Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, J.

1) By the present Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners interalia seek to challenge the impugned Communication dated 27th March 2019 issued by Respondent No.1. The Petitioners further seek an Order or direction declaring that the Mining Lease dated 5th January 2018 executed by Respondent No.4 in favour of Petitioner No.1, under which the Kasarsada Mining Lease stood renewed till 31st March 2030, is legal, valid and in compliance with Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Petitioners also seek directions to the Respondents for handing over possession of the forest area admeasuring 30.64 Hectares forming part of the Kasarsada Mining Lease Area to Petitioner No.1 along with all mineral(s) lying thereat which have already been mined till 2nd October 2011 by Petitioner No.1. The Petitioners further seek to restrain the Respondents, their officers and employees from interfering in any manner with the resumption and continuation of mining operations at the Kasarsada Mining Project situated at Taluka Chandgad, District Kolhapur, Maharashtra. The Petitioners seek directions to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to forthwith determine and demand the Net Present Value (NPV), if any, payable by Petitioner No.1 for use of the forest area admeasuring 30.64 hectares or any other area forming part of the said mining project.

2) Heard Mr. Ashish Prasad, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. Vijay Killedar, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 1, Ms. Tejas Kapre, learned AGP for the Respondent-State.

Factual Matrix

3) In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it would be necessary to pen down some of the relevant and crucial dates and events which have led to the filing of this Petition: -

                    3.1) On 21st May 1968, M/s. INDAL (now merged with Petitioner No.1) was granted mining lease in respect of the Kasarsada Mining Project, for an area of 319.70 hectares spread over six villages namely Bhogoli, Pilani, Kokare, Umagaon, Nhaveli and Chandgad in Taluka-Chandgad, District-Kolhapur, Maharashtra ("the Mining Lease"). The Petitioner No.1 held the mining lease for a mineral which was to be used in its own industry (Captive use/purpose). The Mining lease was for a period of 30 years and valid till 22nd May 1998. The mining operations, commenced in the year 1974 after obtaining all the requisite approvals and clearances.

                    3.2) During the subsistence of the Mining Lease, The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (For Short “FC Act”) came into force on 25th October 1980. Under section 2 of FC Act, the prior approval of the Central Government is required to be taken for the purposes of de-reservation of forests or to use forest land for a non-forest purpose.

                    3.3) On 12th May 1997, Petitioner No.1, made an application to the Government of Maharashtra under Rule 24A(1) of the then existing Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, (For Short “MC Rules, 1960”) seeking renewal of mining lease, for a period of 30 years. Petitioner No.1 sought renewal of the Mining Lease over an area of 207.20 hectares out of 319.70 hectares. ("Mining Lease Renewal Application").

                    3.4) After more than 2 years of the renewal application, the Government of Maharashtra by its letters dated 23rd July 1999 and 11th October 1999, sought prior approval from the Central Government under section 2 of the FC Act for renewal of the Mining Lease and construction of feeder roads.

                    3.5) The Central Government and State Government on 10th November 2000, 12th December 2000 and 13th June 2001, granted temporary working permissions to Petitioner No.1 for continuing mining operations.

                    3.6) By letter dated 1st/3rd October 2001, the Central Government in reference to the letters dated 23rd July 1999 and 11th October 1999 of the Government of Maharashtra, conveyed to the Secretary (Forest), Government of Maharashtra, its prior approval for Forest Clearance (for short FC Approval) in accordance with section 2 of the FC Act, 1980 to the proposal submitted by the State Government. The approval was in respect of 106.76 hectares forest land for renewal of mining lease and construction of a feeder road. Under condition 2(c) thereof, the mining lease was granted for period of 10 years, for the reason that about 80% of the minerals had already been mined. The permission was w.e.f. 10th November 2000. It was provided that, at the end of 5 years, the Ministry after confirming and checking that, the conditions are complied with, would extend the permission for a further period of 5 years ("FC Approval").

                    3.7) By a letter dated 21st April 2006, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, addressed to the Secretary (Forest), Government of Maharashtra, clarified that, the period of five years under the FC Approval was to be counted from the date of issue of the FC Approval, i.e from 3rd October 2001. The five-year period, would end on 2nd October 2006.

                    3.8) On 4th October 2006, the Central Government notified that, the Petitioner No.1 would be allowed to carry out mining operations for another 5 years in accordance with condition No.2(d) of the FC Approval. In effect, the FC Approval was till 2nd October 2011 i.e extended by 5 years from 2nd October 2006.

                    3.9) On 1st March 2007, the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, granted environmental clearance under the EIA Notification 2006, on certain terms and conditions.

                    3.10) By an Order dated 13th February 2008, the Government of Maharashtra, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, granting the first renewal of the Mining Lease for a period of 10 years from the date 22nd May 1998 ("Mining Lease Renewal Order")

                    3.11) The Petitioner No.1 by letter dated 22nd February 2008, addressed to the Principal Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Government of Maharashtra, while referring to the Order dated 13th February 2008, contended that: -

                    (i) Although the Central Government approved the lease renewal from 10th November 2000 for 10 years, the State Government wrongly made it effective from 22nd May 1998, the date the original lease expired.

                    (ii) The renewal order dated 13th February 2008, though granting a 10-year renewal on paper, was effectively valid for only about three months until May 2008.

                    (iii) Though Petitioner No. 1 was entitled to the first renewal of lease for a period of 20 years in terms of Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 in view of the FC Approval of 10 years, renewal was granted by the State Government for 10 years. Instead of granting a renewal for 10 years from 10th November 2000 as approved by the Central Government, the State Government has made it effective from 22nd May 1998.

                    The Petitioner No.1, therefore, sought correction of the order to extend the lease till 2011 in line with the Central MoEF approval, or alternatively, for a 20-year renewal under Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960.

                    3.12) By an undated letter allegedly issued by the Government of Maharashtra to the Petitioner No.1, the duration of the mining lease was clarified in the following terms

                    "Point No. 5- There is provision under Mineral Concession Rule 1960 Appendix 1 Form "K" sample part-8 column 3 that, from the very next day the renewal is to be given on completion of the period of original mining lease. Therefore, from dt. 28.5.1998 renewal has been granted. However, as per the Rule 31 of Mineral Concession Rule 1960, the period of the mining lease starts from the date of the mining lease agreement is executed. As per the government order dt. 13.2.2008, the permission for execution of the renewed mining lease period is given till dt. 12.8.2008. Consequently, the next 10 years will be from the date of execution of the mining lease as per rules."

                    Though the letter is undated (Petitioner No.1 contends the date to be 26th May 2008) it is the case of Petitioner No.1 that, the Government of Maharashtra, vide the said letter clarified that the term of the lease would commence from the date of execution of the lease deed under Rule 31(2) of the MC Rules, 1960. The letter being undated, we are not considering the letter for the purposes of this petition.

                    3.13) On 25th September 2008, pursuant to and based on Forest Clearance dated 1st/3rd October 2001 and after referring to the Order dated 13th February 2008, a Mining Lease Deed, was executed ("Renewed Mining Lease Deed"), between Government of Maharashtra and Petitioner No. 1, for an area of 102.97 hectares ("Renewed Mining Lease Area"). On 25th September 2008, a letter was issued by District Mining Officer, Collectorate Kolhapur to Petitioner No.1, inter alia, informing Petitioner No.1 that, it would have to obtain forest clearance under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. As per the Renewed Mining Lease Deed, the lease commences from 25th September 2008 for a period of 10 years.

                    3.14) On 30th March 2010, an application for extension of the FC Approval in Form B under FC Rules, 2003. ("FC Approval Extension Application") was filed by Petitioner No.1 for an area of 34.43 hectares out of the area of 106.76 hectares, for a further period of 10 years from 3rd October 2011. The said request for extension of the FC approval was well within time and for a reduced area i.e 34.43 hectares out of the area of 106.76 hectares.

                    3.15) Despite pendency of the FC Approval Extension Application the State Forest Department on 3rd October 2011 took over possession of the Renewed Mining Lease Area and the entire dead stock/Bauxite dump lying at the site. This was done without any notice or intimation to Petitioner No.1.

                    3.16) On 7th April 2012, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest recommended to the Government of Maharashtra to refuse the request of extension of permission granted earlier under the FC Approval as it would be detrimental to the environment. The refusal was on the basis that to transport the extracted minerals from the site it will require approximately 8000 trips of the trucks, which will adversely affect the environment and that the removal of the mineral dumps will disturb the soil which will in turn lead to soil erosion.

                    3.17) On 11th June 2012, the Petitioner No.1 while referring to the letter dated 17th April 2012 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, submitted a revised application for extension of FC Approval for a reduced area of 30.64 hectares (“Revised FC Approval Extension Application”).

                    3.18) On 9th October 2012, Government of Maharashtra after re-evaluation rejected the request for extension of the permission for lifting and transportation of the balanced mined material. On 28th February 2013, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) turned down the challenge mounted by the Petitioner No.1 to the communication dated 9th October 2012. The Order passed by the NGT was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4068 of 2013. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by Order dated 12th January 2015 was pleased to allow the Petitioner to withdraw the Civil Appeal with liberty to approach the appropriate Court for appropriate reliefs.

                    3.19) On 12th January 2015, The Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act 2015, came into force. section 8A was inserted in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 (MMDR Act).

                    3.20) On 1st April 2015 directions were issued by Ministry of Environment and Forests to Principal Secretary (Forests), inter alia clarifying the effect of the Amendment Act, 2015, to state that, in respect of existing mining leases in respect of minerals specified in sub-section (1) of section 8A of the MMDR Act, 1957, as inserted by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015, the period of validity of approvals accorded under Section 2 of the FC Act shall be extended, and shall be deemed to have been extended upto a period co-terminus with the period of mining lease in accordance with the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957, and to realise the NPV. It was specifically stated that, the directions/clarification in the letter, notwithstanding anything contained therein, shall not apply to forest land falling in a mining lease for which renewal has been rejected, or which has been determined or lapsed before the issue of this letter.

                    3.21) On 1st May 2015, further directions were issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to Principal Secretary (Forests).

                    3.22) On 6th March 2016, site inspection of the Mining Lease Area conducted by the Chief Conservator (Territorial) of Respondent No. 2. On 9th March 2016, the Deputy Forest Conservator, Kolhapur Forest Department recommended to the Chief Forest Conservator (Regional), inter alia for the activation of mining in the Mining Lease Area.

                    3.23) On 22nd March 2016, a detailed Site Inspection Report was submitted by the Chief Forest Conservator. On 22nd/23rd March 2016, letter was issued by the Chief Forest Conservator (Regional) to the Additional Chief Forest Conservator and Nodal Officer, inter alia, setting out the factual background of the Petitioner No.1’s pending application for extension of FC Approval.

                    3.24) By a letter dated 18th May 2016, addressed by the Additional Chief Forest Conservator and Nodal Officer to the Secretary (Forest), inter alia, recommending that, approval be granted to Petitioner No.1’s proposal subject to certain conditions specified therein. On 4th July 2016, an application was made by Petitioner No.1, inter alia, requesting for extension of the mining lease up to 31st March 2030 under Section 8A(5) of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015.

                    3.25) On 17th January 2017, Respondent No.4 recommended to the Principal Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, that the extension as requested by the Petitioner No. 1 should not be granted as the Petitioner No. 1 had stopped mining operations on 3rd October 2011 without prior permission of the State Government.

                    3.26) By a letter dated 7th February 2017, addressed by the Government of Maharashtra to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, inter alia, recommended that the Petitioner No.1's proposal for extension of mining lease on 106.76 hectares forest land till 24th September 2018.

                    3.27) On 23rd March 2017, the Petitioner No. 1 recorded its submissions in support of its application for extension of the mining lease till 31st March 2030. On 27th April 2017, a letter was addressed by Deputy Conservator of Forest to Chief Conservator of Forests, inter alia, stating that the forest clearance be extended upto a period co-terminus with the period of validity of the Mining Lease. The letter also referred to the Mining Lease Area falling within Eco sensitive area as per the MoEFCC directions of 13th November 2013. It is stated that: -

                    "So, forest clearance of said mine may be extended beyond 02nd Oct 2011 as per above mentioned MoEF & CC letter upto a period co-terminus with the period of validity of Mining Lease.

                    However, as the concerned mine are (Bhogoli & Umagaon (Kasarsada) Tal. Chandgad) falls within eco sensitive area in respect of direction of MoEF dated 13.11.2013, new and/or expansion projects/activities related to mining projects are prohibited from the date of directions issued in eco sensitive area. As per draft notification released on 27th February 2017 earlier, there shall be a complete ban on mining, quarrying in Ecologically Sensitive Area and all existing mines shall be phased out within five years from the date of issue of the final notification or on the expiry of the existing mining lease, whichever is earlier.

                    Thus, kindly take appropriate decision regarding mining extension at your level."

                    3.28) On 27th April 2017 a letter was addressed by Chief Forest Conservator (Regional) to Additional Chief Forest Conservator and Nodal Officer, inter alia, agreeing with the opinion of the Deputy Forest Conservator in its letter of 27th April 2017, stated that: -

                    "Hence as per the guidelines of Environment Forest & Ministry of Central Government for the project of Hindalco Industries Ltd Kolhapur and as per amended Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act 1957 Sub-Section (1) of section 8A (copy annexed) and as per the approval granted by Central Govt to this project on 3/10/2001 to the said mining belt there is provision of automatically granting extension of time till next time. This office is agreeable with the opinion of Deputy Forest Conservator, Kolhapur for their reference letter dated 27/4/2017 a copy of which is annexed herewith."

                    3.29) On 13th June 2017, Respondent No.4 addressed a letter to the Additional Chief Secretary (Industries), Industries Energy and Labour Department, inter alia, setting out the submissions made by the Petitioner No.1 vide its letter of 23rd March 2017 for the consideration of the said concerned official and stating that the Petitioner had requested for an oral hearing as well

                    3.30) On 22nd June 2017 letter addressed by Chief Forest Conservator to Secretary (Forests), inter alia, opining that extension of the FC Approval should not be granted. The letter records that: -

                    “7. In view of the Government letter dated 14/3/2017 as per the report submitted by Chief Forest Conservator Kolhapur vide reference No. 5, the village in the proposal named Village- Bhogoli and Umgaon, Taluka- Chandgad, Dist. Kolhapur are appearing included in the report of Dr. Kasturirangan Committee. Similarly, inclusion of these villages is also made in Draft Notification of thegazette dated 28/2/2017. However, in notification dated 28/2/2017 of Environment & Forest Ministry of Central Govt on page 115 as per point No. 3(a) directives have been given as mentioned below:

                    3(a) "There shall be a complete ban on mining quarrying and sand mining in Ecologically Sensitive Area and all existing mines shall be phased out within five years from the date of issue of the final notification or on the expiry of the existing mining lease, whichever is earlier"

                    8. M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd requested to lift the stock lying in forest area which was denied by State Government vide letter dated 9/10/2014.... Vide this office letter dated 18/5/2016 the Project Machinery under Forest Conservation Act 1980 in view of the transfer of 106.76 H forest land in 2001 now has asked for extension of time for transfer of only 30.64 H forest land. However, in this regard on 2/10/2011 the permission of Central Government is over and as the lease of Project Machinery is going to finish, hence it would not be proper to accept their demand"

                    3.31) On 23rd October 2017, a communication was addressed by Ministry of Environment and Forest to the Principal Secretary (Forests), observing that the proposal for renewal of FC Approval had not been made prior to one year of its expiry and directing State Government to obtain proposal from Petitioner No.1 in Form B and to forward the same along with convincing justification for non-submission of the proposal for renewal in time.

                    3.32) The Respondent No.4 by its Order dated 10th November 2017, inter alia, extending the mining lease under Section 8A(5)/(6) of the Amendment Act, 2015. It records that

                    "...exercising the powers by the Sub-section (5)/ (6) of Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act-2015, the Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining, Nagpur is pleased to issue the extension of Mining lease to M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd, Century Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Dr Annie Beasant Road Worli, Mumbai 400-030 on behalf of the State Government for further period from 21/05/2018 to 31/03/2030 for Bauxite mineral "

                    3.33) Pursuant to the Order dated 10th March 2017 and 10th November 2017, a mining lease was executed on 5th January 2018, by District Mining Officer in favour of Petitioner No.1, under which, the mining lease was granted to Petitioner No. 1 for the period from 21st May 2018 till 31st March 2030 in terms of Section 8A of the MMDR Act.

                    3.34) On 20th February 2019 letter addressed by Government of Maharashtra to Government of India forwarding a detailed report of the Additional Chief Conservator of Forests and Nodal Officer dated 15th February 2019. Relevant portion of the letter reads as under: -

                    “8. To summarize the matter-

                    8.1 Section 8A (5) of the MMDR Amendment Act 2015 is not applicable in the present case as it is hit by sub-section (9) because the mining lease relied upon by the User Agency stood lapsed on 21/05/2008 itself.

                    8.2 For the reason stated above, the guidelines dated 1/4/2015 relied upon by the User Agency are also not applicable.

                    8.3 Government of India may be requested to make available the copy of its reply filed before Hon'ble High Court as Respondent No.7 in Writ Petition No.4125/2015.

                    8.4 As the Forest Conservation clearance dated 3/10/2001 clearly states that about 80% of the area had already mined at that point only, it would not be appropriate to consider the request of the User Agency for allowing further mining.

                    8.5 Taking into consideration the provision in Draft Eco-Sensitive Area Notification, allowing any further mining will amount to wanton destruction of fragile eco-system.

                    8.6 The State Government is under no legal compulsion to divert forest land at the cost of damage to the forests and environment.

                    8.7 As an abundant precaution the concerned Authorities may also be advised to review the order dated 10/11/2017 extending the mining lease from 21/05/2018 to 31/03/2030.”

                    3.35) On 8th March 2019 the Petitioner No. 1, withdrew the Civil Writ Petition bearing WP No. 4125 of 2015. On 27th March 2019 Impugned Letter issued by Ministry of Environment and Forests, inter alia, closing Petitioner No.1’s proposal for extension of FC Approval.

