Supreme Court of India

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHERversusM/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2023 INSC 824
Decided: 12 September 2023
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Bench: SANJIV KHANNA

Holding

The Supreme Court held that the State of West Bengal must execute a mining lease for the 20.87 acres of land to M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries, and the respondent's claim for the remaining area is rejected.

Summary

The State of West Bengal appealed against a High Court order directing the execution of a mining lease for dolomite to M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries (the respondent). The dispute centered on whether the respondent's 1998 application for a mining lease remained eligible under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as amended by the 2015 Amendment and the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (Rule 61). The Court examined the effect of the 2015 amendment, the classification of dolomite as a minor mineral, the applicability of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act to Raiyat land, and whether prior letters of intent or grant orders created a saving exception. It held that the State owned 20.87 acres of the land and could execute a mining lease for that portion, while the respondent's claim to the remaining area was rejected. Consequently, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, directing the West Bengal government to grant the lease for 20.87 acres and dismissing the claim for the balance area.

Issues considered

The eligibility of the 1998 mining lease application under Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 after the 2015 amendment.
Whether Rule 61 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 applies to the respondent's application.
The legal effect of the Grant Order dated 16 July 2015 and its conditions, including consent of Raiyats and Section 14‑Y of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
Whether the land classified as Raiyat can be used for mining under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
Whether the Letter of Intent dated 24 May 2014 qualifies as a 'letter of intent' under the saving clause of Section 10‑A.
The impact of the revocation of the 2006 order and the 2010 cancellation on the respondent's rights.
The State's ownership of 20.87 acres and its ability to execute a lease for that portion.

Legislation cited

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957s. 10-A, s. 11-A, s. 5
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 2015
Water Act, 1974
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955s. 14-Y, s. 2(10), s. 3A, s. 4(2A), s. 4B, s. 4-C
West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016s. Rule 61

Subjects

mining leaseMMDR ActSection 10-AConcession Rules 2016Rule 61West Bengal Land Reforms ActRaiyat landdolomiteminor mineralLetter of Intenteligibilityauction of mineral concessions

Judgment

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 277 : 2023 INSC 824

CASE DETAILS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER
v.
M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH
AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 8238 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
[SANJIV KHANNA AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]

HEADNOTES

Issue for consideration: Intra-court appeal preferred by the State of
West Bengal before the High Court was dismissed with the direction to the
Appellant No. 2 – Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, Commerce
and Enterprises, West Bengal or any authorised oﬃcer to execute a mining
lease in favour of the Respondent No. 2, sole proprietor of Respondent No.
1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih.
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – s.
10-A – Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment
Act, 2015 – Concession Rules, 2016 – r.61 and Proviso – Directions issued
to the government of West Bengal to execute a mining lease in favour
of respondent no.1-M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih:
Held: It is the stand of the appellants – State of West Bengal, that
they are owners of 20.87 acres of the land in question and to this extent,
they have no diﬃculty in executing the mining lease – This being the stated
stand, which has also been aﬃrmed, there should be no diﬃculty in granting
of mining lease for the said area to the Respondent No. 1-M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih – So, it is directed that the government of
West Bengal will execute a mining lease for 20.87 acres of land in favour
of the Respondent No. 1 – The claim of the Respondent No. 1 towards the
balance area for the grant of mining lease will be treated as rejected and
dismissed. [Paras 20 and 22]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 –
sub-section (1) to Section 10-A Mines and Minerals (Development and
277
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 – Object and purpose of amendment
– Application of exceptions or the saving clauses in three kinds of
situations:
Held: The object and purpose of the Amendment Act, 2015 is to
ensure that allocation of mineral resources is done through auctioning
– This is the reason why sub-section (1) to Section 10-A of the MMDR
Act, 1957 mandates that all applications received prior to 12.01.2015
shall become ineligible – The exceptions or the saving clause applies to
three kinds of situations speciﬁed in sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of the
MMDR Act, 1957 – The ﬁrst category is where an application has been
received u/s. 11-A of the MMDR Act,1957 – The second category is where
a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence has been granted the
permit holder or the licensee has the right to obtain a prospecting licence
followed by a mining lease and the State Government is satisﬁed that the
permit holder or the licensee has complied with the requirements speciﬁed
in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of
the MMDR Act, 1957 – The reason for protecting this class of cases is on
account of the fact that they had altered their position by spending money
on reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations – Accordingly, the
principle of legitimate expectation is applied – The third category is where
the Central Government had already communicated their previous approval
or the State Government had issue Letter of Intent for grant of mining lease
before coming into force of the Amendment Act 2015 – The raison dêtre,
it is observed therein, is that certain rights had accrued to these applicants
inasmuch as all necessary procedures and formalities had been complied
with and only formal lease remains to be executed. [Para 14]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 –
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,
2015 – A Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was issued by the Deputy
Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal for
Dolomite mining in favour of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih in respect of 76 acres of land, subject
to certain conditions – Whether approval of the Central Government
required or not:
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) 279
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH

