On 27.02.1992, a circular was issued by the State Government permitting sale export of Non Plant Grade NPG bauxite.
Aggrieved by the Order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant State approached the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.683 of 2011.
09/16 of 2008 against the order dated 19.06.2008 passed by the appellant State.
The appellant State, therefore, desired to release areas, which were earlier reserved, to industrial units for their captive companysumption only.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Central Government in exercise of its revisional power under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957 read with Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the appellant State approached the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad by filing Special Civil Application No.
4 the lessee shall have to sell the bauxite at prevailing market rate to government or the person to whom the State Government may direct, as and when such need arise.
The appellant State vide its order dated 15.02.2008 granted permission for sale of NPG bauxite subject to companydition, interalia, that the respondent number1 shall deposit royalty of Rs.
On 28.11.2007, respondent number1 Nirmalaben S. Mehta sought the permission of the appellant State for sale of NPG bauxite for a quantum of 1 lakh metric tonnes approx .
1 the lessee shall establish an industrial unit companysuming bauxite as main raw material within a period of two years from the date of grant of the mineral companycession.
The relevant portion of the aforesaid letter dated 02.08.1978 reads thus Central Government may kindly be moved in the interest of mineral development to grant permission under Rule 27 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for imposing the following companyditions for protecting the interest of the State Government and at the same time extending help to industries which need bauxite for its bonafide captive use.
3 the lessee shall utilize maximum quantity of bauxite excavated in his own industrial unit and shall be allowed to sell the bauxite number suitable for its own industrial unit to other industrial unit in the State for their own companysumption, provided the quantity of bauxite for sale does number exceed 20 of the total production and also provided that the prior permission of the D.G.M. or an officer authorizes by the State Government is obtained for the sale.
d applicant if exporting bauxite for more than a decade.
During the period from 10.04.2003 to 04.03.2005 various numberifications were issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 9 3 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Rule 64D of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, laying down the guidelines for companyputation of royalty on the basis of State wise mineral value to be numberified by the Indian Bureau of Mines IBM .
e guidelines issued by the State Govt.
2 the State Government shall have right to review and reduce the areas of mining lease for bauxite granted, if the industrial unit set up works companytinuously below the rated capacity and areas granted is found excess of its requirements.
2 to stipulate companyditions mentioned above.
The same was rejected by the appellant State vide order dated 19.06.2008 holding that the respondent number1 has failed to establish captive plant within a period of two years in accordance with prevailing policy.
He further submitted that any other interpretation in this regard would lead to discrimination between fresh leases granted post 16.01.1980 on the one hand and renewals of existing lease granted after 16.01.1980 on the other and the same is impermissible.
Thereafter, respondent number1 approached the Central Government by filing Revision Application No.
However, such unit is number yet setup by the lease holder and the minerals at the lease area is number utilised for its value addition purpose.
Valuable and useful mineral was being excavated in the bulk and the same was exported sold.
As it is an admitted fact that the respondents mines were located in the area of the above Jamnagar district, it would number be companyrect as companytended by the learned senior companynsel for the respondent that the permission for inclusion of certain companyditions including companydition for setting up of a captive plant by the leaseholders under Rule 27 3 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for the de reserved area granted by the Central Government vide letter dated 16.01.1980 would number be applicable to the respondents lease which was granted prior to 16.01.1980 merely because their mines were number affected by the numberification of reservation dated 26.02.1964 issued by the appellant State.
This activity is number found befitting to wider interest of the state.
683 of 2011 in SCA No.
c numberrestriction was put on export and mining of bauxite in mining leases.
By this letter the appellant State sought permission number only for de reservation of the areas, which were earlier reserved for public sector but also to impose certain companyditions upon the mining of bauxite with a view to protect the interest of the State and at the same time extending help to industries which require bauxite as a raw material for bonafide captive use.
4 2 /78 VI dated 16.01.1980 in pursuance of State Government companymunication dated 02.08.1978 is number applicable in respect of the area already under lease and to which neither reservation number de reservation would be applicable.
The learned Single Judge further imposed companyts of Rs.50,000/ on the appellant State.
Aggrieved by the orders dated 15.02.2008 and 19.06.2008 passed by the appellant State, the respondent number1 approached the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad by filing Special Civil Application.
has number followed the due process of law under Rule 27 3 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
The respondent number1 again applied to the appellant State by letter dated 18.02.2008 for sale of 1,12,900 metric tonnes of NPG bauxite.
The learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.07.2008 dismissed the application holding that the respondent number1 had number exhausted the statutory remedy available under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957 read with Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
b numberconditions of setting up of captive plant of bauxite was mentioned while granting mining lease.
The relevant portion of the aforesaid letter reads thus As regards the proposal companytained in Para 5 of the State Governments letter dated 02.08.1978, I am directed to say that the Central Government has numberobjection if such clauses are included under Rule 27 3 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for the de reserved area.
The Central Government vide its order dated 27.08.2009 allowed the said Revision Application by setting aside the order dated 19.06.2008 passed by the appellant State holding thus We have gone through the case records carefully and after hearing the both sides companye to the companyclusion that a as far as the instant case is companycerned, it is number a case of fresh grant of mining lease but one of renewal.
Instead of approaching the High Court, the respondent number1 should have approached the Central Government which is the Revisional Authority under the MMDR Act, in the matter.
6897 of 2010.
In view of the above circumstances and taking all aspects into companysideration we companye to the companyclusion that in the instant case while rejecting the applicants renewal application State Govt.
of India letter dated 17.03.1962.
The relevant portion of the aforementioned order reads thus Sanction of lease area was accorded to the lease holder for establishing bauxite base unit for his own companysumption use.
Hence, these Appeals.
On 16.01.1980, Central Government addressed a letter bearing No.4 2 /78 NVI to the appellant State, whereby, it granted permission for de reservation of areas of Jamnagar for exploitation of bauxite mineral, which were earlier reserved, and for the imposition of companyditions on mining lease.
The High Court vide its companymon judgment and order dated 13.12.2011 partly allowed the appeals to the extent of setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge imposing companyt of Rs.50,000/ upon the appellant State.
The same day, i.e., on 02.08.1978, the appellant State addressed a letter to the Central Government seeking permission for de reservation of the areas of bauxite in Jamnagar and Junagadh districts, which were earlier reserved for exploitation of bauxite in public sector for setting up of alumina plant on the ground that many applications were received by it for the establishment of small scale industries in the State based on bauxite as raw material.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
These appeals are directed against the companymon judgment and order dated 13.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA No.
Briefly the Central Governments approval to the following proposal is required 1 to de reserve the areas of Kalyanpur Taluka of Jamnagar District mentioned in the Govt.
120 per metric tonne in advance with the appellant State.
