Page 1

1

“  Reportable”   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 114 OF 2014

Common Cause … Petitioner versus

Union of India and others … Respondents

With

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 194 OF 2014

Prafulla Samantra and another … Petitioners versus

Union of India and others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. This Court by its order dated 16.5.2014, in Common Cause v.  

Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 155, restrained 102 mining leaseholders  

from carrying on any mining operations.  The above order was passed on  

account of the fact, that none of these leaseholders were in possession of  

clearances/approvals/consent,  required  for  carrying  on  the  mining  

operations.   The  above  order  dated  16.5.2014,  granted  liberty  to  the  

leaseholders whose operations were suspended, to move this Court after  

obtaining  the  requisite  clearances/approvals/consent,  whereupon  this  

Court would, on being satisfied, revoke the suspension order.   

2. A  number  of  applications  came  to  be  filed  before  this  Court  

seeking  revocation  of  the  above  order  of  suspension,  wherein  the

Page 2

2

concerned  applicants  asserted,  that  they  had  obtained  all  

clearances/approvals/consent,  and further  that,  they were now legally  

eligible to recommence mining operations.  During the course of  such  

consideration  at  our  hands,  Mr.  A.D.N.  Rao,  learned  amicus  curiae  

pointed out, that the question of granting permission to the leaseholders  

to recommence mining operations would arise, only if  the leaseholders  

have a subsisting mining lease.  It was therefore submitted, that before  

determining the legitimacy  of  the claim raised  by the applicants,  this  

Court  should first  examine,  whether  the  applicants  have  a  subsisting  

right to carry on mining operation, under a valid lease.   

3. This submission advanced at the hands of  the learned amicus  

curiae,  was  strongly  contested  by  learned  counsel  representing  the  

applicants.  They invited our attention to paragraph 4 of the order  dated  

16.5.2014, passed in the Common Cause case, so as to contend, that this  

Court  had  not  postulated  such  a  precondition,  and  therefore,  the  

submission advanced at the hands of the learned amicus curiae, should  

be rejected.  Paragraph 4 aforementioned, is extracted hereunder:

“4. We have considered the report dated 25.4.2014 of the CEC, and the  submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for different parties,  and  we  find  that  102  mining  leases  do  not  have  requisite  environmental  clearances, approvals under the Forest (Conservation)  Act, 1980, approved Mining Plan and/or Consent to Operate. A list of  these  102  mining  leases  is  annexed  to  the  report  of  the  CEC  as  Annexure R-2. The CEC has, however, stated in the report that mining  operations in these 102 mining leases have been suspended and these  102  mining  leases  have  been  classified  as  non-working  leases.  We  direct  that  mining  operations  in  these  102  mining  leases  listed  in  Annexure R-2 of the report of the CEC shall remain suspended, but it  will  be  open to  such lessees  to  move  the  concerned authorities  for  environmental  clearances,  approval  under  the  Forest  (Conservation)

Page 3

3

Act, 1980, approval of Mining Plan or Consent to Operate and as and  when  the  mining  lessees  are  able  to  obtain  all  the  clearances/approval/consent,  they  may  move  this  Court  for  modification of this interim order in relation to their cases.”

(highlighting – as per emphasis of learned counsel)

4. Having  perused  the  position  expressed  by  this  Court,  while  

suspending mining operations with reference to 102 mining leases, it is  

apparent, that the said direction was issued for the sole consideration,  

that  the  concerned  leaseholders  were  not  in  possession  of  all  

clearances/approvals/consent.   And  as  such,  they  were  permitted  to  

move  applications  before  this  Court,  for  modification  of  the  order  of  

suspension,  as  and  when  all  clearances/approvals/consent  were  

obtained.  It  is  however  relevant  to  notice,  that  such  clearances,  

approvals and consent can be meaningful to the applicants, only if they  

are with reference to subsisting mining lease(s).  In case a leaseholder  

does  not  have  a  subsisting  mining  lease,  he  is  precluded  under  the  

provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,  

1957 (hereinafter referred to as, the MMDR Act), from carrying on any  

mining  operations.   It  is  therefore,  that  we  accept  the  submission  

advanced by Mr. A.D.N. Rao. And it is also for the above reason, that we  

required learned counsel representing the mining leaseholders, desirous  

of lifting the suspension order dated 16.5.2014, to substantiate whether  

or not, they were possessed of a subsisting mining lease.   

5. To  commence  with,  we  were  of  the  view,  that  a  

decision/conclusion  in  this  behalf,  would  emerge  from  the  actual

Page 4

4

document  by which the  mining lease  had been granted  (or  renewed).  

During  the  course  of  hearing  it  emerged,  that  the  deduction  as  to  

whether the applicant-leaseholders were possessed of subsisting mining  

lease(s), was a complicated question of fact and law.  Since the same has  

to  be  resolved,  before  the  claim  of  the  applicants  for  revoking  the  

suspension  order  (–  dated  16.5.2014)  can  be  accepted,  we  would  

endeavour to lay down parameters for such determination.

6. A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period  

of the original grant is in currency.  Additionally, a leaseholder whose  

original  lease has since expired, would have a subsisting lease,  if  the  

original lease having been renewed, the renewal period is in currency.    

7. It is also essential to notice, that to start with, renewal could be  

granted  to  a  mining  leaseholder,  any  number  of  times,  under  the  

unamended Section 8 of the MMDR Act.  The duration of the original  

grant (of the mining lease),  as also, the duration of renewals, and the  

number  of  permissible  renewals,  that  a  leaseholder  can  seek,  have  

undergone  a  change.   We shall  dwell  upon the  instant  aspect  of  the  

matter in the instant order, as it has a vital bearing on the issue, whether  

or  not  the  applicant-leaseholders  are  possessed  of  subsisting  mining  

leases.   For  this,  in  the first  instance,  reference may be made to  the  

provision regulating the grant of a mining lease, as also, renewal of a  

mining lease, namely, Section 8 of the MMDR Act.  The instant provision,  

in the manner it  came to be structured after being amended in 1994

Page 5

5

(which  position  remained  unamended  till  18.7.2014),  is  extracted  

hereunder:

“8. Periods for which mining leases may be granted or renewed.— (1)  The maximum period for which a mining lease may be granted  shall not exceed thirty years: Provided that the minimum period for which any such mining lease  may be granted shall not be less than twenty years; (2)  A mining lease may be renewed for a period not exceeding twenty  years. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), if the State  Government is of opinion that in the interests of mineral development  it is necessary so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded, authorise  the renewal of a mining lease in respect of minerals not specified in  Part-A and Part-B of the First Schedule for a further period or periods  not exceeding twenty years in each case. (4)  Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2)  and sub- section (3), no mining lease granted in respect of mineral specified in  Part-A or Part-B of the First Schedule shall be renewed except with the  previous approval of the Central Government.”

