Summary
The Court permitted surrender of the disputed Haryana mining arrangement subject to statutory compliance and strict financial and closure conditions. The lessee, individually unqualified to bid, could not obtain unconditional escape from the consequences of the irregular joint-venture transfer. Operations were allowed until 30 November 2017, with rent or royalty payable through that date even if work ceased earlier, and labour dues protected.
Issues
- On what conditions the petitioner could surrender the mining arrangement.
- What closure, financial and employee protections were required.
Provisions considered
- Rules 25 and 41(v), Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012The reproduced surrender provisions required compliance with payment, notice and closure obligations despite the parties’ acceptance of surrender. (¶ 30–33)
Held
- The qualified bidder was the joint venture, not the petitioner alone. The Court found no basis to disturb the High Court’s merits assessment and addressed the pressed request for conditional exit. (¶¶ 18, 29–31)
- Operations could continue under the mining plan until 30 November 2017, by which closure obligations had to be fulfilled. Dead rent or royalty, whichever was higher, remained payable through that date regardless of earlier cessation. (¶ 32–33(i)–(ii))
- All employee and labour dues had to be paid; transfer or encumbrance of connected movable assets was restrained to secure recovery. Applicable laws were to be strictly enforced, with the Chief Secretary responsible for lapses. (¶ 33(iii)–(iv))
- If the 28.75-crore security deposit had not been refunded, it was deemed forfeited and could not be adjusted against the petitioner’s dues. (¶ 33(v))
Result
Special leave petition disposed of on the stated conditions; High Court order modified to that extent, without costs.