Held: Though in the present case, post notiﬁcation No. S.O. 423(E)
dated 10.02.2015, Dolomite was notiﬁed as a minor mineral and hence,
the approval of the Central Government was not required for the reason
that the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was hedged with pre-conditions,
including the requirement to submit consent letters of the owners of the land
in question (Raiyats) before the execution of the lease deed, or there was to
be a stipulation that a condition to this eﬀect would be incorporated in the
draft lease – Therefore, the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 is provisional,
and is subject to fulﬁlment of the conditions therein. [Para 16]
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – sub-section (10) to section
2 and sub-section (2A) to section 4 – Raiyat Land – Meaning – Rights
of Raiyat in respect of land:
Held: Raiyat land is to be used for cultivation, etc., and not for mining
– Once the mining activity is undertaken, the Raiyats will not be able to
use the land – In terms of sub-section (10) to Section 2 of the WBLR Act,
1955, a Raiyat means a person or an institution holding land for any purpose
whatsoever – However, the rights of Raiyat in respect of the land in terms
of sub-section (2A) to Section 4 of the WBLR Act, 1955 does not permit
any other person to quarry sand from his holding, dig or use, or permit
any person to dig or use, earth or clay of his holding for the manufacture
of bricks or tiles except with previous permission in writing of the State
Government – In case of breach of the condition, the prescribed authority
may, after giving notice and opportunity to a Raiyat to show cause, can levy
a monetary penalty. [Para 17]
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – s. 4B – Preservation of
character of land:
Held: Section 4-B of the WBLR Act, 1955 stipulates that every Raiyat
holding any land shall maintain and preserve such land in a manner that
the area is not diminished or its character is not changed or the land is not
converted for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was settled
or previously held except with the previous permission of the Collector in
writing. [Para 17]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
– West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – s. 14 Y – A Grant Order
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

