Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 1: High Court has dismissed bunch of petitions challenging the impugned communication dated February 26, 2019 whereby the right of the petitioners to extract the minor minerals from the blocks allotted to them was taken away.
While dismissing the petitions, Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed, “failure of the petitioners to complete the requisite formalities including obtaining of environmental clearance from the statutory authority, if not, attributable to them is equally not attributable to the respondents”.
“If this court were to assume that the petitioners had applied to the SLEIAA well within time and had completed all the requisite formalities as enjoined by law, even in that event, the failure on part of the SLEIAA to grant environmental clearance in time cannot be attributed to the respondents”, Justice Sanjeev said, adding “in that event, the instant case would fall in the category of the contract which has been frustrated due to an act of another beyond the control of parties and this would relieve the parties of their obligation to perform their reciprocal promises”.
Justice Sanjeev further observed, “this court does not see any justification in the argument of the counsel representing the petitioners that they had no legal obligation to deposit the remaining 50% of the bid amount without first having been given the environmental clearance by the SLEIAA”, adding “the obligation to pay the remaining 50% of the bid amount was independently of the obligation to submit the approved mining plan and the environmental clearance. In that view of the matter, strictly speaking, even the doctrine of frustration of contract would not come into play”.
High Court further observed, “the petitioners have relied upon the transitory provision in the form of Rule 104-A introduced in the Rules of 2016 to buttress their argument that the respondents at one point of time did appreciate the difficulty of the petitioners in obtaining the environmental clearance from the prescribed authority and thus permitted them the extraction and transportation of the minerals on royalty basis from their respective blocks without insisting for mining lease and environmental clearance from the competent authority”.
High Court noticed this submission with utmost pain and anguish and observed, “this is so because the Government under Section 15 of the Act of 1957 is not empowered to create a provision in the Rules, which has the effect of nullifying the statutory requirement of adequately safeguarding the environmental concerns in the process of mining and leases and acting contrary to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court”.
“From a perusal of Rule 104-A, as it was initially inserted, it clearly transpires that it was intended to provide a transitory measure and to ensure uninterrupted supply of minor minerals to the consumers. Essence of the provision was to enable the extraction of minor minerals to any existing quarry holder or to any person extracting such minor minerals or for transportation of such minerals on royalty basis. The provision provided for issuance of permission in this regard only for a period up to 31.07.2016”, High Court said.
High Court further said that vires of Rule 104-A is not under challenge in these petitions and that the provision has also outlived its life and lost its efficacy as the same has not been extended beyond 30.04.2019.
With these reasons, Court didn’t find any merit in the writ petitions and the same were accordingly dismissed. However, it has been clarified that this judgment shall not come in the way of the petitioners or any person to claim refund of their bid amount(s), if any, lying with the respondents or to sue the respondents in appropriate proceedings for any loss or damage, if any, suffered by them.
Follow our WhatsApp channel