Court rules guidelines under MMDR Act are retrospective and appellant lacks legal standing due to ineligibility under amendments.
In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed the writ appeal filed by Keshkal G.N. India Bauxite Mines And Mineral Limited against the State of Chhattisgarh and others. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Shri Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, upheld the decision of the Single Judge, which rejected the appellant's plea for granting a mining lease.
The appellant challenged the rejection of its mining lease application, arguing that it was a significant stakeholder in a joint venture with the Chhattisgarh Minerals Development Corporation (CMDC). The appellant contended that its application was unjustly deemed ineligible due to amendments in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the retrospective application of guidelines issued by the Ministry of Mines.
The court meticulously analyzed three pivotal points raised by the appellant:
1. Retrospective Application of Guidelines: The court ruled that the guidelines dated June 24, 2009, clarifying the share ratio for Joint Venture partners, were intended to supplement statutory provisions under the MMDR Act and could apply retrospectively. The guidelines are consistent with Section 17A of the MMDR Act, which reserves areas for government-controlled mining operations. The court emphasized that executive instructions could supplement statutory provisions but could not override them.
2. Ineligibility Due to Amendments: The appellant's application was deemed ineligible following the MMDR Amendment Acts of 2015 and 2021. The amendments clearly stated that applications pending on the amendment dates would lapse unless explicitly protected under Section 10A(2A). The court found no evidence that the appellant's application met the criteria for exemption under these sections.
3. Locus Standi: The court concluded that the appellant lacked locus standi, as it was not directly affected by the rejection of the mining lease application. The appellant, holding 74% equity in the joint venture, could not establish a legal grievance or injury to a legally protected interest. The court noted that the appellant's participation in the joint venture did not confer a legal right to challenge the lease rejection independently of CMDC.
The court's decision was influenced by several precedents from the Supreme Court, affirming that guidelines clarifying statutory provisions could have retrospective effect and executive instructions could supplement but not supplant statutory law.
Bottom Line:
Mining lease applications under MMDR Act, 1957 rejected due to ineligibility under amendments and guidelines. Guidelines issued under the MMDR Act are clarificatory and retrospective if they supplement statutory provisions. Appellant lacks locus standi as no legal right or interest was directly affected.
Statutory provision(s): Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 Sections 10A(2)(b), 17A; MMDR Amendment Act, 2015; MMDR Amendment Act, 2021; Guidelines dated 24.06.2009.
In conclusion, the court upheld the Single Judge's ruling, emphasizing the limited scope for interference in intra-court appeals and confirming the procedural and substantive grounds for rejecting the appellant's claims. The appellant retains the option to pursue alternative legal remedies, should they choose to do so.