dated 16.07.2015 was issued by the Deputy Secretary, Commerce and
Industries Department, West Bengal for Dolomite mining in favour of
Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih in
respect of 76 acres of land, subject to certain conditions, including the
requirement to submit consent letters of owners of the land in question
(Raiyats) – Another stipulation mentioned therein was the need for
permission u/s. 14-Y of the WBLR Act, 1955 for holding the required
land and furnishing of Conversion Certiﬁcate for plots of land from
the appropriate authority in terms of s.4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955:
Held: The controversy relating to Section 4-C of the WBLR Act,
1955, cannot simply be decided on the basis of Memo No. V/RTI/775/15
dated 06.03.2017 issued by the Deputy District Land and Land Reforms
Oﬃcer, Purulia, that as per the revenue records the land was recorded
as ‘Dungri’ – The reason is that Raiyat land is not for mining – Thus, a
contradiction arises, as the grant of Raiyat land and the classiﬁcation of
the same land as ‘Dungri’ is contradictory – Further, whether the consent
letter of the owners of the land in question (Raiyats) obtained by the
Respondent No. 1still hold good, would be relevant as there could be
a change of hands on account of transfer, inheritance, etc – Connected
with this are the legal issues – First, whether the Respondent No. 1 had
altered its position post the issue of the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015,
but before enforcement of the Concession Rules, 2016, to get the beneﬁt
of Rule 61 of the Concessions Rules, 2016? – It is necessary to ascertain
the facts and then alone one can adjudicate and decide the question
whether the Respondent No. 1 is entitled to the beneﬁt of the proviso
to Rule 61 of the Concession Rules, 2016 – This has not been veriﬁed
and ascertained – An issue would arise on whether the application
ﬁled by the Respondent No. 1 way back in 1998 would still hold good
as at the time, when the application was ﬁled, approval of the Central
Government was required – Another diﬃculty is that WBMDTCL has
not been impleaded as a party, though it was always contesting the claim
made by the Respondent No. 1 – However, these issues are not being
examined in the light of the directions issued – Further, that the remand
order cannot be passed at this distinct point of time. [Paras 18 and 19]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) 281
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Bhushan Power and Steel Limited v. S.L. Seal, Additional Secretary
(Steel and Mines), State of Odisha and Others, (2017) 2 SCC 125:[2016] 11
SCR 149; Bhushan Power and Steel Limited and Others v. State of Orissa
and Another, (2012) 4 SCC 246:[2012] 5 SCR 16; Sandur Manganese
and Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 13 SCC 1:[2010] 11 SCR
240; Bhushan Power and Steel Limited v. Rajesh Verma, (2014) 5 SCC
551:[2014] 5 SCR 493; Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited v. Board of
Trustees of Kandla Port Trust and Others, (2015) 13 SCC 233:[2014] 5
SCR 411; Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited v. Maha Laxmi
Mingrate Marketing Service Private Limited and Others, (1996) 10 SCC
405:[1996] 6 Suppl. SCR 368; Thressiamma Jacob and Others v. Geologist,
Department of Mining and Geology and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 725:[2013]
7 SCR 863 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAL NO.8238
OF 2022
[From the Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2018 of the High Court at
Calcutta in FMA No.1458 of 2017]
Appearances:
Anand Grover, Sr. Adv., Ms. Mantika Haryani, Shreyas Awasthi, Ms.
Astha Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Respondent in Person.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

JUDGMENT

SANJIV KHANNA, J.
This appeal, by way of special leave, takes exception to the judgment
of the division bench of the High Court of Calcutta, whereby the intra-court
appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal and Others in F.M.A. No. 1458
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

of 2017 with CAN No. 6596 of 2017 has been dismissed with the direction to
the Appellant No. 2 – Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, Commerce
and Enterprises, West Bengal or any authorised oﬃcer to execute a mining
lease in favour of the Respondent No. 2 – Dinesh Agarwal, sole proprietor
of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih.
2. The facts are rather chequered, albeit are required to be noticed
in detail. On 07.08.1985, West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading
Corporation Limited1 had ﬁled an application for grant of long term mining
lease for Dolomite, Limestone and Quartzite at the plots in Mouza -
Khariduara, Kumari and Boch. An application was also ﬁled by WBMDTCL
for grant of long term mining lease for Iron Ore, Manganese and Fireclay
at the plots in Mouza - Khariduara, Kumari, Boch and Kangametya. Grant
Order dated 07.04.1986 was issued in favour of WBMDTCL by the Assistant
Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, Mines Branch, West
Bengal.
2.1 On 06.03.1998, Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih. had ﬁled an application before the Mining Oﬃcer-
in-charge, Purulia Zone, Directorate of Mines and Minerals, West Bengal,
for the grant of a mining lease for the purpose of extracting Dolomite at
Mouza - Khariduara, Kumari and Boch, in 76 acres of land.
2.2 The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih ﬁled Writ Petition No. 7808 (W) of 2001 before the High Court
of Calcutta, seeking disposal of their application for grant of mining lease.
The High Court vide order dated 13.06.2001, directed the State authorities to
dispose of the application of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih at an early date and in accordance with law.
2.3. The Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West
Bengal, vide order dated 13.03.2003, rejected the application of Respondent
No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, on the ground of
non-availability of land in view of the previous application of WBMDTCL.
By another order dated 26.03.2003, the Joint Secretary, Commerce and
Industries Department, West Bengal reiterated that the mining application