(emphasis is ours)

A perusal  of  Section 8(1)  extracted above  reveals,  that  the  maximum  

period for which a mining lease could be granted, would not exceed thirty  

years.  After the expiry of the original grant, the mining lease could be  

renewed in the first instance for a further period not exceeding twenty  

years,  under Section 8(2).   For all  intents and purposes,  the renewal  

contemplated  under  Section  8(2),  shall  be  referred  to  as  the  “first  

renewal”.   The  “first  renewal”,  required  a  clearance  of  the  State  

Government,  and  the  approval  of  the  Central  Government.  Further  

renewals,  after the expiry of  first  renewal granted under Section 8(2),  

were also permissible, and were provided for under Section 8(3) of the  

MMDR Act.  The renewal(s) postulated under Section 8(3), for all intents  

and purposes, shall be described hereinafter, as the “second (or third, or

Page 6

6

fourth …) renewal”.  The renewal(s) under Section 8(3) could be granted  

only if the State Government expressed its satisfaction, that the grant of  

the second or subsequent renewal, would be in the interest of mineral  

development.   Furthermore,  the  “second  renewal”  or  still  further  

renewal(s),  had to  also have the approval  of  the Central  Government.  

Even though the period of subsequent renewals, is of no significance,  

insofar as the present controversy is concerned, it may be mentioned,  

that  all  subsequent  renewals  including  the  second,  third  or  further  

renewals,  could  individually  extend  to  a  period  not  exceeding  twenty  

years.

8. The interpretation placed by us, on Section 8 of the MMDR Act  

(as  it  existed  in  1994),  finds  support  from  Rule  24A  of  the  Mineral  

Concession  Rules,  1960  (hereinafter  referred  to  as,  the  Mineral  

Concession Rules) – as the rule existed prior to 18.7.2014.  Rule 24A in  

the manner in which it was then structured, is extracted below:

“24A. Renewal of mining lease. —(1) An application for the renewal of  a mining lease shall be made to the State Government in Form J, at  least  twelve  months  before  the  date  on  which  the  lease  is  due  to  expire, through such officer or authority as the State Government may  specify in this behalf. (2) The renewal or renewals of a mining lease granted in respect of a  mineral specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule to the Act  may be granted by the State Government with the previous approval  of the Central Government. (3) The renewal or renewals of a mining lease granted in respect of a  mineral not specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule to the  Act may be granted by the State Government: Provided  that  before  granting  approval  for  second  or  subsequent  renewal of a mining lease, the State Government shall seek a report  from the Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines, as to whether it  would be in the interest of mineral development to grant the renewal  of the mining lease.

Page 7

7

Provided further that in case a report is not received from Controller  General, Indian Bureau of Mines in a period of three months of receipt  of the communication from the State Government, it would be deemed  that the Indian Bureau of Mines has no adverse comments to offer  regarding the grant of the renewal of mining lease. (4) An application for the renewal of a mining lease shall be disposed of  within a period of six months from the date of its receipt.  (5)  If an application is not disposed of within the period specified in  sub-rule (4) it shall be deemed to have been refused.  (6) If an application for renewal of a mining lease made within the time  referred to in sub-rule (1) is not disposed of by the State Government  before the date of expiry of the lease, the period of that lease shall be  deemed  to  have  been  extended  by  a  further  period  till  the  State  Government passes order thereon.

xxx xxx xxx” (emphasis is ours)

A perusal  of  sub-rule (1)  of  Rule 24A reveals,  that  an application for  

renewal of a mining lease, had to be made at least twelve months before  

the date of expiry of the existing mining lease.  It is therefore essential for  

us to record, that unless such an application had been made at least  

twelve months before the date of expiry of an existing mining lease under  

Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules, the same could not have been  

entertained.  And also that,  the term of the mining lease held by the  

leaseholder would be deemed to have come to an end, on the expiry of  

the period depicted in the lease document, if such an application had not  

been preferred.

9. The next relevant provision is  sub-rule (4)  of  Rule 24A of  the  

Mineral  Concession  Rules.   The  instant  sub-rule  required,  that  an  

application for renewal, would be disposed of within six months, from the  

date of receipt of such application.  We have extracted hereinabove, sub-

rule (5) of Rule 24A, wherein it was mandated, that an application for  

renewal, which had not been disposed of within the period of six months,

Page 8

8

as provided for under Rule 24A(4) of the Mineral Concession Rules, would  

be deemed to have been refused.  It is however relevant to notice, that the  

aforementioned sub-rule (5) came to be omitted by an amendment, with  

effect from 7.1.1993.  It is significant to record, that sub-rule (6) came to  

be substituted by an amendment, with effect from 27.9.1994.  Sub-rule  

(6) of Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules, is of extreme importance  

for the determination, whether the applicant-leaseholder is possessed of  

subsisting mining lease because a large number of applicants rely on the  

instant rule in support of their claim for being possessed of a subsisting  

mining  lease.  Sub-rule  (6)  aforementioned  postulated,  that  if  an  

application for renewal of a mining lease (made within twelve months,  

before the date on which the existing lease was to expire), had not been  

disposed of  by the  competent  authority,  the  period of  lease  would  be  

deemed  to  have  been  extended,  by  a  further  period  till  the  State  

Government passed an order disposing of the renewal application. It is  

therefore, that the right to continue mining operations would seemingly  

continue  ad infinitum, for the simple reason that the State Government  

which was the competent authority, had not passed any order(s) on most  

of the pending applications seeking renewal.

10. An extremely significant event pertaining to the statutory regime  

of  mining  leases  under  the  MMDR  Act,  and  the  Mineral  Concession  

Rules, took place on 21.4.2014, when this Court passed an order in Goa  

Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 590, and held as under:

“27. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act, which provides the

Page 11

11

second  or  subsequent  renewal(s),  a  mining  lease  would  expire  after  

completion of the period of first renewal.

12. In order to give effect to the conclusions recorded by this Court  

in  the  Goa  Foundation  case,  Rule  24A(6)  came  to  be  amended  on  

18.7.2014.  The above amendment is reproduced below:

“Rule 24-A xxx xxx xxx

(6) If an application for first renewal of a mining lease made within the  time  referred  to  in  sub-rule  (1)  is  not  disposed  of  by  the  State  Government before the date of expiry of the lease, the period of that  lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period of two  years or till the State Government passes order thereon, whichever is  earlier: Provided that the leases where applications for first renewal of mining  lease have been made to the State Government and which have not  been disposed of by the State Government before the date of expiry of  lease and are pending for disposal as on the date of the notification of  this amendment, shall be deemed to have been extended by a further  period  of  two  years  from  the  date  of  coming  into  force  of  this  amendment or till the State Government passes order thereon or the  date  of  expiry  of  the  maximum  period  allowed  for  first  renewal,  whichever is the earliest: Provided further that the provisions of this sub-rule shall not apply to  renewal under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Mines and Minerals  (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.”