                    3.36) On 9th April 2019, the Deputy Conservator of Forests, by a letter addressed to the Petitioner No.1 directing to deposit NPV along with mining lease renewal proposal. As the Petitioner No.1 proposal had already been closed by MoEFCC and the land had been directed to be reclaimed, Petitioner was unable to comply with the aforesaid directions.

                    3.37) Present petition was filed on 24th September 2019.

Submissions of the Petitioners

4) Mr Ashish Prasad, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that: -

                    4.1) Under the Mining Lease Agreement dated 21st May 1968, the Petitioner No.1 conducted mining operations until 2nd October 2011. On 12th May 1997 Petitioner No.1 applied for the First Renewal of the mining lease for an area of 207.20 hectares out of the 319.70 hectares under Rule 24A of the MC Rules, 1960 within the stipulated time frame under the MMDR Act and Rules i.e. one year before the expiry of the Mining lease. As the Petitioner No .1 was using the minerals for its own industry (captive use), Petitioner No.1, was entitled to renewal of mining lease under Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960. Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 provides that, every person who is holding a mining lease for a mineral which is used in its own industry (captive use) shall be entitled for the renewal of the mining lease for a period not exceeding 20 years, unless applies for lesser period. That, under Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 Petitioner No. 1 was entitled to at least 20 years of renewed mining lease from 22st May 1998 i.e. till 21st May 2018.

                    4.2) On 3rd October 2001, MoEFCC granted Forest Clearance for First Renewal of mining lease for 10 years, i.e. till 2nd October 2011. Upon grant of Forest Clearance, the State Government ought to have executed the mining lease within reasonable time. However, due to inaction on the part of the State Government, Petitioner No.1’s application for First Renewal of mining lease remained pending until 13th February 2008, when the State Government passed order granting such extension. The State Government executed the mining lease only on 25th September 2008 i.e after further delay of 7 months. That, though the Petitioner No. 1 had applied within time and as per the rules on 12th May 1997, the State Government forwarded the said proposals to the Central Government only on 23rd July 1999 and 11th October 1999. The said delay of more than 2 years was solely attributable to the State Government.

                    4.3) As the State Government failed to act, the mining lease was deemed to have been extended under the erstwhile Rule 24A (6) of MC Rules, 1960. As the Petitioner No.1 was using the minerals for its own industry, Petitioner No.1 was entitled under Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 to mining lease of 20 years. That, the words used in Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 is “shall be entitled for the renewal of his mining lease for a period not exceeding twenty years”. The Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 makes it clear that, if minerals are used for own industry (captive use) the lease shall be renewed for term not exceeding 20 years unless the lessee request for a lesser period. Thus Petitioner No.1 was conducted mining operations with Forest Clearance and deemed renewal of mining lease until 24th September 2008 and with Forest Clearance and executed mining lease from 25th September 2008 till 2nd October 2011. On 3rd October 2011 the State Forest Department took over possession of the mine alongwith the entire dead stock/Bauxite dump lying therein due to lapse of the Forest Clearance. That, no notice was given to the Petitioner No.1 as is required under the terms of lease deed or Rule 5, 6 and 7 of Form K, Schedule I of the MC Rules, 1960.

                    4.4) A renewed mining lease commences from the date of its registration as per Rule 31(2) of MC Rules, 1960. That, Rule 31 (2) of MC Rules, 1960 is applicable to renewal of mining lease. An application for renewal of a lease is, in essence an application for the grant of a lease for a fresh period. Reliance was placed on the paragraph 12 of the Judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs M/s Hind Stone & Ors, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 205.

                    4.5) A new mining lease, or a renewed mining lease, are both executed under Rule 31 (1) in Form K of MC Rules, 1960. There is no separate form for renewed mining lease. The mining lease executed on 25th September 2008 in favour of Petitioner No.1 is in Form K and as per the "Model Form of Mining Lease. The lease period commences from 25th September 2008 and is for 10 years. That, act of the State Government in accepting the dead rent under lease deeds of 2008 and 2018, indicate and imply that the lease is valid and subsisting. Respondent No. 4, the competent body for grant and renewal of mining lease, has categorically stated in its affidavit that, the lease was extended under a deemed extension from 1998 to 2008 and thereafter from 2008 to 2018 and 2018-2030 under law.

                    4.6) It cannot be said that the renewal of mining lease from 25th September 2008 till 24th September 2018 is bad in law in the absence of Forest Clearance. The Petitioner No.1 has at all times been diligent in applying for the permissions, prior approvals, renewals etc. Prior approval of Central Government for the First Renewal was sought in time. The State Government sought prior approval of Central Government under Section 2 of FC Act for First Renewal of mining lease and the Central Government granted the approval on 3rd October 2001 for a period of 10 years. The State Government in turn acted on the said prior approval by executing the Mining lease on 25th September 2008 for 10 years. The renewed mining lease was executed based on and only after grant of Forest Clearance. That, the mining operations of Petitioner No.1 for the period 21st May 2008 to 2nd October 2011 have not been questioned or faulted till date. All mining activities are carried out pursuant to valid and legally obtained mining permissions. Petitioner No.1 has paid royalty to the State Government under the mining lease dated 25th September 2008. Admittedly all the mining operations of Bauxite have been done for the purpose of captive use and before 2nd October 2011. Thus, under no circumstances can the present case be called or termed as a case of illegal mining. The Petitioner No.1 duly applied for extension of the Forest Clearance on 30th March 2010 i.e. one year before the expiry of its term. Such application was closed by MoEFCC on 27th March 2019 without providing any reasons by way of the Impugned Communication and without considering the factual aspects so also the reports dated 9th March 2016, 22nd March 2016, 18th May 2016, 7th February 2017 and 23rd October 2017.

                    4.7) Based on the Order dated 10th November 2017 of the Government of Maharashtra, Directorate of Geology and Mining, the Mining Lease was validly renewed for a further term from 21st May 2018 till 31st March 2030. This was under Section 8A(5) of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015. The Order dated 10th November 2017 is not challenged nor withdrawn. The same has been acted upon by the Government by execution of a fresh lease deed dated 5th January 2018. Petitioner No.1 has deposited dead rent under Section 9A of the MMDR Act, 1957 which has been accepted by the State Government without demur.

                    4.8) MoEFCC issued directions mandating automatic extension of forest clearance co-terminus with the mining lease. On 1st April 2015, pursuant to the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, MoEFCC issued directions to the Principal Secretary, Forests (and his counterparts in all other states and UTs).

                    4.9) On 1st May 2015, MoEFCC issued further directions elaborating on the 1 April 2015 directions.

                    4.10) The directions contained in the aforesaid letters make it clear that, where forest clearance had already been obtained during the original mining lease period, pending proposals for the prior approval of the Central Government for renewal of the mining lease under the FC Act were not required to be processed further and were accordingly closed. The forest clearance was deemed to have been automatically extended in light of the directions issued on 1st April 2015. As per the MoEFCC’s own directions, forest clearances relating to mining leases covered by Section 8A of the MMDR Act were deemed to be automatically extended for a period coterminous with the mining lease. The directions issued by the MoEFCC have the force of law and are binding not only upon the MoEFCC but also upon all concerned authorities. Accordingly, in the case of Petitioner No. 1, the forest clearancestood automatically extended until the year 2030.

                    4.11) The State Forest Department has given recommendations in favour of the extension of validity of the Petitioner No.1’s Forest Clearance. Four favorable recommendations, made by the State Forest Department for extension of validity of Petitioner No1's forest clearance, are as under: -

                    (i) Recommendation dated 9th March 2016 made by the Deputy Forest Conservator, recommended activation of the project.

                    (ii) Recommendation dated 22nd March 2016 made by the Chief Conservator of Forest, to resume mining operations. This was based on to a site visit.

                    (iii) Recommendation vide a detailed report dated 18th May 2016 by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the Secretary (Forest) State Govt of Maharashtra recommending that, approval should be granted to Petitioner upon condition for payment of NPV.

                    (iv) Recommendation dated 7th February 2017 by the Principal Secretary (Forests) Government of Maharashtra recommending to Respondent No.1 that, the forest clearance be extended. This recommendation was made based on the recommendation of the Law & Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra.

                    4.12) On 23rd October 2017, acting on the recommendation dated 7th February 2017 of the Principal Secretary (Forests), MoEFCC directed that Form ‘B’ for renewal of forest clearance be filed again and sought justification from State Government as to why it had not realized NPV in compliance of directions dated 1st April 2015. The Petitioner No.1 was at all times ready to pay the NPV.

                    4.13) On 27th March 2019 MoFFCC rejected the proposal for extension of forest clearance of Petitioner No.1 and directed that the mined-out forest land be reclaimed, which is contrary to the MoEFCC's own directions dated 1st April 2015 and 1st May 2015 and was passed despite favourable recommendations of the State Government. Most pertinent, that the communication does not disclose any reasons or basis for closing Petitioner No.1’s proposal.

                    4.14) The Impugned Communication dated 27th March 2019 is arbitrary as Petitioner No.1's Forest Clearance dated 3rd October 2001 stood automatically extended and became co-terminus with the mining lease in accordance with MoEFCC's directions dated 1st April 2015 and 1st May 2015 and its application dated 30th March 2010 for extension of original Forest Clearance dated 3rd October 2001 stood closed.

                    4.15) The directions issued by MoEFCC have the force of law as long as they confirm to the requirements of Article 77(2) of the Constitution of India and are published in the mode prescribed by the statute. Reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulf Goan Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 673.

                    4.16) The State Government has not issued a demand note in terms of Rule 8 (1)(b) of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003 for deposit of NPV. The 1st April 2015 direction issued by the MoEFCC made the forest clearance extension co-terminus with the mining lease subject to the realization of NPVby the State Government.

                    4.17) As per Rule 8(1)(b) of the Forest (Conservation) Rules 2003, the Divisional Forest Officer is required to prepare a demand note for the NPV to be paid by the User Agency and communicate the same to the User Agency. The State Government has not raised any such demand note till date. Petitioner No.1 at all times being ready and willing to pay the NPV has repeatedly written to the MoEFCC requesting for realization of NPV. Curiously, on 9th April 2019, immediately after rejection of the proposal, the Chief Conservator, Forests directed the Petitioner No.1 to deposit NPV in compliance of MoEFCC's direction dated 1st April 2015. This demand, is without any quantification nor is the amount mentioned.

                    4.18) The Respondents' contention that, Petitioner No.1’s mining lease lapsed on 21st May 2008 is misplaced and misconceived. The same proceeds on the basis of a purported letter of Government of Maharashtra dated 20th February 2019 and views of the Chief Conservator, Forests. The entire basis of the MoEFCC's stand is that, the Petitioner No.1's mining lease lapsed in 2008 as intimated to it by the letter dated 20th February 2019 addressed by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Maharashtra. This letter was attached to a report dated 15th February 2019 by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Maharashtra. The MoEFCC proceeds on the patently misconceived basis that, in view of this letter, the lease had lapsed in 2008. This foundational basis for the MoEFCC's Impugned Communication is misconceived and non-existent for the following reasons;

                    i) The Government of Maharashtra had passed an order dated 10th November 2017 extending Hindalco's mining lease from 21st May 2018 to 31st March 2030.

                    ii) The Order dated 10th November 2017 gives the benefit of section 8(A)(5) and 8(A)(6) of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 to the Petitioner No.1. The extension order has been acted upon by Government of Maharashtra by execution of the lease deed dated 5th January 2018.

                    iii) Pertinently, the affidavit filed on behalf of the Principal Secretary, Industries and Mines specifically states that the Petitioner No.1 is the holder of a valid mining lease that was originally granted in 1968 that continues to stand extended until 31st March 2030.

Submissions of the Respondents

5) Mr Vijay Killedar, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that: -

                    5.1) The moot question which is required to be considered and answered is whether the renewal of mining lease could take effect from any later date other than the day immediately after expiry of original lease? The Original lease deed was for a period of 30 years from 21st May 1968 to 22nd May 1998. That, the Industries, Energy and Labour Department had passed an order dated 13th February 2008 under Section 8 of the MMDR Act, the lease was directed to be extended for a period of 10 years from 22nd May 1998. Thus, as per this order, the lease was valid upto 21st May 2008.

                    5.2) The lease deed dated 25th September 2008 executed between the Petitioner No. 1 and State of Maharashtra, for a period of 10 years from the date of its execution, is de hors of the earlier order dated 13th February 2008 which directs that the lease can be extended for a period of 10 years from the date immediately after the day on which the original lease expired i.e. 22nd May 1998. That, the lease deed dated 25th September 2008, is not in accordance with Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 and Clauses 4.16 and 4.17 of the Guidelines annexed to the FC Act. Moreover, it is trite that a lease cannot be renewed at a later date, when it has already expired and determined by efflux of time.

                    5.3) As per the Order dated 13th February 2008, the proposal for renewal of lease was allowed for a period of 10 years from 22nd May 1998. Therefore, the actual renewal of lease deed document could not have been executed for 10 years from the date of execution of the said document, which has thus rendered the renewed document as null and void. The mining lease, thus, expired on 22nd May 1998.

                    5.4) Section 111 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, (For Short ‘TPA’) provides for determination of lease by efflux of the time. There is nothing in MMDR Act or FC Act to exclude the application of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 111 (a) of the TPA in clear terms provides for determination of lease on expiry of the period fixed. The above facts would reveal that the agreed period of lease was initially for 30 years i.e. upto 22 nd May 1998 and the renewal was extended upto 21nd May 2008. Thus, on 21nd May 2008, the lease determined as per Section 111 (a) of the TPA.

                    5.5) It is a matter of record that by order dated 13th February 2008, the period of lease was renewed for 10 years, which was to take effect from 22nd May 1998. Under the clauses 4.16 and 4.17 of the Guidelines appended to FC Act, it is provided that the application seeking renewal of lease should be filed one year prior to expiry of the original lease and in the event, the State is not able to process the renewal application within one year, it may grant one year temporary working permission and then finally decide the renewal application. The renewal if granted, would take effect from the day immediately after the original lease had expired. In terms of this provision, the order dated 13th February 2008 provides for extension of lease w.e.f. 22nd May 1998. In the present case, the renewal of lease is governed by provisions of Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 as the Petitioner No. 1 are intending to carry out mining activities for their own industry (Captive Mining).

                    5.6) Despite the order dated 13th February 2008 having been passed, the same officer issued a communication dated 26th May 2008 in which it stated that even though earlier it is provided that the renewal shall be with effect from the day immediately after expiry of the original lease, as per Rule 31 of the said Concession Rules, the period of lease would start from the day on which mining lease agreement is executed.

                    5.7) From bare perusal of Rule 31 it would be clear that the same is not applicable to renewal of leases. Rule 31 (2) only deals with mining lease which is executed for the first time. Thus, it was error on the part of the said department of the State to have issued such communication recommending erroneous interpretation of the provisions, which would amount to reviewing its own order dated 13th February 2008, such power is not vested in it by any statute.

                    5.8) The Petitioner No. 1 have annexed the copy of order dated 10th November 2017 passed by Dy. G & M, Government of Maharashtra vide which, in purported exercise of powers under Section 8A of the MMDR Act the lease has been extended from 21st May 2018 to 31st March 2030. Firstly, this period is fixed on the erroneous footing that the lease deed was valid till 21st May 2018, when in fact, the lease had already determined on 22nd May 1998. That, the Order is passed without there being any prior approval under Section 2 of FC Act.

                    5.9) The permission under Section 2 of FC Act was in effect till 10th November 2010. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v/s. Union of India, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 267 that a prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of FC Act is a must before any non-forest activity is to be conducted by any user agency. It is further held that mining of any minerals are non-forest purposes and the pre-condition of approval under Section 2 would have to be met.

                    5.10) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M. P. and others v/s. Krishnadas Tikaram, reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 587, has held that there can be no renewal of lease by the State Government unless prior approval is obtained from the Central Government under Section 2 of the FC Act.

                    5.11) By virtue of amending Act, Section 8A was introduced in the statute book of MMDR Act,1957 w.e.f. 12th January 2015. By Section 8A(5), it is provided that the period of lease for minerals used for captive purposes shall be deemed to have been extended upto 31st March 2030. As per the directions issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to Principal Secretary (Forests) on 1st April 2015, it is sought to be contended by the Petitioner that period of validity of approvals of FC Act under Section 2 would be deemed to have been extended upto the period co-terminus with that of the mining lease.

                    5.12) Section 8A(9) of the MMDR Act provides that nothing in Section 8A would apply to mining lease granted before the date of commencement of 2015 amending act, for which renewal has been rejected, or which has been determined, or lapsed. From the above it is clear that the mining lease had determined on 22nd May 1998. The forest clearance under Section 2 of FC Act was valid till 9th November 2010. Thus, as per Section 8A (9) of the MMDR Act, the mining lease had determined and even the Section 2 permission had lapsed, and therefore, the deeming fiction created by the said provision will not be applicable to the present matter.

                    5.13) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muneer Enterprises v/s. Ramgad Minerals & Mining Ltd., reported in (2015) 5 SCC 366, has held that for a mining lease to be remain valid, twin requirements of the approval of Central Government under proviso to Section 5 (1) of MMDR Act and Section 2 of FC Act. have to be fulfilled. It is further held that the lessee cannot be permitted to seek such approvals after expiry of the lease.

                    5.14) According to the Petitioner No. 1, the impugned order is in the nature of an order passed under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Petitioner No. 1 have referred to orders dated 1st April 2015 and 1st May 2015 and submitted that, the extension of permission under Section 2 of FC Act. was approved, and the application seeking extension of prior approval under Section 2 FC Act was closed. Since the proposal seeking extension of validity of forest (conservation) clearance under Section 2 of the FC Act has been closed, the order can be stated to have been passed under Section 2 of the FC Act.