1 For Short,’ WBMDTCL’.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) 283
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih
overlaps with the area applied for in the previous application by WBMDTCL.
The application of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih was accordingly rejected.
2.4 Aggrieved, the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih had ﬁled Writ Petition No. 7505 (W) of 2003 in the
High Court of Calcutta challenging the orders passed by the Joint Secretary,
Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal, dated 13.03.2003 and
26.03.2003. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the Joint Secretary,
Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal, reviewed the aforesaid
orders and passed a fresh order dated 13.10.2006 for apportionment of land
between WBMDTCL and the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih. This order states that two hearings were held on
24.05.2006 and 19.06.2006 to review the matter, and thereupon at the hearing
dated 19.06.2006, in the presence of the representatives of WBMDTCL and
the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih,
it was agreed that Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih will be granted the whole of the mining area of 76 acres, and
the lease for the rest of the area will be granted in favour of WBMDTCL.
No other reason has been stated and indicated in the said order. Thus, the
orders dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003 rejecting the application of the
Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih were
recalled. Consequently, the Letter of Intent dated 26.10.2006 was issued in
favour of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih for an area of 76 acres of land subject to fulﬁlling/submission of
various documents, including approval of the Mining Plan duly approved
by the Chief Mining Oﬃcer, Asansol and Clearance Certiﬁcate from the
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.
2.5 However, the order dated 13.10.2006 was cancelled or revoked
vide order dated 03.12.2010 by the Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries
Department, Mines Branch, West Bengal, inter alia, recording that this
order was passed without ascertaining the exact position of the land and
in ignorance of the fact that the rejection orders dated 13.03.2003 and
26.03.2003 had already been challenged before the High Court in Writ
Petition No. 7505 (W) of 2003. The authorities had not ascertained the status
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

of the case. The order of cancellation or revocation dated 03.12.2010 was
not challenged by the respondents.
2.6. This order dated 03.12.2010 was also not brought to the notice
of the High Court, when the Writ Petition No. 7505 (W) of 2003 was
disposed of ex-parte vide order dated 25.03.2014 by relying upon the
supplementary aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, which had referred to the recalled order
dated 13.10.2006. This order of the High Court states that a decision as to
whether a lease or licence to be granted in favour of the Respondent No.
1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih shall be taken within
a period of eight weeks and Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih would be accordingly informed. It was made clear
that the decision as to the grant will be on the basis of the law and the rules
applicable at the time of consideration.
2.7. By the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Joint Secretary,
Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal, the application
ﬁled by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih was rejected inter alia relying upon the earlier application ﬁled
by WBMDTCL. Signiﬁcantly, this order mentions that the two rejection
orders dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003 were recalled by the Joint Secretary
vide his order dated 13.10.2006. This order also refers to the factum that the
Grant Order dated 07.04.1986 to WBMDTCL for Iron Ore, Manganese and
Fireclay in the plots in question had been revoked and the application for
Long-Term Mining Lease ﬁled by WBMDTCL for Dolomite and Limestone
was rejected by a common order dated 24.09.2009. The order dated
24.09.2009 has not been placed on record, though it is necessary to ascertain
and know the reasons for cancellation and rejection in favour of WBMDTCL.
WBMDTCL had applied earlier in point of time, and is a government of
West Bengal undertaking. The order dated 09.07.2014 does indicate that the
cancellation and rejection against WBMDTCL had something to do with
the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih,
and possibly the order dated 13.10.2006 in favour of the Respondent No.
1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih. This is reﬂected from
the reason given in the order dated 09.07.2014, which states that since the
recall order dated 13.10.2006 was cancelled or revoked vide order dated
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) 285
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

03.12.2010, the rejection orders dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003 were still
valid and the application for mining lease dated 07.08.1985 for Dolomite
and Limestone by WBMDTCL still subsists. Thereupon, reference in the
order dated 09.07.2014 is made to sub-section (2) to Section 112 of the Mines