(emphasis is ours)

The above amendment, has to be carefully understood.  Undoubtedly, the  

amendment of sub-rule (6) of Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules  

now provides, that the period of mining operations would be deemed to be  

extended  for  a  maximum period  of  two  years,  after  the  expiry  of  the  

period of the original grant, unless of course, the State Government takes  

a conscious decision on the application for renewal.  We are of the view,  

that  the  instant  provision,  has  to  be  read  in  continuation  of  the

Page 12

12

erstwhile/previous Rule 24A (which subsisted till the instant amendment  

came into effect on 18.7.2014).  The unamended provision, postulated an  

unlimited period of mining lease, in the absence of a determinative order,  

on an application for renewal.  Therefore, even if the original lease had  

expired many years ago, but if a renewal application had been preferred  

within the permissible time contemplated under Rule 24A(1), the same  

would have continued to subsist, till the instant amendment took effect  

on 18.7.2014.  The importance of this conclusion is for the reason, that  

the  proviso  to  new Rule  24A(6)  –  amended on 18.7.2014,  consciously  

provided, that the lease period where applications had been filed seeking  

“first  renewal”,  would be deemed to  have been extended for  a further  

period of two years, from the date of coming into force of the amended  

sub-rule (6).   Accordingly,  in all  cases wherein the “first renewal”  had  

been sought, but not determined, the mining operations were extended,  

by operation of law, till 18.7.2014.   

13. The case of most of the applicants before this Court is, that they  

had moved applications within the time permissible under Rule 24A(1),  

and as  such, on account of the unamended sub-rule (6) of Rule 24A, and  

thereafter, on the basis of the amended sub-rule (6) of Rule 24A, their  

right  to  continue  mining  operations,  would  be  deemed  to  have  been  

extended up to 18.7.2016.  We find that their claim is valid, and accept  

the  same,  insofar  as  the  legal  position  is  concerned,  but  only  with  

reference to “first renewals”.  We may hasten to explain, that the instant  

determination  emerges  from an  interpretation  of  the  unamended  and

Page 13

13

amended Rule 24A(6).  Whether subsequent amendments would alter the  

situation, is being determined hereinafter.

14. One clarification is imperative at this stage.  After the passing of  

the order on 21.4.2014, in the Goa Foundation case,  subsisting “first  

renewals” under Rule 24A, would expire on the completion of a further  

period of twenty years, after the expiry of the period contemplated under  

the  original  grant,  or  as  interpreted  above.   There  was  no  similar  

automatic  grant of  “second renewals”,  after  the Goa Foundation case.  

Therefore,  for  all  intents  and  purposes,  the  conclusion  recorded  

hereinabove, should be deemed to be relevant only with reference to the  

grant  of  “first  renewals”.  It  is  necessary  to  reiterate,  that  in  the  Goa  

Foundation case, this Court had held, that second renewals would be  

subject to an order passed by the State Government recording reasons  

that it was in the interest of mineral development to do so.   Needless to  

mention,  that  a  second  or  subsequent  renewal  also  required,  the  

previous approval  of  the Central  Government – as provided for  under  

Section 8(4) of the MMDR Act.  The amendment to Rule 24A made on  

18.7.2014, more particularly, the second proviso to sub-rule (6), leaves  

no room for any doubt,  that  the automatic  extension postulated with  

reference  to  the  first  renewal,  would  not  apply  to  the  second  or  

subsequent renewals.  It is therefore necessary to further conclude, that  

in cases of second and subsequent renewals, the amended Rule 24A(6)  

would not extend the lease period for a further period of two years, from  

the  date  of  amendment.   Therefore,  for  all  intents  and  purposes,  in

Page 14

14

relation to renewal sought under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act (read with  

Rule 24A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules – amended on 18.7.2014),  

all  second  renewals  which  were  assumed  to  be  subsisting  by  State  

Governments, would expire with effect from the date of the judgment in  

the Goa Foundation case, i.e., 21.4.2014, and expressly, with effect from  

18.7.2014, when the second proviso to Rule 24A(6) provided accordingly.  

Unless  of  course,  the  Government  had  passed  an  express  order  in  

writing, as mandated under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act, extending the  

subsisting mining lease by a second or subsequent renewal.

15. On 16.5.2014, this Court (in the Common Cause case), passed  

an  order  requiring  the  State  Government  to  dispose  of  pending  

applications  for  second  and  subsequent  renewals,  within  six  months.  

The operative part of the above order is being extracted below:

“10.  After  considering  the  report  of  the  CEC  as  well  as  the  submissions on behalf of the parties, we direct as an interim measure  that these 26 leases operating as second and subsequent renewals  without  any  express  orders  of  renewal  passed  by  the  State  Government will not be allowed to operate by the State Government  until express orders are passed in terms of Section 8(3) of the Mines  and Minerals (Development and Regulation)  Act,  1957 and we also  direct that all  renewal applications under Section 8(3) of the Mines  and  Minerals  (Development  and  Regulation)  Act,  1957  will  be  considered  and  disposed  of  by  the  State  Government  within  six  months from today. We further direct that the State Government will  consider first the renewal applications in respect of leases which were  granted for captive mining for providing iron or manganese ore as raw  material  for  industries  and  only  thereafter  consider  the  renewal  applications  in  respect  of  the  other  leases.  In  any  case,  the  State  Government will ensure that the entire process of consideration and  disposal  of  renewal  applications  under  Section  8(3)  of  the  Act  is  completed within six months from today. With the aforesaid interim  directions, the interim matter stand disposed of.”

(emphasis is ours)

Page 15

15

It  seems,  that  the  above  direction  was  breached,  as  the  State  

Governments, seemingly had no facility or potential, to comply with it.  

Resultantly, a further order came to be passed in IA No.21 of 2014, which  

had been filed, for extension of time.  The order granting further time of  

three months, dated 16.5.2014, is extracted hereunder:

“I.A. No.21 of 2014 After hearing Shri L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel appearing  for the State of Orissa, we deem it appropriate to grant them another  three  months'  time  from  today  to  comply  with  the  order  dated  16.05.2014. We reserve liberty to all the private respondents to object to the orders  that may be passed by the State Government while complying with this  Court's order dated 16.05.2014. I.A. No.21 of 2014 is disposed of accordingly.”