                    5.15) On the above basis, the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGTA) are required to be considered. Chapter III of the NGTA sets out jurisdiction, powers and proceedings of the NGT. Under Section 14 of the NGTA if twin requirements namely, substantial question relating to environment being involved and implementation of enactments specified in Schedule I appended to the NGTA, are met, the NGT has the jurisdiction to decide all such civil cases.

                    5.16) In the present case, the Petitioner No. 1' alleged right to be granted extension of forest clearance has been pitted against the Respondent No. 1's contention that such clearance cannot be granted for multiple reasons such as expiry of the lease, non-application of the amended provisions of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, etc. Therefore the dispute is a 'civil dispute' within the meaning of Section 14 of the NGTA and in view of the fact that Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is enlisted in Schedule I of the NGTA, the NGT would have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the challenge made by the Petitioner No. 1.

                    5.17) Apart from Section 14, the present case stands covered by Section 16 of the NGTA, thereby vesting exclusive jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner No. 1 plea with the NGT. Under Section 16 (e) of the NGTA, any person aggrieved by a decision or order made by the State Government under Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980 can prefer an appeal against such decision or order to the NGT. From the above discussion, it is an admitted position that the impugned order has been passed under Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980.

                    5.18) This Court had an occasion to decide the issue as to entertainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 despite having a remedy under Section 16 of the NGTA in the case of South West Port Ltd. v/s. State of Goa, reported in 2018 (4) Mh.L.J. 678. In the said case, a challenge was made to the denial by MoEFCC of the Petitioner's application seeking terminal capacity enhancement at Mormugao Port Trust, Vasco-da-gama. In this regard, this Court had refused to entertain the petition by relegating the petitioner to agitate his claim before the NGT.

                    5.19) The NGTA provides for complete mechanism for redressal of grievances relating to the subject matter of dispute permissible to be adjudicated by the NGTA. Wide powers are vested in NGT to ensure that the disputes are properly adjudicated, there is no reason why the present Petitioner No. 1 should not be directed to approach the NGT by dismissing the present petition as not maintainable.

                    5.20) The ground about maintainability of the petition has been taken by the Assistant Conservator of Forest Division, Kolhapur in Affidavit-in- reply dated 21st November 2019 in paragraph nos. 80, 81 and 87.

                    5.21) For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is not maintainable as the impugned order is amenable to be challenged under Section 16 of the NGTA or a dispute can be filed under Section 14 of the NGTA before the NGT.

6) Ms. Tejas Kapre, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-State adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Killedar on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The learned AGP would further submits that, to transport the mined out Bauxite dump, it would require approximately 8,000 truck trips. That, the same would have an adverse impact on the environment. That, in any event now the mined out material belonged to the Government and the Government would be entitled to auction the same.

Submissions in Rejoinder

7) Mr. Ashish Prasad, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner No. 1 in rejoinder submitted that:-

                    7.1) The Respondent No. 1 though has argued that this Hon'ble Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this petition in view of section 14 and 16 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 no such objection was raised in the reply filed by Respondent No. 1.

                    7.2) The Communication dated 27th March 2019 contains no reasons and is as such a non-speaking order. No reason is given for closing the Petitioner No.1's application dated 30th March 2010 for extension of Forest Clearance. This is after 9 years, despite the favorable recommendations made by the State Forest Department and in complete disregard of the MoEFCC's own Notifications dated 1st April 2015 and 1st May 2015.

                    7.3) 5 years after filing the writ petition, MoEFCC/Respondent No. 1 filed its reply for the first time wherein it produced letter dated 20th February 2019 of the State Government relying on which it had issued the Impugned Communication. MoEFCC/Respondent No. 1's submissions at para 8 of its Reply are summarized below:

                    (1) As per letter dated 20.02.2019 of the State Government S. 8A(5) of the MMDR Act was not applicable in the present case as it was hit by S.8A(9) of the MMDR Act, the mining lease having lapsed on 21.02.2008.

                    (2) MOEFCC guidelines dated 01.04.2015 are applicable only in case of existing mining leases.

                    The letter dated 20th February 2019 does not taken into consideration Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 nor the notifications dated 1st April 2015 and 1st May 2015.

                    7.4) The powers of the NGT, under the Act, 2010 are pertaining to matters relating to environment only. The NGT lacks the power to determine issues of grant, execution and validity of mining leases under the MMDR Act. The issues raised in the present writ petition are within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

                    7.5) The case of Shri. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal v. MoEF & Ors, (2013) SCC OnLine Bom 683, was a matter involving a challenge to an order for closure of mine issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. In the said case this Court applied the principles in Whirlpool (supra) and entertained a Writ Petition against an order that was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court did not relegate the parties to the alternative remedy available, as it considered the case to be a fit one for the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. The impugned Order dated 27th March 2019 herein passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and contains no reasons.

                    7.6) The writ petition is not barred by the principle of res-judicata on the ground that, the Petitioner No.1 had approached NGT in 2012 vide Appeal No. 64 of 2012 against order dated 9th October 2012 of the State Government rejecting its application for lifting the legally extracted mineral/ Bauxite lying at the site (Bauxite dump) and NGT had disposed of said appeal vide order dated 28th February 2013 decline to interfere. The issues involved in the present writ petition were not directly and substantially in issue before the NGT. The issues involved in the present writ petition are separate and distinct. Petitioner No.1 is aggrieved by the closure of its application dated 30th March 2010 for extension of forest clearance by non speaking order dated 27th March 2019 of MoEFCC despite the following events that transpired after the NGT order dated 28th February 2013 :

                    (i) Section 8A was inserted in the MMDR Act on 12.01.2015 granting deemed renewal of captive mining leases till 31.03.2030.

                    (ii) MOEFCC guidelines dated 1.04.2015 and 1.05.2015 directing that forest clearances would be deemed to run coterminous with tenure of extended mining lease post such amendment.

                    (iii) Closure of Petitioner No.1’s application dated 30.03.2010 for extension of forest clearance by non-speaking order dated 27.03.2019 by MOEFCC despite the above change in law.

                    7.7) In any case, rather than exercising jurisdiction, NGT in its Order dated 28th February 2013 declined to interfere holding as follows:

                    "In other words, what the Appellant seeks, by way of relief, is direction to the Respondent 1 to forward the recommendation to the Central Government for consideration and approval. If such relief is considered, this Tribunal would substitute the discretionary and recommendatory powers of the Respondent No. 1, i.e. the State Government as desired by the Appellant. That kind of substitution is outside the scope of the appellate jurisdiction available to this Tribunal under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. We make it explicit that the appellate jurisdiction of this Tribunal is circumscribed by Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010."

                    (Emphasis added)

                    7.8) The Respondents’ made a reference to Eco-Sensitive Zone and Eco-Sensitive Area in relation to the mining lease in question and argued that the mining lease falls in the said Eco-sensitive zone/area. It is submitted that the Kasarsada mining lease is 31 km (aerial distance) from the boundary of the Radhanagari Wildlife sanctuary. As such, the mining lease does not fall within any Eco-Sensitive Zone, which is defined as an area extending up to a maximum distance of 10 km from the boundary of a wildlife sanctuary. However, certain villages included within the Kasarsada mining lease fall within the area covered by the Draft Notification dated 31st July 2024 proposing the declaration of an Eco-Sensitive Area. The said notification is presently in draft form and is yet to be finalized. In any case, Para 3 of the draft notification states that existing mines would be phased out in 5 years after final publication of notification.

                    7.9) The Respondents has for the first time during arguments on 1st April 2026 produced notification dated 15th March 2021 declaring Chandgad Conservation Reserve which covers the areas falling in the mining lease in question. The notification does not restrict any activity within such Conservation Reserve. MoEFCC is empowered to impose specific conditions upon Petitioner No. 1 as it deems fit and proper. Without prejudice, so far as the area covered under the mining lease in question is considered, the Site Inspection Report of the Chief Conservator of Forest, Kolhapur dated 22nd March 2016 is required to be considered.

                    7.10) This is not a fresh mine but an established mine where necessary infrastructure including tar roads have been in existence since 1970 when mining operation commenced. There is no fresh diversion of forest land which is being sought for mining or for road construction. The mining lease area is already bereft of vegetation as evidence by Site Inspection report and Google Earth images. Well constructed roads are in existence. There is no damage to flora or fauna is involved. If the Petitioner No. 1 is permitted to continue its legitimate mining activities and thereafter close the mine in accordance with the approved mine closure plan, the mined-out area can be restored and developed into an ecologically sustainable area, thereby facilitating the growth of flora and fauna. On the contrary, if the said area is allowed to remain in its present state, the growth of flora and fauna would not be possible over the mineral deposits.

Provisions of the law

8) Provisions of law relevant to the present matter are as under:-

                    8.1) On 12th January 2015. Section 8A was inserted into the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) by way of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 ('MMDR Amendment Act, 2015) which reads as under:

                    “[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 specified in Part A of the First Schedule.

                    (2) On and from the date of the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (10 of 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 (10 of 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.

                    (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 (10 of 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 (10 of 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.

                    (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 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 (10 of 2025), for which renewal has been rejected, or which has been determined, or lapse.]”

                    8.2) Section 8A(5) of the MMDR Act 1957 was amended on 12th January 2015, the Section 8 before the amendment reads as Under:-

                    “Periods for which mining leases may be granted or renewed.

                    8. (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. 4 [ Omitted ].

                    5 [(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.]”

                    8.3) Rules 24A, 24B, 31 and Form ‘K’ of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 read as under:-

                    i) 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.

                    1[(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.]

                    2 [(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.]

                    3 [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.

                    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) Omitted.

                    (5) Omitted.

                    (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.

                    1 [(7) Omitted.]

                    (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (6) an application for the first renewal of a mining lease, so declared under the provisions of section 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mining Concessions (Abolition and Declaration as Mining Leases) Act, 1987, shall be made to the State Government in Form J before the expiry of the period of mining lease in terms of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said Act, through such office or authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf:

                    Provided that the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and subject to such conditions as it may think fit, allow extension of time for making of such application up to a total period not exceeding one year.

                    (9) If an application for first renewal made within the time referred to in sub-rule (8) or within the time allowed by the State Government under the proviso to sub-rule (8), the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Government passes orders thereon.

                    2 [(10) The State Government may condone delay in an application for renewal of mining lease made after the time limit prescribed in sub-rule (1) provided the application has been made before the expiry of the lease.]”

                    ii) Rule 24B

                    "24B. Renewal of a mining lease in favour of a person using the mineral in his own industry: - Every person who is holding a mining lease for a mineral which is used in his own industry shall be entitled for the renewal of his mining lease for a period not exceeding twenty years unless he applies for a lesser period." Explanation:- “Own Industry” means an industry of which the lessee is the owner or in which he holds not less than fifty percent of controlling interest.

                    iiii) Rule 31. Lease to be executed within six months: -

                    “(1) Where, on an application for the grant of a mining lease, an order has been made for the grant of such lease,a lease deed in Form K or in a form as near thereto as circumstances of each case may require, shall be executed within six months of the order or within such further period as the State Government may allow in this behalf, and if no such lease deed is executed within the said period due to any default on the part of the applicant, the State Government may revoke the order granting the lease and in that event the application fee shall be forfeited to the State Government.

                    [(2) The date of the commencement of the period for which a mining lease is granted shall be the date on which a duly executed deed under sub-rule (1) is registered.]”

                    iv) Part XI-General Provisions, Form K, Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

                    “Lessee/lessees to remove his/their properties on the expiry of lease: -

                    5. The lessee/lessees having first paid discharged rents, rates and royalties payable by virtue of these presents may at the expiration or sooner determination of the said term or within six calendar months thereafter (unless the lease shall be determined under clauses 1 and 2 of this Part and in that case at any time not less than three calendar months nor more than six calendar months after such determination) take down and remove for his/their own benefit all or any 1 [ore mineral excavated during the currency of lease] engines, machinery, plant, buildings structures, tramways, railways and other works, erections and conveniences which may have been erected, set up or placed by the lessee/lessees in or upon the said lands and which the lessee/lessees is/are not bound to deliver to the State Government under clause 20 of Part VII of this Schedule and which the State Government shall not desire to purchase.

                    Forfeiture of property left more than six months after determination of lease:-

                    6. If at the end of six calendar months after the expiration or sooner determination of the said term under the provision contained in clause 4 of Part VIII of this Schedule become effective there shall remain in or upon the said land any 2 [ore or mineral] engines, machinery, plant, buildings structures, tramways, railways and other work, erections and conveniences or other property which are not required by the lessee/lessees in connection with operations in any other lands hold by him/them under prospecting licence or mining lease the same shall if not removed by the lessee/lessees within one calendar month after notice in writing requiring their removal has been given to lessee/lessees by the State Government be deemed to become the property of the State Government and may be sold or disposed of in such manner as the State Government shall deem fit without liability to pay any compensation or to account to the lessee/lessees in respect thereof.

                    Notices: -

                    7. Every notice by these presents required to be given to the lessee/lessees shall be given in writing to such person resident on the said lands as the lessee/lessees may appoint for the purpose of receiving such notices and if there shall have been no such appointment then every such notice shall be sent to the lessee/lessees by registered post addressed to the lessee/lessees at the address recorded in this lease or at such other address in India as the lessee/lessees may from time to time in writing to the State Government designate for the receipt of notices and every such service shall be deemed to be proper and valid service upon the lessee/lessees and shall not be questioned or challenged by him/them.”

                    8.4) Section 2 of the forest (conservation) act, 1980 read as under:-

                    “2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.— Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Govemnment or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing— (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest” in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved: (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. Explanation. —For the purposes of this section “non-forest purpose” means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for any purpose other than reafforestation.”

                    8.5) Clauses 4.16 and 4.17 of the Guidelines annexed to the FC Act read as under: -

                    "4.16(ii) The conditions stipulated while giving approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion/renewal of forest land for mining purposes shall be renewed/monitored every five years. If it is found that the lessee has violated or is not complying with the stipulated conditions, then the approval given under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 shall be revoked "

                    "4.17 If an application for renewal of mining lease, complete in all respects, has been submitted by the user agency, to the State Government one year before the expiry of the existing lease period, but the State Government has not been able to process and forward the proposal for approval of the Central Government, till the date of the expiry of existing lease period; in such cases, the Central Government on an application from the user agency, may grant the user agency, temporary working permission in the already broken up area till a final decision is taken on the proposal."

9) Authorities relied upon by the Petitioner No. 1.

                    9.1) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 held observed that: -

                    "15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point...

                    16. Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana [AIR 1950 SC 163 : 1950 SCR 566] laid down that existence of an adequate legal remedy was a factor to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs. This was followed by another Rashid case, namely, K.S. Rashid & Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission [AIR 1954 SC 207: (1954) 25 ITR 167] which reiterated the above proposition and held that where alternative remedy existed, it would be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226. This proposition was, however, qualified by the significant words, "unless there are good grounds therefor", which indicated that alternative remedy would not operate as an absolute bar and that writ petition under Article 226 could still be entertained in exceptional circumstances.

                    17. A specific and clear rule was laid down in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh [AIR 1958 SC 86: 1958 SCR 595] as under: "But this rule requiring the exhaustion of statutory remedies before the writ will be granted is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law and instances are numerous where a writ of certiorari has been issued in spite of the fact that the aggrieved party had other adequate legal remedies."

                    …….

                    18. This proposition was considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani [AIR 1951 SC 1506: (1962) 1 SCR 753] and was affirmed and followed in the following words:

                    "The passages in the judgments of this Court we have extracted would indicate (1) that the two exceptions which the learned Solicitor General formulated to the normal rule as to the effect of the existence of an adequate alternative remedy were by no means exhaustive, and (2) that even beyond them a discretion vested in the High Court to have entertained the petition and granted the petitioner relief notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy. We need only add that the broad lines of the general principles on which the Court should act having been clearly laid down, their application to the facts of each particular case must necessarily be dependent on a variety of individual facts which must govern the proper exercise of the discretion of the Court, and that in a matter which is thus pre-eminently one of discretion, it is not possible or even if it were, it would not be desirable to lay down inflexible rules which should be applied with rigidity in every case which comes up before the Court."

                    20. Much water has since flown under the bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which, though old, continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation"

                    (emphasis added.)

                    9.2) In the case of Shri. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal v. MoEF & Ors, (2013) SCC OnLine Bom 683, which was a matter involving a challenge to an order for closure of mine issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 an appeal against which lies before the NGT, and an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court was pleased to hold as follows:

                    "11. Mr. Khambatta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 685/2012, submitted that the mere fact that an appeal is provided under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, does not bar the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain a writ petition. In any case, this court will have to consider the challenge to OM dated 2nd December, 2009 and the Guidelines dated 19th August, 2010, since challenge to both of them would not lie before the Tribunal and in such a case it would lead to anomalous situation, resulting in miscarriage of justice.

                    ……..

                    18. We shall first deal with the preliminary objection taken on behalf of respondent No. 1 regarding maintainability of the present petitions. In all these petitions, the challenge is to the impugned orders, suspending operations of mining activities, as well as to the Office Memorandum dated 2.12.2009 and the Guidelines dated 19.8.2010, issued by respondent No. 1. In our view, the petitioners would not be entitled to challenge these guidelines before the Tribunal constituted under the Act and, therefore, it will be for this court to deal with the challenge to the said OM and the Guidelines. We also find merit in the submission of Mr. Khambata that the petitioners cannot be relegated to two remedies, one before the Tribunal and another before this Court, when there is composite challenge to the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 1 and the said OM and the Guidelines."

                    9.3) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case TN Godavarman vs Union of India; WP (C) 202 of 1995, vide order dated 24.10.2024 in I. A. NOS. 157777 AND 157782 OF 2023 held as under:

                    "4. We therefore find that it will not be appropriate to lay down universal guidelines so far as the restrictions to be imposed in the Conservation Reserve and Community Reserve are concerned. The Union of India has already framed guidelines which can be followed by the State Governments on case to case basis for deciding as to what restrictions are to be imposed in a particular Conservation Reserve and Community Reserve."