2 11. Preferential right of certain persons . - (1) Where a reconnaissance permit
or prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land, the permit holder or the
licensee shall have a preferential right for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining lease,
as the case may be, in respect of that land over any other person:
Provided that the State Government is satisﬁed that the permit holder or the licensee, as the
case may be, -
(a) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations, as the case may be,
to establish mineral resources in such land;
(b) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the reconnaissance permit
or the prospecting licence;
(c) has not become ineligible under the provision of this Act; and
(d) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may
be, within three months after the expiry of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence, as
the case may be, or within such further period as may be extended by the said Government.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1),where the State Government has not
notiﬁed in the Oﬃcial Gazette the area for grant of reconnaissance permit or prospecting
licence or mining lease, as the case may be, and two or more persons have applied for a
reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of any land in such
area, the applicant whose application was received earlier, shall have a preferential right to
be considered for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as
the case may be, over the applicant whose application was received later:
Provided that where an area is available for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting
licence or mining lease, as the case may be, and the State Government has invited
applications by notiﬁcation in the Oﬃcial Gazette for grant of such permit, licence or
lease, all the applications received during the period speciﬁed in such notiﬁcation and the
applications which had been received prior to the publication of such notiﬁcation in respect
of the lands within such area and had not been disposed of , shall be deemed to have been
received on the same day for the purposes of assigning priority under this subsection.
Provided further that where any such applications are received on the same day, the State
Government, after taking into consideration the matters speciﬁed in sub-section (3), may
grant the reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to
such one of the applicants as it may deem ﬁt.
(3) The matters referred to in sub-section (2) are the following:-
(a) any special knowledge of, or experience in, reconnaissance operations, prospecting
operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant;
(b) the ﬁnancial resources of the applicant;
(c) the nature and quality of the technical staﬀ employed or to be employed by the applicant;
(d) the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry
based on the minerals;
(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 19573, which states that
in cases where the State Government has not notiﬁed in the Oﬃcial Gazette
an area for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence for mining
lease, and two or more persons had applied for the permit, licence or mining
lease, the person whose application received earlier in point of time shall
have preferential right for grant of permit, licence or lease over the person
whose application was received later. The order states that WBMDTCL is
very much interested in mining Dolomite and Limestone in the area and has
conﬁrmed the said fact in writing vide letter dated 05.06.2014.
2.8. The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih challenged the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Joint
Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal in Writ
Petition No. 21358 (W) of 2014 before the High Court of Calcutta. This
petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.09.2014 observing that the
Joint Secretary, who had passed the order dated 09.07.2014 had failed to
exercise jurisdiction vested in him as the applications ﬁled by WBMDTCL
had been rejected vide common order dated 24.09.2009 and were therefore
not pending. Direction was issued by the High Court to grant a long term
lease in respect of 76 acres of land to the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih by observing that the respondent had a
Rayati status and that the remaining land can be given to WBMDTCL. It may
be relevant to note here that this order records that the ﬁles relating to the

(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section(1), where the State Government notiﬁes in the
Oﬃcial Gazette an area for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining
lease, as the case may be, all the applications received during the period as speciﬁed in such
notiﬁcation, which shall not be less than thirty days, shall be considered simultaneously
as if all such applications have been received on the same day and the State Government,
after taking into consideration the matters speciﬁed in sub-section(3), may grant the
reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one
of the applicants as it may deem ﬁt.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), but subject to the provisions of
sub-section (1), the State Government may, for any special reasons to be recorded, grant
a reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or a mining lease, as the case may be, to
an applicant whose application was received later in preference to an applicant whose
application was received earlier:
Provided that in respect of minerals speciﬁed in the First Schedule, prior approval of the
Central Government shall be obtained before passing any order under this sub-section.
3 For short, ‘MMDR Act, 1957’
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) 287
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