(emphasis is ours)

16. The  Parliament  was  alive  to  the  predicament  of  the  State  

Governments.  It was also felt, that the regime of grant of mining leases  

and their renewal(s)  needed to be changed, by introducing uniformity in  

the process.  It is therefore, that Section 8A was amended.  The instant  

amendment was inserted in the MMDR Act with effect from 12.1.2015.  

Section 8A introduced through the above amendment, is being extracted  

hereunder:

“8A. Period of grant of a mining lease for minerals other than coal,  lignite and atomic minerals. — (1) The provisions of this section shall  apply to minerals other than those specified in Part A and Part B of the  First Schedule. (2)  On and from the  date  of  the commencement  of  the Mines  and  Minerals  (Development  and  Regulation)  Amendment  Act,  2015,  all  mining leases shall be granted for the period of fifty years. (3) All mining leases granted before the commencement of the Mines  and  Minerals  (Development  and  Regulation)  Amendment  Act,  2015  shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of fifty years. (4)  On the expiry of  the lease period,  the lease shall  be put up for  auction as per the procedure specified in this Act.

Page 16

16

(5)  Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2),  (3)  and  sub-section  (4),  the  period  of  lease  granted  before  the  date  of  commencement  of  the  Mines  and  Minerals  (Development  and  Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, where mineral is used for captive  purpose, shall be extended and be deemed to have been extended up  to a period ending on the 31st March, 2030 with effect from the date of  expiry  of  the  period  of  renewal  last  made or  till  the  completion of  renewal period, if any, or a period of fifty years from the date of grant  of such lease, whichever is later, subject to the condition that all the  terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with. (6)  Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2),  (3)  and  sub-section  (4),  the  period  of  lease  granted  before  the  date  of  commencement  of  the  Mines  and  Minerals  (Development  and  Regulation)  Amendment Act,  2015,  where mineral  is  used for other  than captive purpose, shall be extended and be deemed to have been  extended up to a period ending on the 31st March, 2020 with effect  from the date of expiry of the period of renewal last made or till the  completion of renewal period, if any, or a period of fifty years from the  date of grant of such lease, whichever is later, subject to the condition  that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with. (7) Any holder of a lease granted, where mineral is used for captive  purpose, shall have the right of first refusal at the time of auction held  for such lease after the expiry of the lease period. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the period of  mining  leases,  including  existing  mining  leases,  of  Government  companies or corporations shall be such as may be prescribed by the  Central Government.  (9) The provisions of this section, notwithstanding anything contained  therein, shall not apply to a mining lease granted before the date of  commencement  of  the  Mines  and  Minerals  (Development  and  Regulation)  Amendment  Act,  2015,  for  which  renewal  has  been  rejected, or which has been determined, or lapsed.”

17. In terms of Section 8A(2) of the amended MMDR Act, all future  

mining grants, would be for a uniform period of fifty years. Section 8A(3)  

envisages,  that  all  original  mining  lease  grants,  made  prior  to  the  

insertion of Section 8A, in the MMDR Act (with effect from 12.1.2015)  

would also be deemed to have been made for a period of fifty years.  

Page 17

17

18. Section  8A(5)  pertains  to  mining  leases  granted  for  captive  

purposes,  and  is  principally  aimed  at  leaseholders  operating  under  a  

renewal.  Section 8A(5) postulates three different contingencies.   

Firstly, the period of all mining leases granted before 12.1.2015 “…shall  

be extended and be deemed to have been extended…” up to 31.3.2030,  

“…with  effect  from  the  date  of  expiry  of  the  period  of  renewal  last  

made…”.   It  is  apparent,  that  the  question  of  an  “extension”  will  

ordinarily arise only after an “expiry”.  Since both the terms – “extension”  

and “expiry” find place in sub-section (5), we are of the view, that Section  

8A(5)  is  attracted  even  after  the  expiry  of  a  renewal.   The  instant  

inference emerges from the use of the words “expiry of the renewal last  

made”,  in  sub-section  (5).   The  issue  whether,  Section  8A  would  be  

applicable  to  a  subsisting  lease  as  on 12.1.2015 (when the  amended  

MMDR Act  was  notified),  as  was  the  contention  of  the  non-applicant  

petitioner, will be examined in further detail immediately hereinafter. The  

first  contingency,  therefore,  extends  to  renewed  mining  leases,  which  

were scheduled to expire before 31.3.2030.

Secondly, the use of the phrase – “renewal last made”, leaves no room for  

any doubt, that the instant second contingency presupposes an existing  

(first, second or subsequent) renewal, in favour of the leaseholder.  The  

difference between the first and the second contingency is, the date when  

the  renewal  of  the  mining  lease  was  scheduled  to  expire.   The  first  

contingency, applies to renewed mining leases, which would expire before  

31.3.2030.   The instant – the second contingency, applies to renewed

Page 18

18

mining leases, which would expire after 31.3.2030.  A perusal of Section  

8A of the amended MMDR Act reveals, that the second contingency is  

aimed  at  extending  the  existing  lease  period,  and  not  reducing  it.  

Therefore,  if  the  period  of  the  existing  renewal  would  extend  beyond  

31.3.2030,  the  period  contemplated  by  the  renewal  itself,  has  been  

mandated to be preserved.

Thirdly, the regime sought to be introduced also has a reference to an  

original  grant.   The  scheme/course  sought  to  be  introduced  under  

Section 8A(3)  of  the amended MMDR Act,  is intended to be preserved  

even in situations where a mining leaseholder, is (or has been) carrying  

on mining operation under a renewal.  Since the original lease period of  

fifty  years  has  been  adopted  as  the  overarching  rule,  the  third  

contingency, aims at allowing the leaseholder, the benefit of treating the  

original lease period as of fifty years.  Therefore, even during the renewal  

period,  if  the  period  of  mining  lease  would  get  extended  (beyond  the  

renewal  period),  by  treating  the  original  lease  as  of  fifty  years,  the  

leaseholder  would  be  entitled  to  the  said  benefit  under  the  third  

contingency.   

For  the  leases  governed  by  Section  8A(5),  out  of  the  above  three  

contingencies, the contingency as would extend the lease period farthest,  

would be applicable.   

19. A similar contingency has been provided for under Section 8A(6)  

with reference to mining leases used for non-captive purposes.  Herein  

also, the same three contingencies are contemplated.  Firstly, the period

Page 19

19

of  all  renewals  expiring before  31.3.2020 “…shall  be  extended and be  

deemed to have been extended…” up to 31.3.2020, “…with effect from the  

date of  expiry of  the period of  renewal last made…”.  Secondly,  if  the  

renewal  period  in  any  case  would  have  actually  stretched  beyond  

31.3.2020 –  then till  the completion of  the postulated  renewal  period.  

