Judgement of the Supreme Court of India regarding restraining 102 mining leaseholders from carrying on any mining operations, Odisha, 04/04/2016
The Supreme Court on April 4, 2016—citing provisions of the amended Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957—asked Odisha to consider allowing 102 mining leaseholders to resume operations, subject to conditions. This comes as a major relief for operators who had been barred by the apex court’s May 2014 ruling.
Judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Common Cause Vs Union of India & Others dated 04/04/2016 regarding restraining 102 mining leaseholders from carrying on any mining operations, Odisha.
The Apex Court citing provisions of the amended Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957—asked Odisha to consider allowing 102 mining leaseholders to resume operations, subject to conditions - "Based on the interpretation placed by us on Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, we can draw the following conclusions:
- Firstly, unless an order is passed by the State Government declaring, that a mining lease has lapsed, the mining lease would be deemed to be subsisting,up to the date of expiry of the lease period provided by the lease document.
- Secondly, in situations wherein an application has been filed by a leaseholder, when he is not in a position to (or for actually not) carrying on mining operations, for a continuous period of two years, the lease period will not be deemed to have lapsed, till an order is passed by the State Government on such application. Where no order has been passed, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended beyond the original lease period, for a further period of two years.
- Thirdly, a leaseholder having suffered a lapse, is disentitled to any benefit of the amended MMDR Act, because of the express exclusion contemplated under Section 8A(9) of the amended MMDR Act."