10) Authorities relied upon by the Respondent No. 1.

                    10.1) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of A. Chowghule and Company Limited v/s. Goa Foundation and ors., reported in (2008) 12 SCC 646 has observed that:-

                    “20. We also find that the observations in Ambica Quarry Works [(1987) 1 SCC 213], Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra [1989 Supp (1) SCC 504], T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad [(1997) 2 SCC 267] and M.C. Mehta [(2004) 12 SCC 118] would indicate that after the coming into force of theAct, the renewal of a pre-existing mining lease in a forest area can be granted only if the requirements of Section 2 are satisfied. It is therefore obvious that the claim of the appellant confined only to 4.44 ha is also untenable for the reasons given above and that in any case, the beneficiation plant to which this area was to be attached had been shifted from its earlier proposed location.”

                    10.2) This Court in the case of Vanashakti and anr. v/s. Union of India, reported in (2021) 1 HCC (Bom) 342 has observed that:-

                    “10. Power conferred on the High Courts by Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide. Article 226 in terms does not place any limit on the Court's power. However, writ remedy being discretionary, the power has to be exercised judiciously bearing in mind certain self-imposed restrictions propounded by authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court. A writ court may decline interference if an alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy is available to the petitioner who approaches it with a grievance that his legal right has been infringed. This is not based on any rule of law, rather it is based on a rule of policy, convenience or discretion. There are four exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court and if any one of such exceptions is present in a particular case, the writ court may not to hesitate to entertain the plea. However, here we are not concerned with an alternative remedy available to the petitioners in the sense that they can choose between two remedies made available by law. On the contrary, a remedy seems to be available to them under the NGT Act; and if we hold that the petitioners' plea is such that it can be entertained and decided by the forum created by the NGT Act, which also provides an appellate remedy before the Supreme Court on any one of the grounds mentioned in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it would seem to us that the NGT Act instead of providing an alternative remedy, provides the first remedy to an aggrieved party who seeks to raise a substantial question relating to environment; and after suchremedy is exhausted, he may explore further remedies as law would provide. Apart from this, delay or laches in seeking redress before the writ court is one of the other restrictions based whereon a plea, howsoever meritorious, may not be entertained. We propose to proceed bearing these in mind.

                    17. The Environment Act figures in Schedule I of the NGT Act. Therefore, for the purpose of the present case, the plain meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 14 is that the Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction to hear a civil case raising a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) subject, of course, to such question arising out of implementation of the Environment Act. The contention advanced before us is that the Tribunal cannot entertain a challenge to theimpugned notification because it has no power or jurisdiction to declare a delegated legislation unconstitutional or ultra vires. Let us now consider how far such contention is acceptable.

                    18. The first question that would necessarily fall for our consideration is, whether the impugned notification is a delegated legislation? The answer, for the following reasons, cannot but be in the negative.

                    19. We have read the terms of the impugned notification as well as the provisions, which are the source of its origin. Section 3 empowers the Central Government to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution by restricting areas in which any industries, operations or processes or classes of industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards. By the impugned notification, not only has the CRZ been declared but it proceeds to provide for areas requiring special consideration under the CRZ, prohibited activities and regulation of permissible activities within the CRZ, coastal zone management plan, CRZ clearance for permissible and regulated activities, etc. It has been notified with other measures for the general information of the public. In effect,these measures are which are geared towards implementation of the Environment Act.

                    20. We need not burden this order with any discussion on what delegated legislation is. Suffice to say, the petitioners are laboring under a misconception that the impugned notification is a law brought into force by the Central Government in exercise of the power of delegated legislation conferred by the Environment Act. Far from it, we see the impugned notification as one which is a statutory order of the Central Government made in pursuance of what is called in administrative law as "administrative delegation". A legislature may confer upon AN administrative authority not only the power to make rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of a statute but also the power to apply the law to particular cases by making orders in exercise of the statutory power. So far as the validity of such orders themselves are concerned, they are subject to the doctrine of ultra vires and must, therefore, be within the limits set by the statute. Sections 6 and 25 specifically empower the Central Government to make rules in respect of all or any of the matters referred to in Section 3 and for carrying out the purposes of the Environment Act, respectively. Pertinently, the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred by Sections 6 and 25 of the Environment Act. These rules, being delegated legislation, are distinct and different from the statutory order made under Section 3. The impugned notification not having been issued in exercise of the rule-making power of the Central Government, cannot be seen as a product of delegation legislation in the sense it is understood in administrative law. This being our conclusion as to the nature of power that was exercised to bring into existence the impugned notification, all the cited decisions have no application.

                    22. All the concerns that the petitioners have urged do stand covered by "substantial question relating to environment", and would also include an attempt to enforce their legal rights in the pursuit of protecting the environment; therefore, their plea is squarely covered by Section 14(1) of the NGT Act.

                    23. Next, we proceed to deal with the contention that challenge to a statute/subordinate legislation is not a "civil dispute". We feel, this contention has been urged to be rejected. One has to really torture a case of the present nature so that it does not fit into a "civil case". The Tribunal has been vested with powers that are normally vested with civil courts. A remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court is provided by Section 22 on grounds as mentioned in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It would not be inapposite at this stage to remind ourselves of what the Court observed in S.A.L. Supreme Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas [S.A.L. Narayan Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas, AIR 1965 SC 1818], on different kinds of proceedings. A passage from such decision, providing useful guidance, is quoted below:

                    "8.... The expression 'civil proceeding' is not defined in the Constitution, nor in the General Clauses Act. The expression in our judgment covers all proceedings in which a party asserts the existence of a civil right conferred by the civil law or by statute, and claims relief for breach thereof.

                    ………….

                    24. We say no more.

                    25. In Techi Tagi Tara case [Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari, (2018) 11 SCC 734], the Supreme Court has held, in the context of the NGT Act that a "dispute" would be the assertion of a right or an interest or a claim met by contrary claims on the other side. Based on the aforesaid guidance provided by the Supreme Court, we hold that the case laid by the petitioner before us, if the same had been laid before the Tribunal, would partake the character of a "dispute" if the respondents had chosen to contest the same by countering it. There is absolutely no merit in the contention advanced and, thus, it stands rejected.

                    31. The Tribunal's jurisdiction to deal with environmental issues is so wide and expansive that literally speaking, "everything under the sun" raising substantial question relating to environment can be dealt with by it. It would matter little that in its pursuit to further the objects for which the Tribunal has been brought into existence as well as to ensure protection of environment and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment, any other enactment is required to be considered. So long as the basic question remains the same i.e. the Tribunal is either approached or is duty bound to secure proper implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I of the NGT Act and a substantial question in relation thereto arises, and the decision of the Tribunal on such question would beneficially impact the environment, merely because in the process of decision-making the Tribunal may be required to consider provisions of any other enactment would not denude it of its fundamental and predominant task of taking decisions that would advance the object of the Schedule I enactments as also to secure the ends of justice in any particular case. We may refer in this connection to Rule 24 of the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011 framed by the Central Government.

                    35. The discussion must end by quoting para 40 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India [Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union India, (2012) 8 SCC 326], reading as follows: (SCC p. 347, para 40) of

                    "40. Keeping in view the provisions and scheme of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short 'the NGT Act') particularly Sections 14, 29, 30 and 38(5), it can safely be concluded that the environmental issues and matters covered under the NGT Act, Schedule I should be instituted and litigated before the National Green Tribunal (for short 'NGT'). Such approach may be necessary to avoid likelihood of conflict of orders between the High Courts and NGT. Thus, in unambiguous terms, we direct that all the matters instituted after coming into force of the NGT Act and which are covered under the provisions of the NGT Act and/or in Schedule I to the NGT Act shall stand transferred and can be instituted only before NGT. This will help in rendering expeditious and specialised justice in the field of environment to all concerned."

                    10.3) This Court in the case of South West Port Ltd. v/s. State of Goa, reported in 2018 (4) Mh.L.J. 678 has observed that:-

                    "19. The Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a remedy in public law. The Article confers wide powers on the High Courts to reach injustice, whenever it is found. The remedy is discretionary in nature and the Court may refuse the grant of relief in certain circumstances even though the legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. The availability of an alternate remedy is one such circumstance. This self- imposed restriction that the high prerogative writ need not be issued if the party invoking the writ jurisdiction has an alternate efficacious remedy, has been consistently followed. It is a well-settled practice by the High Courts, when an alternate and efficacious remedy is open to a party, to ask the party to pursue that remedy and not to enforce the extraordinary jurisdiction. The Apex Court has stressed that when an alternate remedy exits, it is a sound exercise of discretion by the High Courts to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226, unless there are good grounds thereof. Thus, before we proceed to consider the grant of the writ as sought for by the petitioner, we must ascertain whether the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy available.

                    20.In the past, the Supreme Court had stressed on the need for setting up specialized environmental Courts. The Law Commission in its 186th report recommended specialized Courts for dealing with environmental cases. Pursuant to it, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010 was enacted. National Green Tribunal was established on 18 October, 2010 for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests andother natural resources. Section 4 of the Act of 2010 specifies the composition of the Tribunal. Since many issues in the field of environment protection are technical in nature, provision is made for the appointment of Expert Members, along with the judicial members. Section 16 confers powers on the Tribunal of appellate jurisdiction.

                    Section 16 reads thus:

                    "16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction. -Any person aggrieved by,-

                    ……..

                    (e) an order or decision made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the State Government or other authority under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980);

                    ……

                    may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal; Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed under this section within a further period not exceeding sixty days" Section 19(4) confers the power of Review on the Tribunal. Section 22 provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court. A self-contained methodology of redressal is thus provided under the Act to be addressed by a specialized tribunal."

                    10.4) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Muneer Enterprises v. Ramgad Minerals & Mining Ltd., reported in (2015) 5 SCC 366 has observed that:-

                    “3. Writ petition in WP No. 23782 of 2005 was filed by one Dinesh Kumar Singhi, a mine operator praying for a direction to the State of Karnataka and Director of Mines and Geology to dispose of his application dated 3-5-2001 for grant of licence to operate 819.20 ac of the forest mining area in Jaisinghpur Village covered by the erstwhile mining lease number ML No. 2010 of M/s Dalmia. We are not concerned with the said writ petition, as the said writ petitioner has not challenged the order of the Division Bench by which his writ petition was dismissed. We are only concerned with the judgment in Ramgad Minerals and Mining (P) Ltd. v. Muneer Enterprises [Ramgad Minerals and Mining (P) Ltd. v. Muneer Enterprises, 2009 SCC OnLine Kar 412 : (2010) 4 Kant LJ 448] .

                    11. When the writ appeal was pending, based on the oral application of the first respondent herein, the Division Bench directed the State Government and the Director of Mines and Geology to process its application for transfer of the renewal of the lease in favour of the first respondent under the Forest Act, 1980 within two months and forward its report to the Central Government with a further direction to the Central Government to decide the same within three months. The appellant challenged the said order dated 19-4-2006 in SLP No. 11508 of 2006. By an order dated 26-10-2007 [Muneer Enterprises v. Ramgad Minerals and Mining (P) Ltd., SLP (C) No. 11508 of 2006, order dated 26-10-2007 (SC)] , this Court directed the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court to dispose of Writ Appeal No. 5377 of 2004 and that the Order of the Central Government dated 13-9-2006 granting its in-principle (Stage I) ex post facto approval granted in favour of the first respondent would not create right/equity in favour of the first respondent. By the impugned order dated 26-8-2009 [Ramgad Minerals and Mining (P) Ltd. v. Muneer Enterprises, 2009 SCC OnLine Kar 412 : (2010) 4 Kant LJ 448] , the Division Bench held that renewal of mining lease without obtaining prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 would not render such renewal void ab initio and any such illegality can be cured or regularised by the Central Government by passing an order under Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 ex post facto.

                    88. In this context, the reliance placed upon some of the decisions of this Court by Mr Krishnan Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent needs to be considered. The learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent relied upon the decisions in Sethi Auto Service Station [Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA, (2009) 1 SCC 180] and Shanti Sports Club [Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 705 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 707] for the proposition that “noting” in the department files do not have sanction of law to be an effective order unless it culminates into an executable order affecting the rights of the parties and only when it reaches the final decision-making authority in the Department, gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned.

                    103. It is true that a reference to the amended Rules 6, 7 and 8 as well as the earlier communication of MoEF did to some extent support the stand of the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent. However persuasive such a contention may be as raised on behalf of the first respondent, we find it extremely difficult to accept such a contention. As rightly pointed out by Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel when we construe Rules 29 and 37(1-A) read along with Section 19 of the MMDR Act, dehors any liberal approach offered by the authorities of MoEF under the provisions of the Forest Act, such relaxation in the matter of compliance with conditions of prior approval would always be subject to the mining lease granted under the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules is in a live stage. In other words, unless the mining lease granted under the provisions of the MMDR Act read along with the provisions contained in the Mineral Concession Rules continue to remain valid and operative, the question of compliance with the conditions for prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest Act even with whatever relaxation granted by the authorities under the said Act will be of no use. In this context, when we apply Section 19 of the MMDR Act. Section 19 of the MMDR Act reads as follows:

                    “19.Prospecting licences and mining leases to be void if in contravention of Act.—Any reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease granted, renewed or acquired in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder shall be void and of no effect.

                    Explanation.—Where a person has acquired more than one reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease and the aggregate area covered by such permits, licences or leases, as the case may be, exceeds the maximum area permissible under Section 6, only that reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease the acquisition of which has resulted in such maximum area being exceeded shall be deemed to be void.”

                    104. Thus, Section 19 makes the position clear that any mining lease granted originally or renewed subsequently in contravention of the provisions of the MMDR Act or any rules or any order made thereunder to be void and of no effect. The expression used in Section 19 is mandatory and therefore if any contravention of the provisions of the MMDR Act or Rules or orders found in respect of a mining lease originally granted or subsequently renewed such mining lease should be treated to be void and inoperative for operating the said mining lease. It must also be kept in mind that carrying on any non-forest activity in a forest land can only be with the prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980. Therefore, for a mining lease to remain valid, twin requirements of the approval of the Central Government under the proviso to Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act and Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 have to be fulfilled. Therefore, a lessee cannot be heard to contend that such statutory requirements are to be thrown overboard and permitted to seek for such approvals after the expiry of the lease at its own sweet will and pleasure and the time to be fixed on its own and that the operation of the mining lease should be allowed ignoring such mandatory prescription.

                    105. Keeping the abovesaid mandatory prescription in Section 19 in mind, when we analyse the case on hand, in the first place, admittedly after the first renewal, there was a serious violation of failure to get the prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 i.e. when the renewal order was passed on 7-3-1986. Therefore, if we strictly apply Section 19, it must be stated that even as on 7-3-1986, for violation of Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 it must be stated that, in law, there was no mining lease at all in existence as it became void on the expiry of the initial period of the original lease granted in 1953. It may be contended that such violation gets cured by virtue of the judgments in Godavarman

                    (1) [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267] and Godavarman (2) [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 312] , though for argument sake, such a contention put forth on behalf of M/s Dalmia and the first respondent can be taken to be available, as pointed out by us earlier, based on the said judgments of this Court when the in-principle first stage approval was granted by imposing conditions in the order dated 24-12-1997, such conditions were blatantly violated by M/s Dalmia by taking a stand that it was not bound to comply with those conditions. The reply of M/s Dalmia dated 16-4-1999, was sufficient to confirm the said stand of M/s Dalmia. Therefore, as on 16-4-1999, since the lessee viz. M/s Dalmia refused to comply with the conditions imposed in the in-principle first stage approval, it cannot lie in the mouth of either M/s Dalmia or anyone who seek to claim any right through M/s Dalmia by contending that any violation of Section 19 of the MMDR Act or any of the Rules of the Mineral Concession Rules or orders made therein or Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 should be ignored and the plea made on behalf of M/s Dalmia as well as the first respondent should be accepted.

                    106. We are unable to accept such an extreme proposition canvassed on behalf of M/s Dalmia and the first respondent, as in our considered opinion, the violation had occurred at the time of the order of first renewal viz. 7-3-1986 itself, striking at the very root of the validity of the lease, as it must be held that it was void at that very stage itself for non-compliance with the prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 and in any case, on the blatant refusal to comply with the conditions imposed in the in-principle first stage approval granted in the year 24-12-1997. Once we are able to come to the said conclusion, we hold that the mining lease which was held by M/s Dalmia in ML No. 2010 became void and inoperative for violation of the mandatory requirements of the conditions. In this context, it will also be relevant to refer to Rule 37(1-A). The said Rule reads as under:

                    “37. (1-A) The State Government shall not give its consent to transfer of mining lease unless the transferee has accepted all the conditions and liabilities which the transferor was having in respect of such mining lease.”

                    A reading of the said sub-rule which was introduced by GSR No. 724(E), dated 27-9-1994, shows that a substantive condition is imposed while considering an application for consent for transfer of mining lease.

                    118. In this context, it will be more relevant to state that mines and minerals being national wealth, dealing with the same as the largesse of the State by way of grant of lease or in the form of any other right in favour of any party can only be resorted to strictly in accordance with the provisions governing disposal of such largesse and could not have been resorted to as has been done by the State Government and the Director of Mines and Geology of the State of Karnataka by passing the Order of transfer dated 16-3-2002. Such a conduct of the State and its authorities are highly condemnable and, therefore, calls for stringent action against them.

                    10.5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 504 has observed that:-

                    “14. The first of such orders was passed by this Court on 16th September 20052. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 13 of the said order, which reads thus:

                    “13. We have perused the affidavit dated 14-9-2005 filed by Mr Anurag Bajpai on behalf of MoEF and the statement showing the grant of temporary working permit in the last two years i.e. from 1-1-2003 to 31-12-2004 in the national parks, sanctuaries and forest area. This is despite the order passed by this Court restraining the mining activities in these areas. Learned amicus curiae submits that the inspection of the government record shows a dismal picture and he would shortly file an application for taking appropriate action against the persons concerned. Pending filing of the said application and further orders, we again reiterate that without compliance with the environmental laws, in particular the permission under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, no temporary working permission or temporary permit or any other permission by whatever name called shall be granted for mining activities in the aforesaid areas. We further direct that no mining activity would continue under any temporary working permit or permission which may have been granted. It appears from the chart filed with the affidavit of Mr Anurag Bajpai that no temporary working permission is in operation as of today. If it is otherwise, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed within two weeks giving the particulars of such permission.”