Thirdly, for extending the original lease to fifty years, from the date of  

grant  of  the  original  lease.   For  leases  governed by Section 8A(6)  the  

contingency,  as  would  expire  last  of  all,  would  be  applicable  to  the  

leaseholder.  No further discussion is being recorded herein, because the  

discussion  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  is  fully  applicable  for  the  

interpretation of Section 8A(6) of the amended MMDR Act, except for the  

substitution of the date 31.3.2020 (as under Section 8A(6) of the MMDR  

Act) in place of 31.3.2030 (as under Section 8A(5) of the MMDR Act).

20. There  is  a  serious  dispute  between  the  rival  parties  with  

reference to the interpretation of Sections 8A(3), 8A(5) and 8A(6) of the  

MMDR Act.  Whilst the contention of learned counsel appearing for the  

petitioner-Common Cause is, that the benefit of sub-sections (3), (5) and  

(6)  of  Section  8A,  will  extend  only  to  such  mining  leases  as  were  

subsisting on the date of introduction of the amendment – 12.1.2015; it  

is the contention of learned counsel representing the leaseholders, that  

the  above  postulation,  at  the  hands  of  learned  counsel  for  the  non-

applicants, is wholly misconceived, and would result in a misreading of  

the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act.  

Page 20

20

21. Insofar as the disputed interpretation of Section 8A of the MMDR  

Act is concerned, the first contention advanced by learned counsel for the  

petitioner, was founded on sub-section (9) of Section 8A.  It was urged,  

that it was absolutely clear, that the benefit of Section 8A of the MMDR  

Act, would not extend to such cases where “renewal had been rejected”,  

or where the mining lease had been “determined”, or where the mining  

lease had “lapsed”.  It was asserted, that the expiry of the original grant  

or  renewal,  should  be  understood  to  mean,  that  the  lease  howsoever  

granted (original, or renewal) had “lapsed”.  And therefore, it was crystal  

clear, according to learned counsel, that sub-sections (3), (5) and (6) of  

Section 8A, would be applicable only to leaseholders having a subsisting  

mining lease on 12.1.2015.

22. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners, noticed in  

the  foregoing  paragraph,  has  been  vehemently  opposed  by  learned  

counsel  for  the  leaseholders.   It  was  contended  on  behalf  of  the  

leaseholders, that the terms “rejection”, “determination” and “lapse” were  

terms  of  art,  used  to  express  different  contingencies/situations.  

According to learned counsel, these terms are contemplated for different  

exigencies, under the MMDR Act (and the Rules framed thereunder).  And  

that, the said terms cannot be extended to situations beyond those, for  

which the same are expressly used.  It was therefore asserted, that the  

expiry  of  the  original  grant  or  renewal,  would  per  se not  exclude  the  

applicability of Section 8A.

Page 21

21

23. Insofar as the words “renewal had been rejected” (used in Section  

8A(9) of the MMDR Act are concerned, it was submitted, that it was clear  

from the words deployed, that the contemplated contingency applied only  

to  a  situation  where  an  application  for  renewal  had  been  rejected.  

Namely, that a renewal of a mining lease had been applied for under sub-

section (2) or (3) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act, read with Rule 24A of the  

Mineral Concession Rules, and thereupon, the request for renewal had  

been rejected.  For the term “determination”, reliance was placed on Rules  

27(4),  27(5),  29,  37(3)  and  Part  IX  Clause  2,  Form K of  the  Mineral  

Concession Rules.  It was contended, that the term “determination” had  

been deployed for situations where the lease period could be brought to  

an end, on account of a default having been committed by a leaseholder.  

For instance, default in the payment of royalty or in the payment of dead  

rent.  The default could also be of violating the lease conditions envisaged  

under Rule 27(1) or (2) or (3) of the Mineral Concession Rules.  A mining  

lease can also be determined, if the leaseholder had transferred any right,  

title or interest in a mining lease, in violation of the Mineral Concession  

Rules.  And for a few other defined exigencies.  Insofar as the term “lapse”  

used  in  Section  8A(9)  is  concerned,  the  same  according  to  learned  

counsel for the leaseholders, pertains to exigencies contemplated under  

Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rules 28 and 28A of the Mineral  

Concession  Rules.   The  term  “lapse”  has  been  used  only  where  the  

leaseholder(s)  has/have  committed  default  of  not  being  in  position  to  

carry  on  (or  for  not  carrying  on) mining operations,  for  a  continuous

Page 22

22

period  of  two years.   On account  of  either  of  the above exigencies,  a  

mining lease under the provisions referred to above, would lapse.

24. We  do  not  consider  the  necessity  of  extracting  the  particular  

provisions relied upon by learned counsel for the leaseholders.  We are  

satisfied in accepting the contention, that the terms “renewal has been  

rejected”,  “determination”  and  “lapse”  are  terms  used  for  different  

contingencies/situations/exigencies  under  the  MMDR  Act,  and  the  

Mineral Concession Rules.  It is also our view, that these terms are not  

used under the MMDR Act, or under the Mineral Concession Rules, with  

reference to expiry of the original grant period, or with reference to the  

expiry of the renewal period.  It is therefore not possible for us to accept  

the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that Section 8A(9)  

can be the legitimate basis for excluding the applicability of Section 8A,  

the  claims  of  leaseholders,  where  the  period  of  lease  or  renewal  had  

expired prior to 12.1.2015.

25. The  conclusion drawn by  us  in  the  foregoing  paragraph,  also  

emerges from the “Objects and Reasons” of the amended MMDR Act.  The  

purpose  for  which the  instant  amendment  came  to  be  made  by  the  

Parliament,  whereby  the  amended  Section  8A  was  inserted  into  the  

MMDR  Act  reveals,  that  past  litigation  resulting  in  different  

interpretations  of  the  provisions  of  the  MMDR  Act,  and  the  alleged  

hardship caused to the mining industry, due to second and subsequent  

renewals  remaining  pending  with  the  State  Government  without  any  

decision,  had occasioned the passing of  the instant amendment.   The

Page 23

23

above position emerges from the following excerpts of the statement of  

“Objects and Reasons”:

