The Supreme Court has given reasons for the miners to smile by clearing the path to implement MMDR Amendment Act 2015.
After hearing the parties for two consecutive full days in the month of March this year, in a Writ Petition ( No.114/2014 ) filed by an NGO, Common Cause, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, a division bench of the apex court, comprising Justice JS Keher and Justice C Nagappan, pronounced a remarkable judgement on April 4.
The apex court held that leases granted prior to January 12, 2015 , which are either subsiding or renewed or, for which the lease period or renewal period have expired and renewal applications have been filed as per law, are eligible for extension of lease period at least up to 2030 ( for captive mines) or 2020 (for non-captive). leases which have not exhausted their first renewal period can even go beyond 2020 or 2030 as the case may be, it ruled.
The Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance 2015 was promulgated on January 12, 2015. Subsequently the ordinance was enacted by Parliament as “the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act 2015 (in short MMDR Amendment Act 2015) in place of MMDR Act 1957.
Section 8A of the amended Act of 2015 provides three important concepts namely (i) leases granted prior to January 12, 2015 shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of 50 years from the date of grant (ii) leases to be granted after January 12, 2015 , shall be granted only through auction , (iii) leases which are under second or subsequent renewal shall be and are deemed to have been extended till 31.3.2030 ( for captive) or 31.3.2020 (for non-captive ) or for period of 50 years from the date of grant ,or till the expiry of last renewal ( if any) period whichever is later . Under Sec 8A (9) of the Act, it is provided that above benefit shall not be available to a lease whose renewal application has been rejected/ lease has been lapsed / or lease has been determined by State Government, prior to January 12, 2015. It is also provided in the Act that benefits (extensions) under Sec 8A (5) and 8A(6) are subject to conditions that all the conditions of lease have been complied with .
After promulgation of the ordinance and even after enactment of MMDR Amendment Act 2015, State of Odisha was not implementing the law and parties had moved to the Orissa High Court. After direction of High Court, the State Government had extended some leases and were in process of extending some more leases in the State. In the meantime, the matter came up before the apex court . lessees whose operations were suspended by State Government and the apex court (by its order dated 16.5.14) moved applications before apex court for modification of order on March 16 last urging to allow them for operation as they have obtained statutory clearances . While the court was to consider those applications, Prashant Bhushan, the counsel for Common Cause (petitioner) and the Amicus to CEC AND Rao had raised vague issues and misconceptions , and prayed the court not to allow extension of leases which are not subsisting as on January 12, 2015 , in terms of either valid lease or a renewed lease. They also misled the court saying that the leases which were not in operation for a continuous period of more than two years, are to be treated as lapsed automatically , and extension should not be considered at all.
The apex court rejected the misconceived and misleading contentions of the petitioner and the Amicus of CEC and pronounced a clear and transparent judgment which has put an end to all misinterpretation of the amended MMDR Act.
According to the judgment of the apex court, all the leases granted prior to January 12, 2015 are now deemed to have been granted for 50 years from the grant. The leases which are under second and subsequent renewals (either renewed or renewal applications pending) are deemed to have been extended up to 31.3.2030 ( captive mines) or 31.3.2020 (non-captive mines) , or till expiry of period of last renewal made, or for a period of fifty years, whichever is farthest.
Regarding lapsing, the court held that lapsing cannot be automatic, unless an order is passed by State Government and communicated to the lessee. So, lapsing cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of Sec- 8A of the new Act.
Similarly, for “the conditions to be complied with” as contemplated in the Act, the petitioner and the Amicus had contended that if a lessee has ever violated any of the lease conditions/rules , he/she shall not be entitled to have the benefit of Sec 8A of the Act. The apex court dealt this carefully and clarified that a lease would be entitled to operate the mines subject to condition that it has all the statutory clearances ( eg, FC & EC) , approvals (Mining Plan and Progressive Mine Closure Plan ) and Consent (Consent to operate by State Pollution Control Board) as because all other violations/ irregularities (if any) are dealt under appropriate statues.
It is pertinent to mention that, State Government of Jharkhand had done a gross misinterpretation of the new act and had rejected almost all the leases in the State denying extension under Sec 8A of the Act.