                    [emphasis supplied]

                    15. It can thus clearly be seen that this Court directed that no mining activity would be permitted to continue under any temporary working permit or permission which may have been granted.

                    21. The next order of this Court is dated 21st April 2014 in the case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India5. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said order:

                    “49. ……The result is that the order passed by this Court saying that there will be no mining activity within one kilometre safety zone around national park or wildlife sanctuary has to be enforced and there can be no mining activities within this area of one kilometre from the boundaries of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in the State of Goa.”

                    22. The Court has clarified that there shall be no mining activity within one kilometre of the safety zone around National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary and that this has to be enforced. It is also reiterated that there can be no mining activities within this area of one kilometre from the boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in the State of Goa.

                    60. Insofar as the restriction on mining is concerned, we are of the considered view that it has been the consistent view of this Court that the mining activities within an area of one kilometre of the boundary of the Protected Areas will be hazardous for the wildlife. Though in the case of Goa Foundation (supra), the said directions were issued in respect of State of Goa, we find that such directions need to be issued on Pan-India basis.

                    65. We also modify the direction contained in paragraph 56.4 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) and direct that mining within the National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and within an area of one kilometre from the boundary of such National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary shall not be permissible.”

REASONING

11) The Petitioner No.1 has challenged the communication dated 27th March 2019 by which the MoEFCC closed Petitioner No. 1’s proposal for extension of forest clearance to run co-terminus with the mining lease. The principal contention of Petitioner No. 1 is that, the mining lease of Petitioner No. 1 was in existence as of 12th January 2015 when Section 8A was inserted in the MMDR Act 1957. The said contention is principally based on the following two grounds. (i) when Petitioner No. 1 applied for renewal of mining lease on 12th May 1997 under Rule 24A(1) and Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960, Petitioner No. 1 being a captive user was entitled for a renewal of at least 20 years. (ii) the Petitioner No. 1’s renewed mining lease was executed on 25th September 2008, pursuant to the forest clearance dated 1st/3rd October 2001 and valid till 24th September 2018. Further that, perusal of letter dated 23rd October 2017 of MoEFCC would clearly indicate that, in any event application of the Petitioner No. 1 dated 30th March 2010 seeking extension of Forest Clearance granted on 1st/3rd October 2001 was pending as of 12th January 2015. Therefore Petitioner No.1 was entitled to the benefits under Section 8A(5) of the MMDR Act.

12) Perused the entire record. The mining lease dated 21st May 1968 was a lease for captive use i.e. to be used in own industry, for a period of 30 years and valid till 22nd May 1998. Under the lease deed dated 21st May 1968, for renewal of lease it was incumbent on the Petitioner No. 1 to give to the State Government a prior six month notice in writing. The State Government under Rule 24 of the MC Rules, 1960 was entitled to pass an Order in that regard. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 came into force in 1980 and under Section 2 of the FC Act prior approval of the Central Government is a must and is required to be taken for the purposes of de-reservation of the forest and for use of the forest land for any non-forest purpose. On 12th May 1997, Petitioner No. 1 within the required period and under Rule 24A(1) of the MC Rules, 1960 made an application for seeking renewal of mining lease, for an area of 207.20 hectares out of 319.7 hectares. After more than 2 years of the Petitioner No. 1 submitting the renewal application, Government of Maharashtra vide letter dated 23rd July 1999 and 11th October 1999 sought prior approval from the Central Government under Section 2 of the FC Act for renewal of the mining lease and construction of the feeder road. The Central Government and State Government on 10th November 2000, 12th December 2000 and 13th June 2001 granted temporary permission to the Petitioner No. 1 to continue mining operations.

13) On 1st/3rd October 2001, the Central Government while referring to the letter dated 23rd July 1999 and 11th October 1999 of the Government of Maharashtra conveyed its prior approval to the proposal of Petitioner No. 1 submitted by the State Government. This approval was granted in respect of 106.76 hectares of forest land for the renewal of the mining lease and construction of feeder roads. Under the FC Approval, the mining lease was granted for a period of 10 years, on the ground that approximately 80% of the mineral had already been extracted. By letter dated 21st April 2006 MoEFCC, Government of India clarified that, the period of 5 years under the FC approval was to be counted from 3rd October 2001. The Government of India by letter dated 1st March 2007 granted environmental clearance.

14) The first 5 years period ended on 2nd October 2006. On 4th October 2006 the Central Government notified that Petitioner No. 1 would be entitled to carry out mining operations for another period of 5 years i.e. till 2nd October 2011.

15) On 13th February 2008, the Government of Maharashtra granted the first renewal of the mining lease with effect from 22nd May 1998. Thereafter, by letter dated 22nd February 2008 addressed to the Principal Secretary (Industries), Industry and Labour Department, Government of Maharashtra, Petitioner No. 1 requested that the lease period be corrected and extended up to October 2011, in line with the approval granted by the MoEFCC, or, in the alternative, that the lease be renewed for a period of 20 years under Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960.

16) On 30th March 2010, the Petitioner No. 1 made application for extension of FC approval in form ‘B’ under the FC Rule 2003 (“FC approval extension application”). We have noted that, this application was filed within the prescribed time and for an area of 34.43 hectares (out of the area of 106.76 hectares) for which the forest clearance was granted on 1st/3rd October 2001. During the period when the Petitioner No. 1’s extension of the FC approval was pending, that the State Forest Department on 3rd October 2011 took over the possession of the renewed mining lease area and also the entire Bauxite dump lying at the site. This was done without giving any notice to Petitioner No. 1 as is contemplated under the lease deed and the rules. The record would indicate that, Petitioner No. 1 had applied for the renewal of mining lease in accordance with Rule 24A(1) of the MC Rules, 1960. The mining lease granted to the Petitioner No. 1 being for own industry use/captive use, Rule 24B of MC Rules, 1960 was applicable to the Petitioner No. 1.

17) Perusal of Rule 24A of the MC Rules, 1960 would indicate that, the application for renewal of mining lease, is to be made to the State Government in Form- K at least 12 months before the date on which the lease is due to expire. Under Sub-Rule (2) the renewal of mining lease in respect of mineral specified in part (a) and part (b) of the first schedule of the MMDR Act, may be granted by State Government with the previous approval with Central Government. Under Sub-Rule (3) for minerals not specified in the part (a) and (b) of the first schedule of the MMDR Act, the State Government may grant approval of renewal. Proviso to Sub-Rule (3) specifies that, before granting approval for second or subsequent renewal of mining lease the State Government shall seek report from the Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines, indicating as to whether it would in the interest of mineral development to grant the renewal of the mining lease. The Rule further provides that, in case the report from the Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines is not received within a period of 3 months of the communication of the State Government, it would be deemed that, the Indian Bureau of Mines had no adverse comment to offer regarding the grant of renewal of mining lease.

18) Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules, 1960, provides that, if the application for renewal of mining lease is made within time and the same is not disposed of by the State Government before expiry of the lease, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended by the further period till the State Government passes Order thereon. Under Sub-Rule (10) State Government has power to condone delay in an application for renewal of mining lease made after the time limit prescribed in Sub-Rule (1) provided that the application has been made before the expiry of the lease.

19) Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 provide for renewal of mining lease in favour of person using mineral for his own industry and provides that every person who is holding a mining lease for a mineral which is used for his own industry (captive use) shall be entitled for renewal of mining lease for period of not exceeding 20 years unless he applies for lesser period. The explanation to Rule 24B defines own industry to mean an industry of which the lessee is an owner and in which the lessee holds not less than 50% of controlling interest.

20) Perusal of Rules 24A and 24B of MC Rules, 1960 would indicate that, there is procedure prescribed for making an application for renewal of mining lease. The rule envisages the period before which the application of renewal is to be made, the minerals for which the previous approval of the Central Government is to sought. That, in respect of second or subsequent renewal of mining lease the State Government shall seek a report from the Controller General as to whether it would be in the interest of mineral development to grant the lease and if the said report is not received within a period of 3 months, it would be deemed that the Indian Bureau of Mines does not have any adverse comments to offer. It is further a requirement of the rules that, where an application for renewal of a mining lease is made before the expiry of the lease period, the period of the lease shall be deemed to have been extended for a further period until the State Government passes an order on such application. The State Government also has the power to condone the delay in respect of any application of renewal of lease so long as the same is made before the expiry of the lease. Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 provides for renewal in case of mining lease for own industries. A conjoint reading of Rule 24A and 24B of MC Rules, 1960 would indicate that, as far as application for renewal of mining lease by a person using a mineral for his own industry (captive use) is concerned, the application for the renewal should be made at least 12 months before the date on which the lease is due to expire and if made by a person holding a mining lease for using the mineral for his own industry he shall be entitle for renewal of mining lease not exceeding 20 years unless he applies for lesser period. As far as Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 is concerned the same clearly indicates that, in respect of mining lease for an own industry (captive use) the lessee is entitled to a renewal of a period not exceeding 20 years unless he applies for lesser period. In the backdrop of Rule 24A and 24B of MC Rules, 1960 if the case of Petitioner No. 1 is considered, the Petitioner No. 1’s Original Lease dated 21st May 1968 was to expire on 22nd May 1998 and the application by Petitioner No. 1 was made on 12th May 1997 i.e. before the expiry of 12 months and in compliance of Rule 24A(1). Once that application is made under Rule 24A(1) Petitioner No. 1 under Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 being a mining lease for own industry was entitled for renewal of mining lease for a period not exceeding 20 years.

21) In our considered opinion Rule 24B of MC Rules, 1960 is a distinct rule made specifically only for renewal of mining lease for persons using mineral for own industry (captive use). In respect of mining lease for persons other than those using mineral for own industries the provisions of Rule 24A of MC Rules, 1960 would be applicable. Even assuming that the provisions of Rule 24A of MC Rules, 1960 is applicable to the Petitioner No. 1 in its entirety the only harmonious way of reading Rule 24A and 24B of MC Rules, 1960 would be that the Petitioner No. 1 makes an application within time and in case of the first renewal, Petitioner No. 1 would entitle to renewal of mining lease not exceeding 20 years unless he applies for lesser period. Perusal of the application dated 12th May 1997 would indicate that, the Petitioner No. 1 had applied for a period of 30 years. In our considered view, the Petitioner No. 1 could not have applied for period of 30 years. What Rule 24B of MC Rules, 1960 provides is that a mining lease for captive use shall be granted for a period not exceeding 20 years, unless the applicant applies for a lesser period. It is only where the Petitioner No. 1 specifically applies for a period lesser than 20 years that the application may be considered for such lesser period. In the absence of any application by the Petitioner No. 1 seeking a lesser lease period, the Petitioner No. 1 would be entitled to a lease for a period of 20 years under Rule 24B of MC Rules, 1960.

22) In our opinion, Petitioner No. 1 ought to have under Rule 24B of MC Rules, 1960 been granted 20 years lease renewal from 22nd May 1998 and if that interpretation is accepted then the lease period would expire on 21st May 2018. The other possible interpretation is that, after Petitioner No. 1 applied for renewal of mining lease under Rule 24A(1) of MC Rules, 1960 the lease of the Petitioner No. 1 was automatically extended till the State Government passed an Order. In the present case though the FC Approval was granted on 1st/3rd October 2001, the State Government issued an Order only on 13th February 2008 and then the lease deed executed on 25th September 2008. From the record, we find that, the said delay/time gap from 13th February 2008 till 25th September 2008 or any other period cannot be attributed to the Petitioner No. 1. The Petitioner No.1 cannot be penalized for no fault of the Petitioner No. 1. The Respondents have not been able to point out any default on the part of the Petitioner No. 1 or delay in applying for the required approvals and permissions.

23) By the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation Amendment Act, 2015) Section 8A was inserted in the MMDR Act, 1957 with effect from 12th January 2015. Section 8A deals with the period of grant of mining lease for minerals other than Coal, Lignite and Atomic Minerals. Section 8 provide for period for which the mining lease may be granted or renewed for mineral specified in part (a) of the schedule.

24) In respect of Bauxite, the mineral with which we are concerned in the present case, Section 8A would be applicable as Bauxite is a mineral which is not specified in part (a) and part (b) of the first schedule of the MMDR Act, 1957. Under Section 8A(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Sections 2, 3 and 4 the period of lease granted before the date of commencement of the MMDR Act, 1957 where mineral is used for captive purpose shall be extended and be deemed to have extended upto a period ending on 31st March 2030 with an effect from the date of expiry of the period of renewal last made or till completion of renewal period, if any, or for a period of 50 years from the date of grant of such lease whichever is later.

25) Under Section 8A(9) of the MMDR Act, 1957 it is provided that, the provisions of the section shall not apply to a mining lease granted before the date of the commencement of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 for which renewal has been rejected, determined or lapsed.

26) The main contention of Respondent No. 1 and the State Government is that, the benefit of Section 8A of the MMDR Act, 1957 cannot be extended to the Petitioner No.1 as the mining lease of the Petitioner No.1 had lapsed on 22nd May 2008. The said contention is advanced on the ground that, the lease deed dated 21st May 1968 was for a period of 30 years and valid till 22nd May 1998 and that the lease deed provides that, the extension of lease would have to be taken from 22nd May 1998. The case of Respondent No.1 is that, when the Forest Clearance was granted on 1st`/3rd October 2001 for a period of 10 years, on the basis of which the State Government could have renewed the lease then in that event the renewal ought to date back or be with effect from 22nd May 1998 for period of 10 years and would have expired on 21st May 2008. It was further argued on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that, the execution of the Mining Lease dated 25th September 2008 by the State Government pursuant to the Order dated 13th February 2008 is totally misconceived and untenable. That, the extension of mining under the lease deed can only be from the date of expiry of Original Lease Deed and under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 once a lease deed expires by efflux of time there is no lease deed in existence. In our opinion there cannot be a period of interregnum where the mining activity is not covered under the lease deed or the approval under Section 2 of the FC Act. In the present case, Petitioner No. 1 has made all the required applications. The submissions made by learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 is made without considering the provisions of Rule 24A and 24B in its entirety. As noted above Rule 24A of MC Rules, 1960 provides the procedure of renewal of mining lease. Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 24A provides that once application is made before the expiry of the lease, the period of that lease shall be deemed to have extended by further period till the State Government passes an order thereon. Further, Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 provides that in case of captive use as in the case of the Petitioner No. 1 the lessee shall be entitled for mining lease for a period not exceeding 20 years. Along with Rules 24A and 24B it would also be necessary to refer to Rule 31 of the MC Rules, 1960. Most pertinent to note that, the State Government has not taken any steps to cancel the said lease deeds executed with the Petitioner No. 1.

27) Perusal of Rule 31(2) of the MC Rules, 1960 provides that, the date of commencement of mining lease granted shall be date of which duly executed deed is registered under Sub-Rule (1). Rule 31(2) does not permit the commencement of mining lease which from date anterior to date of execution. A useful reference in this regard be made to judgment in the case of Northern India Lime Marketing Association v. State of U.P., reported in 1983 SCC OnLine All 164 held that: -

                    “10. Where, as in the instant case, the term of the lease is computed from a date anterior to the date of the execution thereof that does not in any manner defeat the object of the Act. The position might vary where the commencement of the term is postponed indefinitely or to some future date. R. 31(2) is designed, in our opinion, to provide against such an eventuality. Moreover, the Rules do not provide, expressly or impliedly, that a lease in which the term commences from a date preceding the execution thereof is rendered void or unenforceable on that account. That also reflects against the alleged mandatory character of Rule 31(2).”

                    27.1) Considering the provisions of Rule 31(2) of MC Rules, 1960, the argument advanced on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that, Rule 31(2) only deals with mining lease which is executed for the first time, in our opinion, on a bare perusal of Rule 31(2) would not be sustainable.

28) In our opinion on a conjoint reading of Rule 24A, 24B and 31(2)of the MC Rules, 1960 it would be clear that, once the Petitioner No. 1 had applied for renewal under 24A(1) of the MC Rules, 1960, the Petitioner No. 1 being Captive User under Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 would be entitled for a renewal of mining lease for a period not exceeding 20 years as Petitioner No. 1 has admittedly not applied for lesser period. Considering the facts of the present case in our opinion the provisions of Rule 24B of MC Rules, 1960 would be applicable to Petitioner No. 1 and would make the Petitioner No. 1 eligible for a mining lease for a period of 20 years, commencing from 22nd May 1998 and ending on 21st May 2018. We have also noted that, the learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1, during the arguments has categorically submitted and conceded to the fact that, the Petitioner No. 1’s case is covered in Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960. The learned AGP, has on instructions informed this Court that no steps have been taken to cancel the lease deed dated 25th September 2008 and 5th January 2018. In such a case, the provisions of Section 8A(5) would be applicable to the Petitioner, and it would have to be construed that the Petitioner No. 1’s lease stood extended until 31st March 2030.

29) We have also noted the MoEFCC directions dated 1st April 2015 issued to Principal Secretary Forest of all the States and Union Territories the relevant portion of which reads as under: -

                    “…..

                    3. After careful examination of the matter I am directed to say that in case of existing mining leases in respect of minerals specified in sub-section (1) of section 8A of the MMDR Act, 1957, as inserted by the Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015, period of validity of approvals accorded under Section 2 of the FC Act shall be extended, and shall be deemed to have been extended upto a period co- terminus with the period of mining lease in accordance with the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957, as amended, subject to the following conditions..

                    (i) The State Government shall, within a period of two years from date of issue of this letter, realise from the user agency, Net Present Value ('NPV') of the forest land for which period of validity if approval under the FC Act has been extended, in case the same has not already been realised, and transfer the same to the ad-hoc Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA).