“3.  The mining sector has been subjected to numerous litigations in  the past few years. Important judgments related to the mining sector  have been pronounced by the Supreme Court, besides judgments on  the issue of allocation of natural resources which have direct relevance  to the grant of mineral concessions. 4. The present legal framework of MMDR Act, 1957, does not permit  the  auctioning  of  mineral  concessions.  Auctioning  of  mineral  concessions  would  improve  transparency  in  allocation.  Government  would also get an increased share of the value of mineral resources.  Some provisions of the law relating to renewals of mineral concessions  have  also  been  found  to  be  wanting  in  enabling  quick  decisions.  Consequently,  there  has  been  a  slowdown  in  the  grant  of  new  concessions and the renewal of existing ones. As a result, the mining  sector  started  registering  a  decline  in  production  affecting  the  manufacturing  sector  which  largely  depends  on  the  raw  material  provided  by  mining  sector.  The  Government  has  therefore  felt  it  necessary to address the immediate requirements of the mining sector  and  also  to  remedy  the  basic  structural  defects  that  underlie  the  current impasse. 5. In view of the urgent need to address these problems, the Mines and  Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015  was promulgated on 12th January, 2015. The present Bill is to replace  this Ordinance. This bill is designed to put in place mechanism for: (i) Eliminating discretion; (ii) Improving transparency in the allocation of mineral resources; (iii) Simplifying procedures; (iv)  Eliminating delay in administration, so as to enable expeditious  and optimum development of the mineral resources of the country; (v) Obtaining for the government an enhanced share of the value of the  mineral resources of the country; and (vi) Attracting private investment and the latest technology; 6. The salient features of MMDR Amendment Bill, 2015 are as follows: (i)  Removal of discretion: auction to be sole method of allotment: The  amendment  seeks  to  bring  in  utmost  transparency  by  introducing  auction mechanism for the grant of mineral concessions. The tenure of  mineral leases has been increased from the existing 30 years to 50  years. There is no provision for renewal of leases. (ii)  Impetus  to  the  mining  sector:  The  mining  industry  has  been  aggrieved  due  to  the  second  and  subsequent  renewals  remaining  pending. In fact, this has led to closure of a large number of mines.  The Bill addresses this issue also. The Bill provides that mining leases  would be deemed to be extended from the date of their last renewal to  31st March, 2030 (in the case of captive mines) and till 31st March,

Page 24

24

2020 (for the merchant miners) or till the completion of the renewal  already granted, if any, or a period of fifty years from the date of grant  of such leave, whichever is later.”

(emphasis is ours)

From a perusal of the extract reproduced above, it is apparent, that the  

insertion of Section 8A into the MMDR Act, was to address the hardship  

faced  by  leaseholders,  besides  other  reasons,  due  to  the  second  and  

subsequent applications for renewal, remaining unattended at the hands  

of  the State  Government.   The instant amendment to the MMDR Act,  

introduced a uniform original grant period of fifty years, for all mining  

leaseholders.  It also excluded renewal(s), after the expiry of the original  

lease period.  Accordingly, no renewal application can now be filed (after  

12.1.2015).  Under sub-sections (5)  and (6)  of  Section 8A,  in our view,  

such  leaseholders  who  had  moved  applications  for  renewal  of  

captive/non-captive  mines,  would  be  entitled  to  continue  up  to  

31.3.2030/31.3.2020.  The “Objects and Reasons” for the amendment to  

the MMDR Act aim at remedying the position which emerged upon the  

interpretation of the provisions of the MMDR Act, as they existed hitherto  

before.   The  instant  amendment  was  also  directed  at  remedying  the  

grievances  of  the  mining  industry  due  to  “second  and  subsequent  

renewals” remaining pending.  And also, because the provisions of law  

relating to renewals had been found to be wanting.  The above view is also  

endorsed by the fact, that Section 8A(9) deals with a situation wherein “…

renewal has been rejected...”.  It is therefore apparent, that sub-sections  

(5)  and  (6)  of  Section  8A  of  the  amended  MMDR  Act  are  aimed  at

Page 25

25

situations,  wherein  an  application  for  renewal  (validly  made)  has  

remained unattended.  Therefore, for no fault of the leaseholder, he would  

be subjected to an arbitrary prejudice.  It needs to be clarified, that since  

an application for renewal cannot be filed after 12.1.2015, an application  

for renewal as would be treated as having been validly made, ought to  

have been made before 12.1.2015. We are of the view, that out of the  

three  contingencies  contemplated  under  sub-sections  8A(5)  and  8A(6),  

referred to above, the first of the contingencies positively, pertains to a  

situation,  wherein applications validly made for renewal,  were pending  

without  any  final  decision  at  the  hands  of  the  State  Government.  

Because in the absence of a renewal application, the leaseholder can be  

taken  to  have  already  expressed  his  disinterest,  to  continue  mining  

operations. Therefore logically, the words “… with effect from the date of  

expiry of the period of renewal last made …”, should  relate to an expired  

lease  prior  to  12.1.2015,  in  relation  to  which  a  valid  application  for  

renewal had already been made.   

26. We also feel persuaded in accepting the contention advanced at  

the  hands  of  learned  counsel  representing  the  leaseholders,  that  the  

words “… with effect from the date of expiry of the period of renewal last  

made  ...”  cannot  be  overlooked.   In  our  considered  view,  there  is  no  

ambiguity in the aforesaid words.  The plain reading of the quoted words,  

can  lead  to  one  and  only  one  inference,  namely,  that  the  situation  

contemplated  under  sub-sections  (5)  and  (6)  of  Section  8A  of  the  

amended MMDR Act (wherein both the above words have been used),

Page 26

26

includes a situation when the lease period contemplated by a renewal, is  

scheduled  to  expire  before  31.3.2030/31.3.2020.   We  are  satisfied  in  

clarifying, that the situation contemplated by the use of  the aforesaid  

words, would extend to a leaseholder who had moved a valid application  

for renewal to the State Government, which was yet to be considered and  

disposed of, prior to 12.1.2015.  The instant situation, is not excluded by  

the  contingencies  contemplated  under  Section  8A(9)  of  the  amended  

MMDR Act.  For the reasons recorded in the instant paragraph, as also,  

in the preceding paragraphs (wherein Section 8A of the amended MMDR  

Act, has been considered and interpreted), we are satisfied to hold, that  

the applicability of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act need not only  

extend to leaseholders whose original lease/renewal lease period had not  

expired,  but  would  also  extend  to  leaseholders  whose  term  of  

lease/renewal  had  expired  prior  to  12.1.2015  and  the  concerned  

leaseholder(s) had moved a valid application for renewal, at least twelve  

months before the leaseholder’s existing lease (original, first, second or  

subsequent)  was  due  to  expire,  and  whose  application  has  not  been  

considered and rejected.