application of WBMDTCL were untraceable. WBMDTCL was not made a
party to the said writ petition. Notably, the application ﬁled by WBMDTCL,
being earlier in point of time in terms of the applicable rules was to be given
preference, whereas the application ﬁled by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih was rejected vide orders dated
13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003. However, the rejection orders were recalled vide
order dated 13.10.2006 and the Letter of Intent dated 26.10.2006 was issued
in favour of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih. Subsequently, the Grant Order dated 13.10.2006 in favour of
the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih
was cancelled and recalled vide order dated 13.12.2010. This order dated
13.12.2010 was never challenged and has attained ﬁnality. It is during the
period between the order dated 13.10.2006 and the order dated 13.12.2010
that the request/application of WBMDTCL was rejected and the mining
lease cancelled vide order dated 24.09.2009.
2.9. On 10.02.2015, vide notiﬁcation No. S.O. 423 (E), Dolomite
was notiﬁed as a minor mineral, and accordingly henceforth, fell under the
legislative and administrative jurisdiction of the State Government.
2.10. A Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was issued by the Deputy
Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal for Dolomite
mining in favour of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih in respect of 76 acres of land, subject to certain conditions,
including the requirement to submit consent letters of owners of the land
in question (Raiyats) before the execution of the lease deed, or a condition
to this eﬀect would be incorporated in the draft lease. Another stipulation
mentioned therein is the need for permission under Section 14-Y4 of the West

4 14-Y. Limitation on future acquisition of land by a raiyat.—If at any time, after
the commencement of the provisions of this Chapter, the total area of land owned by
a raiyat exceeds the ceiling area applicable to him under Section 14-M, on account of
transfer, inheritance or otherwise, the area of land which is in excess of the ceiling area
shall vest in the State and all the provisions of this Chapter relating to ceiling area shall
apply to such land:
Provided that a person intending to establish a tea garden, mill, factory or workshop,
livestock breeding farm, poultry farm, or dairy, or township in accordance with the
provisions of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979,
may, with the previous permission, in writing, of the State Government and on such terms
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

Bengal Land Reforms Act, 19555 for holding the required land and furnishing
of Conversion Certiﬁcate for plots of land from the appropriate authority in
terms of Section 4-C6 of the WBLR Act, 1955. It is also stipulated that the
Grant Order and the subsequent execution of the lease deed are subject to
the No Objection Certiﬁcate to be obtained from the Central Government
since Dolomite was a major mineral at the time of the order dated 10.09.2014
passed by the High Court.
2.11. Aggrieved by the conditions and the requirements stipulated in
the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015, the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih ﬁled two Contempt Petitions in W.P.

and conditions and in such manner as the State Government may by rules prescribe, acquire
and hold land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him under Section 14-M:
Provided further that if such person, having been permitted by the State Government,
does not utilise within two years of the date of such permission such land for the purpose
for which he has been so permitted by the State Government to acquire and hold it, then, all
the provisions of this Chapter relating to ceiling area shall apply to the area of land which
is held in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him under Section 14-M.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “person” includes an individual,
a ﬁrm, a company, an institution, or an association or body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not.
5 For short, ‘WBLR Act, 1955’.’
6 4-C. Permission for change of area, character or use of land.—(1) A raiyat holding
any land may apply to the Collector for change of area or character of such land or for
conversion of the same for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was settled or
was being previously used or for alteration in the mode of use of such land.
(2) On receipt of such application, the Collector may, after making such inquiry
as may be prescribed and after giving the applicant or the persons interested in such land
or aﬀected in any way an opportunity of being heard, by order in writing either reject the
application or direct such change, conversion or alteration, as the case may be, on such
terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
(3) Every order under sub-section (2) directing change, conversion or alteration shall
specify the date from which such change, conversion or alteration shall take eﬀect.
(4) A copy of the order passed by the Collector directing change, conversion or
alteration, if any, under sub-section (2), or in an appeal therefrom shall he forwarded to
the Revenue Oﬃcer referred to in Section 50 or Section 51, as the case may be, and such
Revenue Oﬃcer shall incorporate in the record-of-rights changes eﬀected by such order
and revise the record-of-rights in accordance with such order.
(5) If the Collector is satisﬁed that any land is being convened for any purpose other
than the purpose for which it was settled or was being previously held, or attempts are being
made to eﬀect alteration in the mode of use of such land or change of the area or character
of such land, he may, by order, restrain the raiyat from such Act.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) 289
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