                    (ii) In case NPV of forest land for which period of validity if approval under the FC Act has been extended by this letter has not already been realised and the State Government fails to realise the same from the user agency within a period of two years from the date of issue of this letter, approval accorded under the FCA Act for such forest land shall be kept in abeyance and shall be deemed to have been kept in abeyance, till such time, the NPV of such forest land is realised by the State Government.

                    (iii) Provisions of this letter, notwithstanding anything contained therein, shall not apply to forest land falling in a mining lease for which renewal has been rejected, or which has been determined or lapsed before the issue of this letter.”

30) We have also noted the direction dated 1st May 2015 issued by the MoEFCC which further elaborated and clarified the direction dated 1st April 2018 read as under: -

                    “…..

                    2. It has been observed that several proposals seeking prior approval of Central Government under the FC Act for renewal in accordance with the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957 prior to its amendment by promulgation of the above-mentioned Ordinance, of mining leases, to which provisions the afore-mentioned guidelines, extends, are presently under various stages of examination. In the Central and State Governments. Such proposals are now not required to be further processed in case prior approval of Central Government under the FC Act for the entire forest land indicated in such proposals has already been obtained during the original lease period or previous renewal(s) the mining lease.

                    3. Accordingly, after careful examination of this matter, I am directed to say as below:

                    (i) Proposals seeking prior approval of Central Government under the FC Act for renewal in accordance with the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957 prior to its amendment by promulgation of the above-mentioned Ordinance, of mining leases, to which provisions of the afore-mentioned guidelines, extends, shall be closed in case prior approval of Central Government under the FC Art for the entire forest land indicated in such proposal has already been obtained during the original lease period or previous renewal(s) of the mining lease"

                    …………..

31) Perusal of the said directions would indicate that, in cases where forest clearance had already been obtained during the subsistence of the original mining lease, pending proposals seeking the prior approval of the Central Government for renewal of the mining lease under the FC Act were not required to be processed further and were accordingly closed. In such cases, the forest clearance was deemed to have been extended in accordance with the directions issued on 1st April 2015. In short, as per the directions issued by the MoEFCC, forest clearances pertaining to mining leases covered under Section 8A of the MMDR Act were deemed to have been extended for a period co-terminus with the mining lease.

32) Perusal of the record would indicate that, the State Forest Department have given recommendations favoring the Petitioner No. 1 for extension of the forest clearance which was previously granted to the Petitioner No. 1. The impugned Order fails to consider the said recommendations in their entirety. The said recommendations are primarily based on the aforesaid directions of the MoEFCC. Perusal of the recommendation dated 9th March 2016 of the Deputy Forest Conservator would indicate that, the recommendation was in favour of the activation of the mining project. The recommendation is based on MoEFCC direction dated 1st April 2015. It is observed that for the existing Mining Lease the period of validity of approval under the FC Act shall be extended to period co-terminus with the Mining Lease.

33) We have noted that, from the stand point of the environment and maintaining ecological balance the recommendation observes that, the area is already broken due to Bauxite mining operation and that the area was covered under a Forest Clearance. The recommendation proceeded on the basis that, the forest area is diverted for mining operation which have been carried out till 2nd October 2011. It is observed in the recommendation that, the plateau is being used by wild animals during rainy season and that the Petitioner No. 1 has agreed to provide horizontal holes in the wall area for cross ventilation so that wind flow will remain in the area making it useful for wild animals during the rainy season. According to Deputy Forest Conservator, this was a good mitigating measure to maintain natural condition after closure of the mine and that it would be useful for the wild life.

                    33.1) It is further observed in the recommendation that, Langoors were visiting the site and there were droppings of wild pig, Porcupine, Beer, Gaur, Sambar and Leopard. The recommendation specifically observes that, although the carrying out of mining operations would result in temporary disturbance to wildlife, appropriate mitigating measures should be undertaken, including the development of meadows to restore the area as a suitable wildlife habitat. It was further recommended that, the area be developed as a meadow rather than through afforestation with trees, so as to maintain adequate wind flow after closure of the mine. It is specifically and pertinently observed that, accessible and escape slopes should be provided by Petitioner No. 1 along the ponds to enable wildlife to enter and exit the water bodies safely.

                    33.2) The recommendations further made are that, wildlife occupancy studies were required to be continued for a further period of two years after closure of the mine, and various studies, including camera-trap and occupancy studies, were required to be conducted through independent agencies. It is specifically observed that, as the area is diverted for mining purposes and Bauxite mining operations were continued till 2nd October 2011 no fresh tree cutting is involved. The report also makes a mention that, the area has been occupied by overburden/Bauxite dump. It is specifically stated that, the mining lease allotted to Petitioner No. 1 is a captive source of Bauxite for its alumina refinery located at Belagav (in Karnataka State). The recommendations of the Inspecting Officer were that, in view of the legislative development, the office was of the view that, the forest clearance accorded on 3rd October 2001 was now deemed to have been extended up to validity of mining lease. In our considered view the said recommendations ought to have been considered and dealt with by their Impugned Order.

34) The Additional Chief Forest Conservator and Nodal Officer by letter dated 18th May 2016 addressed to the Secretary (Forest), Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra after referring to the report dated 9th March 2016 and the letter dated 22nd March 2016 and the Central Government guidelines dated 1st April 2015 and 1st May 2015 requested the Government of Maharashtra to give directions.

35) The Principal Secretary (Forest) Government of Maharashtra vide its letter dated 7th February 2017 addressed to the Secretary to Government of India, MoEFCC recommended the proposal for extension of mining lease in favour of the Petitioner No. 1 for 106.76 hectares forest land till 24th September 2018. The said recommendation was inter alia based on the following

                    “………….

                    9. As per request of the user agency, principal chief conservator of forest (HoFF) Maharashtra State, Nagpur has recommended the proposal subject to the following conditions: -

                    i) In accordance with the Government of India’s guidelines dt. 01/04/2015 dt. 01/05/2015 before gets permission it will be mandatory for user agency to defray the NPV:

                    ii) The permission to extend the lease is subject to a decision of the Writ Petition No. 4125/2015 pending before the Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai.

                    iii) All other terms and condition accept condition no. ‘k’ and ‘d’ of the final permission of the proposal from Government of India letter dated 03/10/2001 will be mandatory.

                    iv) The permission for diversion of the forest land for non-forest purpose under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 will be co-terminus with the valid period of the mining lease.

                    v) The User Agency has now requested diversion of only 30.64 ha. Forest land under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in conformity with the diversion of forest land of 106.76 ha. In the year 2001. However, as per the directions of Government of India dtd. 01/04/2015, the final permission granted to the original proposal will be co-terminus with the period of mining lease i.e. till 24/09/2018, therefore, it will not be proper to accept request of the User Agency to charge NPV only for 30.64 ha. As per the directions of the Government of India, the User Agency will deposit the amount of Net Present Value for 106.76 ha. Forest area which is granted earlier.

                    10. The opinion of the Law and Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra was sought in the matter. The operative part of the opinion is as under: -

                    “In view of the fact that the lease in the present matter has been renewed in 2008 for the period of 10 years i.e. till 2018, the Forest Clearance u/s 2 of the FC Act is required to be extended and shall be deemed to have been extended upto a period co-terminus with the period of mining lease in accordance with the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended in 2015 and the subsequent directives issued by the Government of India.”

                    11. In the circumstances explained in above paragraphs and enclosures, the State Government recommended the proposal for extension of mining lease on 106.76 ha. Forest land till 24/09/2018 for approval. The same may please be obtained and communicated to this Government at earliest.”

                    35.1) Perusal of the letter dated 7th February 2017, would also indicate that as of 7th February 2017, the application of the Petitioner No. 1 dated 30th March 2010 for extension of FC Approval was pending and under consideration. We are of the opinion that, at least for the purpose of Section 8A(9) of the MMDR Act 1957, the proposal had not lapsed nor been rejected/determined. Therefore the provisions of Section 8A(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 would also be applicable to the Petitioner No. 1.

36) On 23rd October 2017 the Government of India, MoEFCC addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and while referring to letter dated 7th February 2017 found that, the State Government did not furnish the proposal for further renewal of the forest clearance prior to one year of its expiry as per the guidelines. It was further observed that, as per the guideline dated 1st April 2015 the Government of Maharashtra was to realize NPV from the Petitioner No.1 within the prescribed period which was not done. The MoEFCC in view of the said facts requested the Government of Maharashtra to obtain the proposal from the Petitioner No.1 in the prescribed form-B as per the guidelines issued under the FC Act and forward the same with a convincing justification for non-submission of proposal for renewal in time to the ministry.

37) Perusal of the letter dated 23rd October 2017 makes it clear that, Petitioner No.1 had submitted its proposal in time, the Forest Department of Government of Maharashtra including the Principal Secretary (Forest), Government of Maharashtra had recommended the extension of the Petitioner No. 1’s forest clearance. The letter dated 23rd October 2017 would clearly indicate that, the delay, if any, was at the instance of Government of Maharashtra and further that as of 23rd October 2017 the Petitioner No. 1’s application dated 30th March 2010 seeking extension of forest clearance dated 30th March 2010 was pending. We note that the letter dated 23rd October 2017 makes it clear that the application of Petitioner No. 1 was neither rejected nor disposed of, nor had it lapsed; rather, it remained pending for consideration. The directions issued by the MoEFCC vide letters dated 1st April 2015 and 1st May 2015 were, therefore, applicable to Petitioner No. 1. Consequently, Petitioner No. 1 would not be governed by, or be adversely affected by, the provisions of Section 8A(9) of the MMDR Act, 1957. Further it is pertinent to note that, the State Government had executed the lease deed on 25th September 2008 for a period of 10 years ending in the year 2018. Further pursuant to the Order dated 10th November 2017 the lease deed was executed on 5th January 2018 and valid till 31st March 2030. We have also noted that, the State Government has not taken any steps to cancel the said lease deeds or challenge the same in any manner whatsoever.

38) By letter dated 15th February 2019 the Additional Principal Chief Conservator Forest and Nodal Officer addressed letter to the Principal Secretary (Forest), Revenue and Forest Department. It is based on this letter that, the Order dated 27th March 2019 was passed closing the proposal of Petitioner No. 1 for extension of validity of forest clearance to make it co-terminus with the provision of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015. In our opinion it would necessary to reproduce the contents of the said letter. The letter reads thus: -

                    “1. As per the reference no. 1, the State Government recommended the proposal to the Central Government for extension of mining lease on 106.76 ha. forest land till 24/09/2018 for approval.

                    2. Thereafter, as desired by the State Government vide letter no. FLD-2316/CR187/F-10 dated 14/03/2017, the comments of this office have already been submitted vide reference 2.

                    3. In respect of the reference no.1 of the State Government, the Central Government, vide their reference 3 has made following observations.

                    As far as guidelines dated 01/04/2015 is concerned, the State Government has to realize NPV from the user agency within a prescribed period. But in the instant case, the NPV is yet to be realized.

                    In view of above, the State Government is requested to obtain the proposal from the project proponent in the prescribed Form B as per extant guidelines issued under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and to forward the same with convincing justification for non-submission of the proposal for renewal in time to this Ministry for consideration. The present status of case filed by the project proponent in Hon'ble Court may also be intimated.

                    4. Thereafter vide reference no.4, the Central Government has again reminded to submit compliance with respect to the queries as stated above and has further directed as follows-

                    Before any further action is taken on the proposal by this ministry the State Government is requested to furnish their response on ministry's letter dated 23/10/2017 along with the comments of the State Government under the representation made by the User Agency vide their letter dated 01/11/2018.

                    5. As per reference no.5 and 6, it has been communicated that meeting in the subject matter is scheduled on 21/02/2019 at New Delhi and Nodal Officer has been directed to attend the said meeting.

                    6. This office has gone through the abovementioned representation dated 01/11/2018 from the User Agency and also referred the relevant case papers. Before offering comments, it would be appropriate to highlight the background of the matter for better appreciation of the case.

                    BACKGROUND

                    6.1. The User Agency was granted a mining lease by the State Government vide letter dated 10/02/1968in respect of bauxite mining from an area of about 319.70 ha. for a period of 30 years from 1968 to 1998. It was executed for a period of 21/05/1968 to 22/05/1998.

                    6.2. Thereafter the User Agency submitted the proposal under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 210.99 ha forest land for bauxite mining for a period of 20 years. In between, the User Agency was granted approval for temporary working permission from time to time. First such permission was granted by the Central Government vide its letter dated 10/11/2000.

                    6.3. The Central Government vide letter dated 03/10/2001 conveyed its formal approval in respect of 106.76 ha. forest land for renewal of Kasarsada mining lease and construction of feeder road in favour of M/s INDAL. The relevant conditions under the said approval were as under.

                    Condition 2(c): The renewal of mining lease would be for a period of 10 years only, as about 80% of mineral has already been mined. This period shall be with effect from 10/11/2000 i.e. date of grant of first temporary working permission.

                    Condition 2(d): - This permission of 10 years shall be further subject to compliance of conditions at the end of five years. The ministry will monitor the mining activities and compliance of conditions at the end of five years. If operations are not in compliance after five years, mining cannot continue in second five years.

                    A plain reading of said conditions would reveal that, though the forest clearance was sought for 20 years, the Central Government curtailed to 10 years on the grounds that about 80% of the mineral had already been mined at the time of the said approval.

                    6.4. The ministry vide letter dated 04/10/2006, after careful consideration of the monitoring report, conveyed its approval for allowing mining for another five years in accordance to the condition no.2 (d) of the above stated formal approval.

                    6.5. Thus, from the above stated final approval dated 03/02/2001 of the Central Government, it is evident that the forest clearance was valid up to 9/11/2010 and not up to 2/10/2011, as has been indicated in the correspondences made so far. Thereafter the User Agency was sanctioned the renewal of mining lease vide order dated 13/02/2008-06 and corrigendum dated 22/05/2008 issued by Industries, Energies and Labour Department in Government of Maharashtra in respect of an area of 106.76 ha. It may be pointed out that the order dated 13/02/2008 clearly mentions that: the renewal of mining lease was for a period of 10 years from the date 22/05/1998, meaning thereby that the said renewal stood expired on 21/05/2008, by the efflux of time.

                    6.6. As stated above the Forest Clearance granted by the Central Government was to expire on 02/10/2011 (09/11/20.0 as per condition no 2(c)), the User Agency submitted a proposal for forest clearance to the DCF Kolhapur for seeking further renewal.

                    6.7. In the meantime, the User Agency submitted proposal for transport of already mined Bauxite material lying in forest area at Kasarsada Bauxite Mine. However, this office vide letter dated 7/4/2012 recommended the State Government to reject the request of the User Agency on the grounds that the same shall be detrimental to the environment. Based on the said recommendations, the State Government vide letter dated 09/10/2012 rejected the request of the User Agency to lift and transport the mined material.

                    6.8. Aggrieved by the above stated decision of the State Government, the User Agency preferred an Appeal before Hon'ble National Green Tribunal. The said Appeal came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide their order dated 28/02/2013.

                    6.9. The User Agency preferred an Appeal against the above said order of the National Green Tribunal before Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, subsequently it sought the permission of Supreme Court to withdraw the said Appeal with liberty to approach the appropriate Court for appropriate relief. Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the said Appeal as withdrawn with liberty to the User Agency to approach the L appropriate Court for appropriate relief. The User Agency has filed a Writ Petition No.4125/2015 before Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The matter is still sub-judice.

                    6.10. In the meantime, an Ordinance was issued for amending certain provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the MMDR Act). It is pertinent to mention that the said Ordinance has now culminated into the MMDR (Amendment) Act, 2015, which has come into force w.e.f. 12/01/2015. The relevant provisions under the newly inserted section 8-A are reproduced as under.

                    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 (10 of 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 (10 of 2015) shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of five 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. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section: (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 (10 of 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 31 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) …………….

                    (7) …………….

                    (8) …………….

                    (9) The provisions of this section, notwithstanding anything contained therein shall not apply to a mining lease granted before the date of commencement of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 2015, for which renewal has been rejected, or which has been determined, or lapsed.

                    6.11. Following the above said amendments made in the MMDR Act (through Ordinance), the Ministry of Environment and Forest & Climate Change issued two guidelines dated 1 April, 2015 and 1" May, 2015, the relevant text of the same are reproduced as under.

                    Guidelines dated 1" April, 2015

                    In case of existing mining leases in respect of minerals specified in sub-section (1) of section 8A of the MMDR Act, 1957, as inserted by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015. period of validity of approvals accorded under Section-2 of the FC Act shall be extended, and shall he deemed to have been extended upto a period co-terminus with the period of mining lease in accordance with the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957, as amended, subject to the following conditions:

                    (i) The State Government shall, within a period of two years from the date of issue of this letter, realize from the user agency, Net Present Value (NPV) of the forest land for which period of validity of approval under the FC Act has been extended, in case the same has not already been realized, and transfer the same to the ad-hod Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA).

                    (ii) In case NPV of forest land for which period of validity of approval under the FC Act has been extended by this letter has not already been realised and the State Government fails to realize the same from the user agency within a period of two years from the date of issue of this letter, approval accorded under the FC Act for such forest land shall be kept in abeyance, and shall be deemed to have been kept in abeyance, till such time, the NIV of such forest land is realised by the State Government.

                    (iii) Provisions of this, notwithstanding anything contained therein, shall not apply to forest land falling in a mining lease for which renewal has been rejected, or which has been determined or lapsed before the issue of this Letter.

                    Guidelines dated 1" May, 2015

                    (1) Proposals seeking prior approval of Central Government under the FC Act for renewal, in accordance with the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957 prior to its amendment by promulgation of the afore-mentioned Ordinance, of mining leases to which provisions of the afore-mentioned guidelines dated 1" April, 2015 extends, shall be closed, in case prior approval of Central Government under the FC Act for the entire forest land indicated in such proposal has already been obtained during the original lease period or previous renewal(s) of the mining lease.

