Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 505 (MP)

Swami Prasad Kuderiya v. State of M. P.

2016-06-24

ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA, RAJENDRA MENON

body2016
ORDER 1. Even though repeated opportunity has been granted to the respondents to file the reply and inspite of the observations made on 12.5.2016, reply has not been filed and, therefore, we proposes to proceed with the matter and decide the claim on the basis of the material available on record. 2. On 2.2.1978 a lease was granted to the petitioner for extraction of white clay (Fire Clay) from the area in question for a period of 10 years. Thereafter, continuously in view of the provisions of the Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'MMDR Act' in short) as was existing prior to its amendment in the year 2015 i.e. as per the regulation of 1957 under the deeming clause with regard to renewal of the agreement, petitioner is carrying out mining activities. In the meanwhile, after coming into force of the 'MMDR' amendment Act, 2015 and in view of the provisions of section 8A of the aforesaid amended provision, communication was made to the petitioner vide Annexure P-2 indicating that in case the petitioner is entitled for grant of lease for the period as stipulated under sections 8A(5) or (6) i.e. for a period of 50 years, the petitioner may submit an application within 15 days. 3. On going through the provisions of section 8A it is seen that the mineral for which lease was granted to the petitioner would fall under section 8A(6) and, therefore, after communication (Annexure P-3) was received, petitioner submitted an application to the appropriate statutory i.e. Collector, Chhatarpur who forwarded the same for guidelines to the Director vide Annexure P-4 on 7.10.2015. The Directorate vide Annexure P-5 on 28.11.2015 intimated the Collector that they have to take a decision based on the statutory provision and the guidelines already issued in this regard on 12.3.2015, and a copy of the guidelines (Annexure P-7) dated 12.3.2015 was also forwarded. Grievance of the petitioner is that even though the matter is pending with the Collector (Mines) Chhatapur since November, 2015, no action has been taken. 4. Grievance of the petitioner is that even though the matter is pending with the Collector (Mines) Chhatapur since November, 2015, no action has been taken. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the provisions of section 8A and sub-section 6 thereof prima facie it is seen that the petitioner may be entitled to extension of the lease or grant of the lease in accordance to the aforesaid provisions for the period stipulated therein however, the same would be subject to certain formalities to be completed and certain checklist and other procedural aspect to be verified in accordance to the guidelines (Annexure P-7) dated 12.3.2015 and the rules framed in the matter of grant of renewal of lease so also on the basis of order to be passed by the Collector. 5. That being so, for the present without entering into the controversy on merits, Collector (Mines) Chhatarpur/respondent No.3 is directed to take up the case of the petitioner, consider it in the light of the statutory provision as already indicated hereinabove and in case the petitioner is entitled to renewal of lease, execute it within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, for any reason whatsoever if the Collector is of the opinion that this cannot be done then it shall be incumbent for the Collector to record reasons for the same, hear the petitioner and thereafter pass an appropriate speaking order in the matter. This should also be done within a period of 15 days. 6. Needless to emphasize that if aggrieved, the petitioner will have a right to challenge the action of the Collector in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.