27. Irrespective of the position noticed herein above, it is imperative  

for  us  to  clarify,  that  the  benefit  of  extension  of  the  lease  period  

postulated under Section 8A of the MMDR Act is available, subject to a  

further overriding condition, namely, “… that all the terms and conditions  

of the lease have been complied with”.  A leaseholder who does not satisfy  

any of the required conditions of the lease, as for instance, the postulated

Page 27

27

clearances/approvals/consent,  would  not  be  entitled  to  the  benefits  

extended  under  sub-section  (5)  or  (6)  of  Section  8A  of  the  amended  

MMDR Act.

28. Having addressed the issue with reference to the subsistence of  

a mining lease, on the basis of an interpretation of Sections 8 and 8A of  

the MMDR Act,  we have substantially  covered the area needed to  be  

traversed.   It  is  however  important  to  notice,  that  one further  aspect  

needs to be dealt with.  The same emerges from a collective reading of  

Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act and Rules 28, and 28A of the Mineral  

Concession Rules.  Section 4A(4) was substituted for the earlier Section  

4A with effect from 10.2.1987, as under:

“4-A. Termination of prospecting licences or mining leases.— xxx xxx xxx

(4)  Where  the  holder  of  a  mining  lease  fails  to  undertake  mining  operations for a period of two years after the date of execution of the  lease or having commenced mining operations, has discontinued the  same for a period of two years, the lease shall lapse on the expiry of  the period of two years from the date of execution of the lease or, as  the case may be, discontinuance of the mining operations:

Provided that the State Government may, on an application made by  the holder of such lease before its expiry under this sub-section and  on being satisfied that it will not be possible for the holder of the lease  to  undertake  mining operations  or  to  continue  such operations  for  reasons beyond his control, make an order, subject to such conditions  as may be prescribed, to the effect that such lease shall not lapse:  Provided further that the State Government, may on an application by  the holder of a lease submitted within a period of six months from the  date of its lapse and on being satisfied that such non-commencement  or discontinuance was due to reasons beyond the control of the holder  of the lease, revive the lease from such prospective or retrospective  date as it thinks fit but not earlier than the date of lapse of the lease: Provided also that no lease shall be revived under the second proviso  for more than twice during the entire period of the lease.”

(emphasis is ours)

Page 28

28

A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals, that where a holder of mining  

lease, does not carry out mining operations for a continuous period of  

two years, his mining lease would lapse.  It was the contention of learned  

counsel for the petitioner – Common Cause, as also, that of the learned  

Additional  Solicitor  General,  that  the  operation  of  Section  4A(4)  is  

automatic, and requires no order to be passed. It was submitted, that as  

soon  as  the  leaseholder  has  committed  the  default  of  not  being  in  a  

position to  carrying on (or  for  not  having actually  carried on)  mining  

operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease would lapse.  

The above two exigencies will be referred to as the first, and the second  

contingency respectively, hereinafter.

29. According to learned counsel, the only remedy available to such a  

leaseholder, to prevent the lease from lapsing is, to move an application,  

either  prior  to  the  expiry  of  the  period  of  two  years  (of  non-mining  

operations), or thereafter.  The State Government on being satisfied, that  

mining  operations  were  not  discontinued  as  expressed  above,  for  the  

reasons beyond the control of the leaseholder, could make an order, in  

the first contingency, that the lease would not lapse.  And in the second  

contingency, that the lease would rematerialize.

30. It is not possible for us to accept, that vital vested rights in a  

leaseholder,  can be curtailed  without  affording him an opportunity  to  

repudiate the impression(s) of the competent authority, namely, that the  

leaseholder  could  not  have  (or  had  actually  not)  carried  out  mining  

operations,  for  a  continuous  period  of  two  years.  Our  instant

Page 29

29

contemplation,  stands  affirmed  through  Rule  28  of  the  Mineral  

Concession Rules.  The same is reproduced below:

“28. Lapsing of leases – (1) Subject to the other conditions of this rule  where mining operations are not commenced within a period of one  year  (sic.  two years)  from the  date  of  execution  of  the  lease,  or  is  discontinued for a continuous period of one year (sic. two years) after  commencement of such operations, the State Government shall, by an  order,  declare  the  mining  lease  as  lapsed  and  communicate  the  declaration to the lessee.  (2) Where a lessee is unable to commence the mining operation within  a period of one year (sic. two years) from the date of execution of the  mining lease, or discontinues mining operations for a period exceeding  one  year  (sic.  two  years)  for  reasons  beyond  his  control,  he  may  submit  an  application  to  the  State  Government,  explaining  the  reasons for the same, at least three months before the expiry of such  period. (3) Every application under sub-rule (2) shall be accompanied by a fee  of Rs.200. (4) The State Government may on receipt of an application made under  sub-rule  (2)  and  on  being  satisfied  about  the  adequacy  and  genuineness  of  the  reasons  for  the  non-commencement  of  mining  operations or discontinuance thereof, pass an order before the date on  which the lease would have otherwise lapsed, extending or refusing to  extend the period of the lease:  Provided that where the State Government on receipt of an application  under sub-rule (2) does not pass an order before the expiry of the date  on which the lease would have otherwise lapsed, the lease shall be  deemed to have been extended until the order is passed by the State  Government or until a period of two years, whichever is earlier.  Explanation  1.  -  Where  the  non-commencement  of  the  mining  operations within a period of two years from the date of execution of  mining lease is on account of –  (a) delay in acquisition of surface rights; or  (b) delay in getting the possession of the leased area; or  (c) delay in supply or installation of machinery; or  (d)  delay in getting financial assistance from banks, or any financial  institutions; or  (e) ensuring supply of the mineral in an industry of which the lessee is  the owner or in which he holds not less than 50% of the controlling  interest, and the lessee is able to furnish documentary evidence supported by a  duly sworn affidavit, the State Government may consider if there are  sufficient  reasons  for  non-commencement  of  operations  for  a  continuous period of more than one year (sic. two years). Explanation 2. - Where the discontinuance of mining operations for a

Page 30

30

continuous  period  of  two  years  after  the  commencement  of  such  operations is on account of –  (a) orders passed by any statutory or judicial authority; or  (b) operations becoming highly uneconomical; or  (c) strike or lock out, and the lessee is able to furnish documentary evidence supported by a  duly sworn affidavit, the State Government may consider if there are  sufficient reasons for discontinuance of operations for a continuous  period of more than one year (sic. two years). Explanation  3.  -  In  case  of  mining  lessee  who  has  undertaken  reconnaissance operations or in case of mining lessee whose capital  investment in mine development is planned to be in excess of Rs. 200  crores and where the mine development is likely to take more than two  years, the State Government shall consider it to be sufficient reason for  non-commencement of mining operations for a continuous period of  more than two years.”