                    (ii) However, in case during the validity of the original lease or previous renewal prior approval of Central Government under the FC Act for a part of the forest land indicated in such proposal has only been obtained, such proposals shall be processed for such reduced area of forest land for which approval under the FC Act during the original lease period or previous renewal(s) has not been obtained.

                    6.12. User Agency has now argued that in light of section 8 A of the MMDR (Amendment) Act, 2015 and the above stated guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest & Climate Change, the validity of approval granted by the Central Government vide letter dated 3/10/2001, which under normal circumstances stood expired on 2/10/2011 (9/11/2010) stands extended and shall be deemed to have been extended upto a period co-terminus with the period of mining lease i.e. upto 31/03/2030.

                    6.13. In support of its claim, the User Agency has furnished and Order dated 10/11/2017 issued by the Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining, Government 1 of Maharashtra, which mentions the extension for the period 21/05/2018 to 31/03/2030 (Probably on the assumption that the renewal granted vide order dated 13/02/2008 was valid till 21/05/2018). The User Agency has also furnished the copy of execution of the renewed lease for the period 21/05/2018 to 31/03/2030. The User Agency has further argued that in light of guidelines dated 1" May 2015 issued by the ministry, the proposals seeking prior approval of Central Government under the FC Act for renewal stands closed and therefore there is no need of seeking fresh approval of renewal of FC clearance.

                    7. In light of the fact mentioned above the comments of this office are as under.

                    7.1. At the outset, it may be pointed out that the order of renewal of mining lease dated 13/02/2008, as relied upon by the User Agency clearly mentions the renewal period as "period of 10 years from the date 22/05/1998" in respect of 207.20 ha. area. Subsequently vide Corrigendum dated 22/05/2008, the said area was amended to the extent of 106.76 ha. It is worth to mention at this point that as per the above said documents, the mining lease existed till 21/05/2008 and thereafter it stood lapsed by virtue of efflux of time.

                    7.2. The User Agency has relied on sub-section 5 of section 8 A of the MMDR (Amendment) Act, 2015. However, sub-section (9) of the said section stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in section SA, the provisions of that section shall not apply to a mining lease for which the renewal has been lapsed. Thus, the amended provisions of the MMDR Act are in no way applicable in the present case for the simple reason the mining lease granted vide order dated 13/02/2008, stood lapsed on 21/05/2008. Needless to mention that the Ministry of Environment and Forest & Climate Change guidelines dated 21/04/2015 also mention in clear term that the provisions contained therein shall not be applicable to forest land falling is a mining lease which stood lapsed before the issue of such guidelines.

                    7.3. It is not clear that despite the mention of 10 years period from the date of 22/05/1998 in the original order of renewal, how the mining lease executed on 25/09/1998 is claimed by the User Agency to have been valid up to 24/09/2018. It is pertinent to mention that the copy of the mining lease executed on 05/01/2018 in accordance to the amended Act, clearly shows the period from 21/05/2018 to 21/05/2030. The said period is absolute consonance with the period shown in the order dated 10/11/2017 issued by the Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining. Contrary to that, the period specified in the execution deed dated 25/09/2008 is not at all in conformity with the period mentioned in the order dated 13/02/2008. Thus, the claim of User Agency that the renewal of mining lease granted vide Government of Maharashtra order dated 13/02/2008 was legal and valid at the time of commencement MMDR (Amendment) Act, 2015 appears to be absolutely misleading. In fact, it stood lapsed on 21/05/2008 itself.

                    7.4. Coming to the argument of the User Agency that in light of the guidelines dated 1 April 2015 and 1 May 2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest & Climate Change allow the extension of FC clearance co-terminus with the period allowable under the MMDR Act, it is reiterated that the said guidelines are not applicable for mining leases which stood lapsed before the issuance of guidelines. It is further submitted that permitting diversion of forest land under FC Act is the matter of absolute discretion of the State Government. The role of the Central Government is limited to the extent that if at all, the State Government intends to divert forest land, it shall submit the proposal to the Central Government which shall decide as to whether or not the prior approval sought by the State Government is to be granted. This office, on various occasions has taken a clear stand that allowing the mining and allied activities any further in the said area shall bound to result in deterioration of environment and forests. Thereafter some stand has been taken by the State Government in the Appeal no.64/12 filed by the User Agency before Hon'ble National Green Tribunal. The State Government has further reiterated the same stand before Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition 125/15 tiled by the User Agency, Thus, it may be seen that the authorities in Forest Department as well as the State Government are in no way inclined to divert forest land in question beyond the period granted in the FC clearance dated 03/10/2001.

                    7.5. The guidelines dated 1 April 2015 and 1" May 2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment end Forest & Climate Change are meant to facilitate the cases of mining for the further extended period in accordance with the provisions contained in the MMDR Act. only when State Government is inclined to divert the forest land for mining purposes. By no stretch of imagination, the said guidelines put the State Government under any legal compulsion to allow diversion of forest land for mining purposes against its wishes. This has also been clarified by the Apex Court (9 SCC 753) in State of Kerala and others Vs. Sunil Kumar and others (2006), which has been cited by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal in their judgment dated 28/02/2013. The same is reproduced as under-

                    The question of approval arises only when the State Government makes a request for such approval in respect of cases falling under the enumerated categories in Section 3. A bare perusal of Section of the Act makes the position clear that it has no application when the State Government does not intend to do any of the enumerated acts. The section starts with a nonobstante clause. It deals with restriction on dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. It provides in positive terms that no order in respect of the enumerated actions can be made except with prior approval of the Central Government. It does not even remotely suggest that even when the State Government does not want to take action it shall yet to be required to seek prior approval.

                    7.6. In the present case, as stated above, the renewal of mining lease granted vide order dated 13/02/2008 stood lapsed on 21/05/2008. Even if the argument of the User Agency is conceded that the said mining lease was valid till 24/09/2018, it is submitted that order dated 13/02/2008 clearly stipulates that the lessee should submit before execution of mining lease, the necessary clearance certificate from the competent authority wherever necessary under the relevant acts/rules including the FC Act 1980 and Environment Protection Act, 1986, Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994 and its subsequent amendments. Needless to mention that the forest clearance was valid upto only 02/10/2011 (09/11/2010) and in absence of further fresh FC clearance thereafter, the renewal lease relied upon by the User Agency stood lapsed w.e.f. 03/10/2011. Thus, by virtue of sub-section 9 of section 8A of MMDR (Amendment) Act, 2015, the question of deemed extension to the mining lease does not arise at all. Interestingly, the issue of renewal order dated 13/02/2008. and its validity period and other relevant facts have conveniently not mentioned by the User Agency in the chronology of events annexed in their representation.

                    7.7. Moreso, the draft Notification in respect of Eco Sensitive Area in Western Ghat issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest & Climate Change on 03/10/2018, the following provision has been mentioned in respect of mining. There shall be complete ban on mining query and sand mining in ecological sensitive area and all existing mines shall be phased out within 5 years from the date of issue of final Notification or on the expiry of existing mining lease whichever is earlier.

                    The area in question is included in the said notification, which makes clear in absolute term that the said area comprises of fragile eco-system. For the said reason, it would not be prudent to allow the further mining activities therein. It is worth to mention that the Forest Clearance granted vide Government of India letter dated 3/10/2001, itself mentions that about 80% of the mineral had already been mined at the time of the said clearance. Thereafter the mining operation were permitted for further 10 years. Now permitting further mining in the said area which is included in the Eco Sensitive Area, would amount to mindless exploitation of resources from an ecologically fragile area.

                    8. To summarize the matter -

                    8.1. Section 8-A (5) of the MMDR Amendment Act 20'5 is not applicable in the present case as it is hit by sub-section (9) because the mining lease relied upon by the User Agency stood lapsed on 21/05/2008 itself.

                    8.2. For the reason stated above, the guidelines dated 1/4/2015 relied upon by the User Agency are also not applicable.

                    8.3. Government of India may be requested to make available the copy of its reply filed before Hon'ble High Court as Respondent NO.7 in Writ Petition No.4125/2015.

                    8.4. As the Forest Conservation clearance dated 3/10/2001 clearly states that about 80% of the area had already mined at that point only, it would not be appropriate to consider the request of the User Agency for allowing further mining.

                    8.5. Taking into consideration the provision in Draft Eco-Sensitive Area Notification, allowing any further mining will amount to wanton destruction of fragile eco-system.

                    8.6. The State Government is under no legal compulsion to divert forest land at the cost of damage to the forests and environment.

                    8.7. As an abundant precaution the concerned Authorities may also be advised to review the order dated 10/11/2017 extending the mining lease from 21/05/2018 to 31/03/2030.

9. The comments may kindly be submitted to the Government of India.”

39) Based on the aforesaid letter the Government of India vide Order dated 27th March 2019 closed the Petitioner No.1’s proposal for extension of validity of forest clearance to make it co-terminus with the provisions of MMDR Amendment Act, 2015.

40) In our opinion, it is apparent that the Order dated 27th March 2019 is substantially based on the report dated 15th February 2019 which is referred to in the letter dated 20th February 2019. The report dated 15th February 2019 which is relied upon only refers to the recommendations to the Principal Secretary (Forest), Government of Maharashtra. Surprisingly the recommendation of Deputy Forest Conservator dated 9th March 2016, letter dated 22nd March 2016 of the Chief Conservator of Forest and the report dated 18th May 2016 have not been referred or considered. We have noted that, the letter dated 15th February 2019 of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator Forest and Nodal Officer proceeds on an erroneous presumption that the forest department and the State Government is not inclined to divert forest land beyond the period granted in the FC Approval dated 3rd October 2001. The impugned Order dated 27th March 2019, thus proceeds on a wrong assumption and does not consider the various favourable recommendations.

41) It would also be pertinent to note here that, the forest clearance was granted for a period of 10 years on the basis and for the reason that, 80% of the mining was already undertaken. The Petitioner No. 1’s mining lease was admittedly for captive purposes/own industry purpose. The application by the Petitioner for the renewal of its mining lease was at all times made within the time limits prescribed under the Rule 24A of the MC Rules, 1960. In our view, the Petitioner No. 1 was entitled to an extension of mining lease under Rule 24B for a period of 20 years. The said position and interpretation of Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/Union of India. In fact, during the arguments, it was the specific case of Respondent No. 1 that, the Petitioner No. 1’s mining lease was for captive use/own industry purposes and was covered only under Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960. We are of the opinion that, when the direction of the MoEFCC dated 1st April 2015 and 1st May 2015 are considered along with the extension application for forest clearance dated 30th March 2010 for 34.43 hectare area out of 106.76 hectare area and read along with Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 it would be clear that, the Petitioner’s mining lease was ought to have been granted for a period of 20 years from 22nd May 1998.

42) A perusal of the letter dated 23rd October 2017 would make it clear that, the proposal of the Petitioner was returned to the State Government as it was found that, the State Government did not furnish the proposal within time and as per guideline dated 1st April 2015. The State Government had not realise NPV from Petitioner No.1. In respect of the realization of NPV it would necessary to refer to direction 1st April 2015 issued by the MoEFCC. Under the said direction it was upon the State Government within a period of 2 years to realise the NPV, from the Petitioner No. 1. To realize the NPV the concerned authority under Rule 8(1)(b) of the Forest Conservation Rules, 2003 is required to prepare a demand note and communicate the same to the Petitioner No. 1. The record indicates that, though Petitioner No.1 had on two occasions written to the MoEFCC by letters dated 10th October 2017 and 10th May 2018 requesting for realization of the NPV, the State Government has not raised any such demand note. Perusal of the said letter would indicate that the Petitioner at all time being ready and willing to deposit the NPV. Record indicates that, it was only after impugned Order dated 27th March 2019 was passed that on 9th April 2019 the Chief Conservator Forest directed Petitioner No.1 to deposit the NPV in compliance of MoEFCC directions dated 1st April 2015. Perusal of the said letter indicates that, even vide the said demand the State Government failed to quantify the amount. This would indicate that, the Petitioner No. 1 was at all time following up with the concerned Authority for the payment of the NPV. We have also noted that, the State Government has taken no steps to challenge or cancel the lease deed as executed by and between the State Government and Petitioner No.1. Further, even after the Impugned Order dated 27th March 2019 a demand of NPV was made vide letter dated 9th April 2019.

43) As regards the issue of maintainability of this Writ Petition, it is the contention of Respondent No.1 that, in view of Section 14 and 16 of the NGT Act this Court would lack jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Section 14 of the NGT Act reads as under: -

                    “14. Tribunal to settle disputes. — (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.

                    (2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon.

                    (3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose:

                    Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”

44) Section 16 of the NGT Act reads as under: -

                    “16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction. —Any person aggrieved by, —(a) an order or decision, made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the appellate authority under section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974);

                    (b) an order passed, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the State Government under section 29 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974);

                    (c) directions issued, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by a Board, under section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974);

                    (d) an order or decision made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the appellate authority under section 13 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (36 of 1977); 11

                    (e) an order or decision made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the State Government or other authority under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980);

                    (f) an order or decision, made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the Appellate Authority under section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981);

                    (g) any direction issued, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, under section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986);

                    (h) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986);

                    (i) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, refusing to grant environmental clearance for carrying out any activity or operation or process under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986);

                    (j) any determination of benefit sharing or order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the National Biodiversity Authority or a State Biodiversity Board under the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (18 of 2003), may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal:

                    Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed under this section within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”

45) It is the contention of the Petitioner No. 1 that, no objection in respect of maintainability was raised by Respondent No.1 in its reply. In the present petition we find that the issues are regarding the closure of the Petitioner’s application dated 30th March 2010 seeking extension of forest clearance. The application dated 30th March 2010 has been closed after a period of 9 years by a non-speaking Order and without following the principles of Natural Justice. We find that the Impugned Order is passed in the face of favourable recommendation by the Government of Maharashtra and without considering all the said recommendations in their totality. There is no application of mind to the recommendations. In fact, the Impugned Order relies on the letter dated 15th February 2019 of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator Forest which itself proceeds on an incorrect premises that the State Government opposed the grant of lease etc. This in our view totally erroneous approach. The order dated 27th March 2019 adversely affects the rights of the Petitioner No.1. We find that, the applicability of Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 is not even referred to or discussed. The closure of the application appears to be contrary to and in complete disregard to the MoEFCC directions by letters dated 1st April 2015 and 1st May 2015.

46) In this regard the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (Supra) and Shri. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal v. MoEF & Ors, (Supra) are useful wherein it is observed that, this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India has discretion to entertain or not to entertain the Writ Petition on the ground of an alternative remedy. The ground of alternative remedy would not operate as a bar at least in 3 contingencies namely wherein the petition has been filed for enforcing a fundamental right or where there has been violation of principal of natural justice or where order of proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of the act is challenge. In the present case, we find that there is no reason given for the closure. The letter dated 15th February 2019 on which reliance is placed has misconstrued. The impugned Order is a non-speaking Order and passed in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. The order is passed after a period of 9 years. We also find that, the State Government has acted in an arbitrary and high handed manner. No notice as required under the rules was given to the Petitioner No. 1 when possession of the site and Bauxite dump was taken. The State Government has not complied with the terms of the lease deed and clause 5, 6, 7 of Form-K. It is well settled that, the rule of exhausting the statutory remedy is rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than rule of law. Whether the alternative remedy would bar the court from entertaining the cause under writ jurisdiction would depend on the facts of each case. We find that, in the peculiar facts of the present case the Petitioner No. 1 has made out a case which warrants interference. We have noted the fact that the present petition is pending before this court since the year 2019 i.e. pending since the past 6 years. Considering the nature of the directions, we propose to entertain the present petition, as we find that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be unjust and unfair to relegate Petitioner No. 1 to the alternate remedy.

47) The Respondent No.1 have also argued that, the present writ petition is barred by the principle of res-judicata as the Petitioner had approached NGT in the year 2012 vide Appeal No. 64 of 2012 challenging the Order dated 9th October 2012 passed by the State Government rejecting the application for lifting the mined-out minerals/Bauxite dump lying at the site. NGT had disposed the Appeal vide order dated 28th February 2013. The Respondent No. 1 argued that, by the present petition the Petitioner No. 1 has indirectly sought the same relief. We find that, the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is in respect of the challenge to the Order 27th March 2019. After the order of NGT dated 28th February 2013 various subsequent events have occurred which are required to be taken into consideration. Such events are i) Section 8A was inserted in the MMDR Act on 12th January 2015. ii) Petitioner No. 1 had withdrawn the Civil Appeal No. 4068 of 2013 from the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the Order of the NGT dated 28th February 2013 on the same day i.e. 12th January 2015 and sought liberty from the Hon’ble Supreme Court to approach the appropriate court for appropriate reliefs. In view of the said Order, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that, the present petition is barred by the principle of res-judicata. The principal prayers were different and distinct. Further, the MoEFCC guidelines dated 1st April 2015 and 1st May 2015 are also subsequent to the Order of the NGT dated 28th February 2013 and the Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court 12th January 2015 permitting the withdrawal of the civil appeal. In view of the aforestated facts we are of the considered opinion that, the petition is maintainable and not barred by principle of res- judicata.

48) The next submission of Respondent No. 1 was that the present mining area falls within Eco-sensitive zone and area. The record indicates that, the Kasarsada mining lease is at a 34 km aerial distance from the boundary of the Radhanagari wildlife Sanctuary. The said fact evidently recorded in the Inspection Report annexed to the letter dated 9th March 2016 issued by the office of the Chief Forest Conservator (Regional) Kolhapur. We find no reason to doubt the said facts. As per Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016) of the MoEFCC an Eco-sensitive Zone is besides an area which falls within maximum 10 km from the boundary of the wildlife Sanctuary. A reference was made to the draft notification published on 31st July 2024 for declaration of Eco-Sensitive Area. Perusal of the said notification would indicate that, though some region falls in the Kasarsada mining lease area such notification is still in a draft form. We have noted that, paragraph 3 of the draft notification categorically states that existing mines would be phased out in 5 years after the final publication of the notification. In this regard, we find it useful to refer to the Inspection Report of the Chief Conservator of Forest, Kolhapur dated 22nd March 2016 wherein the following observations are made: -

                    (1) The area is already broken due to bauxite mining operation.

