights. (¶¶ 41, 42)
- Under Article 142, blocked monies carried nine per cent simple interest. For expired leases, security deposits not already refunded carried interest from when refund became due after expiry until payment; deposits already refunded attracted no interest under this direction. Advance royalties for the obstructed period carried interest from the applicable obstruction date, 29 August 2018 or 5 February 2019, until payment. (¶¶ 43, 44, 45)
- The specified refunds and interest were payable within two months. Only observations in the impugned orders inconsistent with these limited directions were set aside. (¶¶ 45, 46)
Result
Appeals disposed of with limited refund and interest directions, payable within two months; lease extensions refused. Parties to bear their own costs; pending applications disposed of.