Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2577 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthsn v. Orient Cement:

2008-11-24

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the revisional Tribunal, Ministry of Mines, Department of Mines under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 whereby the said Tribunal allowed the revision application filed by respondent No.1 and quashed the State Government order dated 28.11.2005 by which the mining lease granted in favour of respondent No.1 for 20 years with effect from 16.02.1999 was cancelled on the ground that the respondent No.1 failed to comply with the condition for establishing the cement plant. 2. According to facts of the case, respondent No.1 was granted mining lease for 20 years with effect from 16.02.1999 and as per terms and conditions in the lease-deed the company had to set up the cement plant within two years from the date of registration of the mining leas-deed but it failed to comply with the condition. 3. According to the State, the respondent company neither set up the cement plant even after lapse of two years nor gave cogent reasons in the reply to the notice given on 19/21.07.2001. Before the revisional Court, before whom the respondent No.1 challenged the cancellation order, it stated that mining lease was granted for mineral limestone over an area of 724.56 hectares in village Bamnia and Moyira, District Chittorgarh and said lease-deed was registered on 16.02.1999. The said lease-deed was valid upto 15.02.2019. Before that, on 18.11.2005, the said ML deed was cancelled and the company was put to heavy loss in the form of expenses already met and the company has lost the opportunity of setting up the cement plant in the State of Rajasthan. According to the respondent company, due to exploring the modern latest technology, the matter was not processed and was discussed with various Indian and foreign technology suppliers and the setting up of the plant was on the verge of finalisation of plant machinery and they were preparing to start the project as soon as the Government clearance is obtained from the Ministry of Environment & Forest for setting up the cement plant on 04.09.2002; but, without considering the reasons for not establishing the plant within two years, straight away, the authorities cancelled the mining lease which is not proper. As per the terms and conditions, respondent No.1 was to obtain and submit environment clearance certificate. As per the terms and conditions, respondent No.1 was to obtain and submit environment clearance certificate. The company has obtained the environment clearance certificate and submitted the same before the State Government. However, by that time, cement availability became surplus in the State and the country, therefore, as a result thereof, setting up of the plant was slowed down as the prices of cement came down to uneconomic level. However, respondent No.1 continued the efforts to locate the technology and equipments which could give an edge to reduce the cost of production to compete even in the sluggish market. 4. The revisional authority while considering all aspects of the matter opined that although sufficient time was given to the company to set up the plant but circumstances shown were beyond the control of the company due to which the company could not fulfill the condition for establishing the plant. The revisional Tribunal further opined that there is merit in the argument and case built up by the company with regard to sluggishness of the cement industry during the period when they should have otherwise set up the plant. Therefore, while accepting the arguments that there was unavailability of the cement plant during a particular period because of which they could not go ahead to put up the cement plant as required by the State Government. Further, it is observed that if now the State Government goes ahead and grants ML to a new party, much more time would be required to execute the plant than what would otherwise be possible to be done by the company in case they are granted another opportunity. The Tribunal, in the said facts and circumstances, passed the following order : "Hence in the overall interests of the development of industry and mining, we are of the opinion that another opportunity be granted to the petitioner to put up the complete plant as well as commission the same within a period of two years. The petitioner would submit quarterly progresses report of the execution of the plant to the State Government authorities who will also do field inspections. In case, the State Government finds that the petitioner is not executing the scheme in the time frame submitted, the State Government would be at liberty to take appropriate action by following the required procedure. The petitioner would submit quarterly progresses report of the execution of the plant to the State Government authorities who will also do field inspections. In case, the State Government finds that the petitioner is not executing the scheme in the time frame submitted, the State Government would be at liberty to take appropriate action by following the required procedure. With this, the impugned order of the State Government dated 18.11.2005 is quashed and the RA is allowed." 5. I have perused the order impugned. In my opinion, the order passed by the revisional authority does not require interference because no illegality or perversity is pointed out by the petitioner State therein. Moreover, co-ordinate Bench of this Court while ascertaining the bona fides of the respondent company, on 16.04.2008, passed the following order : "The learned counsel for the respondent - Company submits that the respondent - Company is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 crores within a period of two weeks with the State to show its bonafides in the matter and to see that the cement plant in question is established in the State. He however submits that certain actions which are required to be taken by the State Government like renewal of mining lease, acquisition of land in question for Company etc. is in the exclusive domain of the State Government only and, therefore, unless such clearances are given to the respondent company, the respondent - company may not be able to start establishment of said unit. He further submits that firm orders for plant and machinery may also be placed and necessary advances for such plant and machinery would also be given to the suppliers. Mr. N.M. Lodha prays for some time to take instructions in the matter. Put up on 22.4.2008." 6. For taking instructions in pursuance of order dated 16.04.2008 passed by the co-ordinate Bench, so many opportunities were given to the Government Counsel and learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State; but, at last, on 7 04.11.2008, the State Government refused to accept Rs. 20,00,00,000/- and made a prayer that it is not possible for the State to accept the offer given by the respondent company. Thereafter, this case is listed today for admission.I have perused the impugned order. 7. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State; but, at last, on 7 04.11.2008, the State Government refused to accept Rs. 20,00,00,000/- and made a prayer that it is not possible for the State to accept the offer given by the respondent company. Thereafter, this case is listed today for admission.I have perused the impugned order. 7. In my opinion, admittedly the mining lease was granted in favour of respondent No.1 for 20 years which is valid upto 15.02.2019; but, due to failure of the company to fulfill the condition for establishing the plant within two years, the State Government cancelled the mining lease and the said cancellation order was challenged by way of filing revision application by the company in accordance with law. The revisional authority while accepting the reasons pointed out by the company and upon the fact that circumstances compelled the company not to complete the work of establishment of the cement plant, therefore, set aside the cancellation order dated 18.11.2005 vide order dated 16.10.2006. 8. Having carefully gone through the pleadings of the respective parties and considered the order impugned passed by the revisional authority, in my opinion, there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the revisional authority. Moreover, the said order has been passed for the development of the State by the revisional authority while observing that in the over-all interest of development of industry and mining another opportunity is required to be granted to the company to put up the complete plant as well as commission the same within a period of two years. But, again, the State Government has challenged the said order by way of filing the present writ petition knowing well that lease-deed was granted in favour of the company for 20 years, therefore, the order passed by the revision authority does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. In the circumstances, therefore, the petitioners' submission is devoid of any merit and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. In consonance with the order impugned, it is, therefore, expected of the petitioner State that State authorities shall provide opportunity to the respondent company for setting up the cement plant as per the mining lease.In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******