(emphasis is ours)

It  is apparent from a perusal  of  sub-rule (1)  extracted above, that the  

State Government is mandated to pass an order,  and thereby,  declare  

that a mining lease had lapsed.  It is also the mandate of sub-rule (1)  

aforesaid, that such an order passed by the State Government, must be  

communicated to the leaseholder.  On a conjoint reading of Section 4A(4)  

and Rule 28(1), we are satisfied to hold, that a mining lease under Section  

4A(4)  would  not  be  deemed to  have lapsed,  till  the  State  Government  

passes an order, declaring the mining lease to have lapsed, and further  

communicates the same to the leaseholder.

31. Rule 28(4) of the Mineral Concession Rules, caters to a situation  

wherein  a  leaseholder  has  moved  an  application,  that  his  lease  be  

permitted to continue even though mining operations could not be carried  

on (or had actually not been carried on) for a continuous period of two  

years.  The proviso under Rule 28(4) is clear and categoric to the effect,  

that in cases where the State Government, on receipt of such application,

Page 31

31

does  not  pass  an  order,  the  lease  would  be  deemed  to  have  been  

extended, until an order was actually passed by the State Government.  

This  further  affirms,  that  lapse  of  a  mining  lease  is  not  automatic.  

Despite non-operation of  a mining lease under Rule 28(2),  in case the  

leaseholder has moved an application for extension, on account of non-

commencement of mining operations, or on account of discontinuation of  

mining operations, the lease period shall be deemed to have continued till  

the date of passing the order, or for a period of two years beyond the  

contemplated  lease  period  (in  case  such an order  is  not  passed).  The  

above conclusions, rule out the submissions advanced on behalf of the  

non-applicant  –  petitioner  and  the  Union  of  India,  that  lapse  

(contemplated under Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act) is automatic, and  

that, for a lease to lapse, no express order needs to be passed.

32. Based on the considerations recorded above, we summarise our  

conclusions as under:

(i) A leaseholder would have a subsisting mining lease, if the period  

of  the  original  grant  was  still  in  currency  on  12.1.2015.  

Additionally,  a  leaseholder  whose  original  lease  has  since  

expired, would still have a subsisting lease, if the original lease  

having been renewed, the renewal period was still in currency on  

12.1.2015.  Such a leaseholder, would be entitled to the benefit  

of Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act.

(ii) A leaseholder who had not moved an application for renewal of a  

mining lease (which was due to expire, prior to 12.1.2015), at

Page 32

32

least twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire,  

under  the  provisions  of  the  unamended  MMDR  Act  and  the  

Mineral  Concession  Rules,  will  be  considered  as  not  a  

valid/subsisting leaseholder, after the expiry of the lease period.  

The  provisions  of  the  amended  MMDR Act  will  therefore  not  

enure to the benefit of such leaseholder.

(iii) A leaseholder who has moved an application for renewal (of the  

original/first or subsequent renewal) of a mining lease, at least  

twelve months before the existing lease was due to expire, and on  

consideration,  such  an  application  has  been  rejected,  will  be  

considered as not a valid/subsisting leaseholder.  The provisions  

of the amended Section 8A of the MMDR Act will not enure to the  

benefit  of  such  leaseholder,  because  of  the  express  exclusion  

contemplated for the above exigency, under Section  8A(9) of the  

amended MMDR Act.

(iv) A leaseholder who has moved an application for “first renewal” of  

the  original  mining  lease,  at  least  twelve  months  before  the  

original lease was due to expire, and such application has not  

been rejected, will be considered to be a valid leaseholder having  

a subsisting right to carry on mining operations, till the expiry of  

two years after 18.7.2014, i.e., up to 17.7.2016, as is apparent  

from a conjoint reading of  the unamended and amended Rule  

24A of the Mineral Concession Rules.  Such leaseholder would

Page 33

33

have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of the  

amended MMDR Act.

(v) A leaseholder who had moved a second (third or subsequent)  

renewal application under Section 8(3) of the unamended MMDR  

Act, at least twelve months before the renewed lease was due to  

expire,  and  whose  application  had  not  been  considered  and  

rejected  (though  not  entitled  to  any  benefit  under  the  

unamended Section 8A of the MMDR Act and the amended Rule  

24A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules) up to 12.1.2015, would  

still have the benefit of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 8A of  

the amended MMDR Act, in view of the situation sought to be  

remedied  by  the  Mines  and  Minerals  (Development  and  

Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015.

(vi) Consequent upon the amendment of Section 8A of the MMDR  

Act,  the  regime  introduced  through  sub-sections  (5)  and  (6)  

thereof,  provides  for  three  contingencies  where  benefits  have  

been extended to  leaseholders  whose  lease  period  had earlier  

been extended by a renewal.   Firstly,  for a leaseholder whose  

renewal  period  had  expired  before  12.1.2015,  and  the  

leaseholder had moved an application for renewal at least twelve  

months before the leaseholder’s existing lease was due to expire,  

and whose application has not been considered and rejected, the  

lease period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020  

(in  the  case  of  captive/non-captive  mines,  respectively).

Page 34

34

Additionally, a leaseholder whose period of renewal would expire  

after  12.1.2015,  but  before  31.3.2030/31.3.2020,  the  lease  

period would stand extended up to 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the  

case of captive/non-captive mines, respectively). Secondly, where  

the  renewal  of  the  mining  lease  already  extends to  a  period  

beyond 31.3.2030/31.3.2020 (in the case of captive/non-captive  

mines, respectively), the lease period of such leaseholders, would  

continue up to the actual period contemplated by the renewal  

order.  Thirdly, a leaseholder would have the benefit of treating  

the  original  lease  period  as  of  fifty  years.   Accordingly,  even  

during  the  renewal  period,  if  the  period  of  the  mining  lease  

would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the  

original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled  

to such benefit.

Out of the above three contingencies provided under sub-sections  

(5) and (6) of Section 8A, the contingency as would extend the  

lease  period  farthest,  would  enure  to  the  benefit  of  the  

leaseholder.   

(vii) Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the  

MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can  

draw  the  following  conclusions.   Firstly,  unless  an  order  is  

passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease  

has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting,

Page 35

35

up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease  

document.  Secondly, in situations wherein an application has  

been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for  

actually  not)  carrying on mining operations, for  a  continuous  

period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have  

lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such  

application.  Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be  

deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period,  

for a further period of two years.  Thirdly, a leaseholder having  

suffered a lapse,  is  disentitled to  any benefit  of  the amended  

MMDR  Act,  because  of  the  express  exclusion  contemplated  

under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act.

……………………………J. (Jagdish Singh Khehar)

……………………………J. (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi; April 04, 2016.

Page 36

36