                    (2) No fresh construction is required as necessary infrastructure is already available at the site.

                    (3) The proposed area is already diverted for mining and the mining operations have been carried out till 2nd October 2011. The project proponent has already obtained Environmental Clearance under Environment Protection Act 1986 and Forest Clearance under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act 1980. All plateaus are used by wild animals during the rainy season. In this case it is already dug out. Along the edges around 7.5 M width of patch was not dug to prevent soil erosion. During the discussions the company has agreed to provide few horizontal holes in the underdog wall area for cross ventilation, so that wind flow will remain in the area making it useful for wild animals during the rainy season. This will be a good mitigation measure to maintain the natural conditions after the closure of the mine. Then it will be useful to wildlife after the mitigation measure.

                    (4) During site inspection it was observed that the area has been already occupied by overburden removed and bauxite dumps. Langurs were observed during the site visit, droppings of wild pig, porcupine, bear, gaur, sambar and leopard were observed. There are two rainwater harvesting ponds in the mines. Since it was visited in the march month, we could not find any ephemeral vegetation in the area.

                    (5) The nearest sanctuary is the Radhanagari Wildlife Sanctuary around 34 kilometers from site.

                    (6) The area has already been diverted for mining purpose and mining activity has been carried out. There will be temporary disturbance to the wildlife while carrying out mining in the remaining area. Since it was mined in the area, it is recommended to take up mitigation measures like development of meadows to restore the area for the wildlife habitat purpose.

                    (7) As mentioned above, the area is already diverted for mining purposes and bauxite mining operations work continued up to 2nd October 2011. In the area no fresh tree cutting is involved.

49) We have also noted that, the present case is not a case of fresh mining lease but a case dealing with an existing mining lease where necessary infrastructure including roads have been in existence since early 1970. No fresh diversion of forest land has been sought in fact the application for extension at all times has shown a reduction in the area of forest land in respect of which permissions were sought.

50) The importance of preserving the environment while ensuring balanced and sustainable development has been emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several judgments.

                    50.1) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (87) v. Union of India, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 1 has observed that: -

                    “Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.— Natural resources are the assets of the entire nation. It is the obligation of all concerned, including the Union Government and State Governments to conserve and not waste these resources. Article 48-A of the Constitution requires that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. Under Article 51-A, it is the duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.

                    3. Forests are a vital component to sustain the life support system on the earth. Forests in India have been dwindling over the years for a number of reasons, one of it being the need to use forest area for development activities including economic development. Undoubtedly, in any nation development is also necessary but it has to be consistent with protection of environments and not at the cost of degradation of environments. Any programme, policy or vision for overall development has to evolve a systemic approach so as to balance economic development and environmental protection. Both have to go hand in hand. In the ultimate analysis, economic development at the cost of degradation of environments and depletion of forest cover would not be long-lasting. Such development would be counterproductive. Therefore, there is an absolute need to take all precautionary measures when forest lands are sought to be directed for non-forest use.

                    71. The basic objectives leading to the laying down of the National Forest Policy, 1988 may also be noted and also the need and requirement for its enforcement. This policy was framed on realising that the 1952 Forest Policy for the management of State Forest in the country had not halted the depletion of forests. It was, therefore, considered necessary to evolve a fresh policy for the future to lay down new strategies of forest conservation which had become imperative. Conservation includes preservation, maintenance, sustainable utilisation, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment. The principal aim of the Forest Policy is to ensure environmental stability and maintenance of ecological balance including atmospheric equilibrium which are vital for sustenance of all life forms, human, animal and plant. The derivation of direct economic benefit must be subordinated to this principal aim.

                    77. The shift in the approach of the legislation is evident from the FC Act of 1980 when compared with the scheme underlying the Forest Act, 1927 which was State-oriented for conserving the Forest Policy of 1952. Further, in 1977, forest and wildlife were taken out from the State List and incorporated in the Concurrent List. Considering the compulsions of the States and large depletion of forest, these legislative measures have shifted the responsibility from States to the Centre. Moreover, any threat to the ecology can lead to violation of the right of enjoyment of healthy life guaranteed under Article 21, which is required to be protected. The Constitution enjoins upon this Court a duty to protect the environment.”

                    50.2) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 338 has observed that:-

                    “Findings

                    (a) Legal position

                    75. Universal human dependence on the use of environmental resources for the most basic needs renders it impossible to refrain from altering the environment. As a result, environmental conflicts are ineradicable and environmental protection is always a matter of degree, inescapably requiring choices as to the appropriate level of environmental protection and the risks which are to be regulated. This aspect is recognised by the concept of “sustainable development”. It is equally well settled by the decision of this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India [(2000) 10 SCC 664] that environment has different facets and care of the environment is an ongoing process. These concepts rule out the formulation of an across-the-board principle as it would depend on the facts of each case whether diversion in a given case should be permitted or not, barring “no go” areas (whose identification would again depend on undertaking of a due diligence exercise). In such cases, the margin of appreciation doctrine would apply.

                    76. Making these choices necessitates decisions, not only about how risks should be regulated, how much protection is enough, and whether ends served by environmental protection could be pursued more effectively by diverting resources to other uses. Since the nature and degree of environmental risk posed by different activities varies, the implementation of environmental rights and duties requires proper decision-making based on informed reasons about the ends which may ultimately be pursued, as much as about the means for attaining them. Setting the standards of environmental protection involves mediating conflicting visions of what is of value in human life.

                    (d) Summary

                    119. The time has come for us to apply the constitutional “doctrine of proportionality” to the matters concerning environment as a part of the process of judicial review in contradistinction to merit review. It cannot be gainsaid that utilisation of the environment and its natural resources has to be in a way that is consistent with principles of sustainable development and intergenerational equity, but balancing of these equities may entail policy choices. In the circumstances, barring exceptions, decisions relating to utilisation of natural resources have to be tested on the anvil of the well-recognised principles of judicial review. Have all the relevant factors been taken into account? Have any extraneous factors influenced the decision? Is the decision strictly in accordance with the legislative policy underlying the law (if any) that governs the field? Is the decision consistent with the principles of sustainable development in the sense that has the decision-maker taken into account the said principle and, on the basis of relevant considerations, arrived at a balanced decision? Thus, the Court should review the decision-making process to ensure that the decision of MoEF is fair and fully informed, based on the correct principles, and free from any bias or restraint. Once this is ensured, then the doctrine of “margin of appreciation” in favour of the decision-maker would come into play. Our above view is further strengthened by the decision of the Court of Appeal in R. v. Chester City Council [(2011) 1 All ER 476] reported in All ER paras 14 to 16.”

51) We are of the view that, it is extremely crucial and important that proper and effective steps are at all times taken to protect, preserve and safeguard the environment, including the natural resources, flora and fauna, for the present as well as the future generations to come. Natural resources are assets of the country, and it is obligatory on the Government to conserve and protect the said natural resources. Article 48A of the Constitution of India provides that the State shall make endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to protect and preserve the forest and wild life of the country. Article 51A enjoins a duty on the citizens to protect, safeguard and improve the environment. Preserving and safeguarding forests is one of the most vital and crucial aspects of preserving and nurturing the environment. The principal aim of the laws relating to the environment is to maintain environmental stability through preservation and/or restoration.

52) We are of the opinion that, at the same time, it is also necessary to keep in mind the need of development. It is the need of the hour to ensure that there is a measured use of natural resources so that the ecology and the environment are not adversely or irreversibly affected due to development which is not monitored or unauthorized. A balanced approach and balanced development are necessary for further economic development of the society. The balance between preserving and safeguarding environment and development is required to be maintained for the benefit and well-being of the present and also the future generations. It is of crucial importance and necessary that all development is at all times consistent with the environmental laws and not in derogation thereof. A wholesome and systematic approach is required and is the need of the hour so as to ensure that the environment is preserved and development take place. Economic development and environmental development though of equal importance, in the overall balancing act it is necessary that the scales are balanced and sometimes consciously tilted in favour of the environment keeping in mind future needs and requirements of the future environment and the generations.

53) We are well aware of the fact that, a renewal of mining is not a matter of right of the agency and can only be granted with the permission of the Central Government under Section 2 of the FC Act. It through section 2 of the FC Act Government performs its duty to monitor the case and protect the natural resources and ensure that circumstances conducive to the development and protection of natural resources are nurtured. While doing so it is necessary that the authorities taken into consideration all relevant factors.

54) In essence, the utilisation of natural resources has to be consistent with the environmental policy and should not be harmful or detrimental to the efforts made to protect and preserve the environment, including the forest. Balancing these requirements is a matter of policy. No doubt, the paramount object is to protect and preserve the environment, but while doing so, it would also be necessary for the concerned authority/Government to take decisions considering the ground realities and factual background. The decision is required to be reasoned and balanced, and the same should be evident on a plain reading of the decision. The decisions are also required to be reasoned and taken after considering the factual position, the need to protect the environment, and balancing the rights created under the mining lease agreements.

55) We have noted that, in the present case, it is not the case of any of the parties that the Petitioner No. 1 has indulged in any act of illegal mining. All mining activities which were carried out till 2nd October 2011 were under valid mining leases or permissions granted by the concerned authority/Government. The mined-out mineral which is lying at the site, i.e., bauxite dump, has been extracted under a valid mining lease/permission and only after the required forest clearance/approval issued under Section 2 of the Forest Act. We have noted that the said extracted material is lying at the site since 3rd October 2011 i.e. for the past 15 years. We note that, the concerned authorities have not taken into consideration the adverse environmental and ecological impact the said Bauxite dump would have had on the environment, forest, flora, fauna and wild life. It is common knowledge that Bauxite does not support normal plant growth and vegetation. The mined-out Bauxite is lying at the site and in the forest, untreated for the past 15 years. No steps have been taken to treat or deal with the same so as to best suit the environment and ensure that no damage is caused to the environment. Further, the Petitioner No. 1 would have incurred substantial cost and effort in having the material extracted. As noted earlier, this is not a case of illegal mining. The record would also indicate that the required infrastructure is already constructed by the Petitioner No.1/made available. The only question which would remain is the entitlement to the mined-out material and the right to take the mined-out material. There are questions which are required to be decided by the concerned authority/Governments but after considering the entire facts of the case, the available material and all reports.

56) We find that the Impugned Order dated 27th March 2019 is based on and relies upon the letter dated 15th February 2019 of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator Forests and Nodal Officer. As noted herein before the said letter dated 15th February 2019 does not refer to or consider the various recommendation of the State Government dated 9th March 2016, 23rd March 2016, 18th May 2016, 7th February 2017 and 23rd October 2017. The communication dated 27th April 2017 and 22nd June 2017 have not been taken into consideration. The Impugned Order proceeds on the erroneous basis that the State Government was not inclined to divert the forest land beyond the Forest Approval dated 3rd October 2011. We are of the opinion that, the favourable recommendations ought to have been considered and taken into account. We have also noted that, the application for extension of FC approval dated 30th March 2010 was pending for the last 9 years. Even though, certain queries and remedial steps were sought by the Respondent No.1 from the State Government during this period, the State Government without notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice took possession of the mining area and Bauxite dump lying at the site. This is done without the notice as is required under the law and the mining lease agreement. On 23rd March 2017 the Petitioner No. 1 had recorded its submission in support of its application for extension of mining lease till 31st March 2030.

57) On 23rd October 2017 explanation was sought from the State Government and direction was given to obtain a proposal in form-B from the Petitioner No. 1. An explanation was sought from the State Government for non-submission of the proposal of renewal by the State Government in time. We are of the opinion that the rights of Petitioner No. 1 were affected by Order dated 27th March 2019. The Order adversely affects the Petitioner No. 1’s rights. The Order is passed in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The possession without notice, has been taken over when the Petitioner No.1’s application for extension of FC Approval dated 30th March 2010 was pending. Further the very fact that Respondent No. 1 by letter dated 23rd October 2017 sought an explanation from the State Government regarding the application for extension of approval clearly indicates that the FC Approval was pending and not rejected or lapsed or determined. These aspects have also not been considered.

58) After the matter was closed certain clarification were required and therefore matter was placed for hearing on 10th July 2026, 13th July 2026, 15th July 2026 and 23rd July 2026. Pursuant to the hearing the Government of Maharashtra has filed an Affidavit dated 22nd July 2026 wherein it has been specifically admitted that, notice as required under clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Form-K/lease agreement have not been issued. It is the stand of the State Government that the manager of the Petitioner No.1 was present at site when possession was taken. Complying with the rules in respect of notice and/or clauses of the lease deed in a completely different aspect which in our opinion was necessary to be complied with in letter and spirit. The presence of a manager on site cannot be equated to compliance of the requirement of notice under the law. In short, the State Government has conceded that, when the mining was closed on 3rd October 2011 and possession of the mining area and Bauxite dump lying at site taken, notice under clause 7 of the lease deed and/or clause 7 of the general provisions of the Form-K was not given. We find that, this is again a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

59) We are of the opinion that, considering the above aforestated discussion the questions which are required to be considered by the authorities are as under: -

                    i) Whether the mining lease allotted to the Petitioner No. 1 was in existence as of 12th January 2015 or had been rejected, determined or lapsed.

                    ii) Whether the Petitioner No. 1 admittedly being a captive user was entitled under Section 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 for mining lease of 20 years.

                    iii) Whether in view of the application for first renewal of the mining lease dated 12th May 1997 the Petitioner No. 1 in view of the provisions Rule 24A(6) read with Rule 24B of the MC Rules, 1960 it can be held that Petitioner No. 1 had a valid mining lease for a period of 20 years from 22nd May 1998.

                    iv) Whether considering the letter dated 23rd October 2017 of the MoEFCC the application for extension of forest clearance dated 30th March 2010 was pending as on 12th January 2015, and would the Petitioner No. 1 entitled and covered under the provisions of Section 8A(5) of the MMDR Act, read with the notifications issued by the MoEFCC dated 1st April 2015 and 1st May 2015.

60) Considering the peculiar facts of the present matter the questions which the Respondent No. 1 was required to consider as stated in paragraph 59 and more importantly the fact that, it is not the case of any of the Respondents’ that, any act of illegal mining was committed by the Petitioner No. 1 and after considering the reports/letters dated 9th March 2016, 22nd March 2016, 18th May 2016, 7th February 2017 and 23rd October 2017 we are of the opinion that, in the interest of justice the following directions would balance the equities in the present matter.

                    i) That, the Order dated 27th March 2019 passed by the MoEFCC is set aside. The Respondent No.1 to reconsider the Petitioner No. 1’s Forest Clearance Application for renewal/extension dated 30th March 2010 in view of the observations made in this Order and in accordance with law.

                    ii) Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Petitioner No. 1 is permitted to file a fresh application for transportation permission to the concerned Competent Authority/Government. The Petitioner No. 1’s original application dated 30th March 2010 i.e. application seeking extension of forest clearance shall be considered as pending and an appropriate decision would be taken on the application seeking transport permission after considering the guidelines/reports/letters dated 1st April 2015, 1st May 2015, 9th March 2016, 23rd March 2016, 18th May 2016, 7th February 2017 27th April 2017, 22nd June 2017, 23rd October 2017 and 15th February 2019. In case the authority requires any further documentation/clarification or explanation, the same shall be conveyed to the Petitioner No. 1 in writing and the Petitioner No. 1 would be obligated to comply with such directions.

                    iii) The concerned Competent Authority/Government shall process the applications as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of 12 weeks and forward the same to the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 to consider the said application in view of the observation made by this Court in the Order and process the application in accordance with law.

                    iv) We make it clear that, the aforesaid directions are made only in respect of Bauxite dump which is already extracted and lying at the mining site since 3rd October 2011. The directions in respect of the application dated 30th March 2010 are restricted to the transport application for the mined-out minerals/Bauxite dump lying at site. The mining activities, if any, shall be subject to and strictly in accordance with the permission, if any, granted by the Respondent No. 1.

                    v) The Petitioner No. 1 is simultaneously directed to comply with all requirements and directions issued by the concerned authorities, in relation to the reclamation of the mined-out land and carrying out afforestation activity and all related activities after obtaining guidance from the State Government’s Forest Department. Such activities including afforestation shall be undertaken using species and varieties of plants and trees that are conducive to the flora and fauna of the area and are suitable for the wildlife existing therein.

                    vi) The Petitioner No. 1, is directed to pay/deposit all statutory dues and outstanding amount if any, or comply with all such directions regarding payment of statutory dues. The Petitioner No. 1 is further directed to pay all the dues, royalties, statutory dues, tax or any other dues to the Government under the mining lease. All payments be made within a period of 6 weeks from the receipt of such directions.

                    vii) In case the permission is granted by the Central Government and State Government for transportation of the Bauxite dump the same shall be done immediately and within time prescribed by the authorities. The transportation shall be under the strict supervision of the concerned Authorities and all precautions that are necessary and directed by the authorities shall be strictly undertaken and followed. All charges statutory and Government dues shall be paid within a period of 2 weeks of the receipt of the permission.

                    viii) In case for carrying out the activities as permitted by the Respondent authorities, the Petitioner No. 1 is required to seek any other permission or approval from the Central Government or State Government or any other Statutory Authority, the Petitioner No. 1 is under obligation to comply with the said statutory requirements.

61) It is made clear that any permission for transportation, if granted, shall be subject to Petitioner No. 1 first making all statutory payments as required in law and complying with all pending obligations and duties relating to the reclamation of the mining area in accordance with the approved Mine Closure Plan.

62) Needless to mention that, the time period mentioned in paragraph 60 shall commence from the date of uploading of the present Order on the official website of the High Court of Bombay.

63) With the aforesaid directions, Petition is disposed of.