21358 (W) of 2014. These contempt petitions were disposed of, inter alia,
observing that the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih was required to fulﬁl the conditions, including furnishing of the
Conversion Certiﬁcate under Section 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955 and No
Objection Certiﬁcate from the Government of India. The court, therefore,
found that there was no wilful, or contumacious violation of the order dated
10.09.2014. However, liberty was granted to the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih to question the Grant Order
dated 16.07.2015.
2.12. The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih thereupon preferred Writ Petition No. 20309 (W) of 2016 before
the High Court of Calcutta. However, WBMDTCL was not a party to this
writ petition. In the meanwhile, a clariﬁcation was sought by the Deputy
Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal and vide
clariﬁcation dated 26.08.2016 issued by the Government of India, Ministry
of Mines, it was clariﬁed that even prior to 10.02.2015, Dolomite was a
Non-Scheduled major mineral, for which prior approval of the Central
Government was not required under sub-section (1) to Section 5 of the
MMDR Act, 1957.
2.13.This Writ Petition No. 20309 (W) of 2016 vide judgment and
order dated 12.04.2017 has been allowed inter alia observing that Dolomite
had become a minor mineral with eﬀect from 10.02.2015 and hence prior
approval of the Central Government is not required under Section 5(1) of
the MMDR Act, 1957. On the question of requirements under Section 14-Y
and 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955, it is observed that the land in question is
recorded as ‘Dungri’ as per information provided by the Deputy District
Land and Land Reforms Oﬃcer, Purulia vide Memo No. V/RTI/775/15
dated 06.03.2017 and that the land classiﬁed as ‘Dungri’ is only used for
the purpose of mining lease and thus, there is no need for a conversion
certiﬁcate under Section 4-C of the WBLR, Act, 1955. The clariﬁcation dated
07.04.2016 was issued by the Additional District Magistrate and District
Land and Land Reforms Oﬃcer, Purulia, stating that the Respondent No.
1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih had procured a No
Objection Certiﬁcate in respect of the major portion of Raiyati land from
diﬀerent owners and that the State Government itself was the owner of
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

20.87 acres of land, thus Section 14-Y of the WBLR Act, 1955 would not be
applicable as the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih has not acquired land in excess ceiling limit prescribed under
Section 14-M of the WBLR Act, 1955.
2.14. This judgment was challenged by the State of West Bengal in
an intra-court appeal being F.M.A. No. 1458 of 2017 with CAN No. 6596
of 2017 which has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated
04.10.2018. Agreeing with the ﬁndings recorded by the Single Judge,
the division bench has held that the provisions of the West Bengal Minor
Minerals Concession Rules, 20167 will not be applicable as the Respondent
No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih had made the
application in March 1998, and more so as the Joint Secretary, Government
of West Bengal had passed the order dated 13.10.2006 to grant mining
lease. The High Court’s direction given in Writ Petition No. 21358 (W) of
2014 vide judgment dated 10.09.2014 are prior to the enforcement of the
Concession Rules, 2016.
3. We have heard the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State
of West Bengal and the Respondent No. 2 – Dinesh Agarwal, who has
appeared in-person. They have also submitted their written submissions.
4. We begin our discussion by first referring to Rule 61 of the
Concession Rules, 2016, which reads as under:
“61.Decleration of ineligibility of the pending minor mineral
applications for mining lease including the applications of
reclassiﬁed major minerals.- All applications for mining lease of
minor minerals including the reclassiﬁed minor minerals vide SO No-
423 (E) dated 12th February,2015 received prior to the giving-eﬀect
to this rules irrespective of its duration of pendency shall become
ineligible.
Provided that if the applicant has been issued a Grant Order or Letter
of Intent (LoI) or any other Government Order requiring the alteration
of applicant’s position then his mining lease application may be
considered after due compliance of the all the necessary conditions”

7 For short, ‘Concession Rules, 2016’.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) 291
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

5. An almost corresponding amendment was made to the MMDR Act,
1957 by incorporating Section 10-A vide Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Amendment Act, 20158, which reads as under:
10-A. Rights of existing concession holders and applicants.— (1)
All applications received prior to the date of commencement of the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,
2015, shall become ineligible.
(2) Without prejudice to sub-section (1), the following shall remain
eligible on and from the date of commencement of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015—
(a) applications received under Section 11-A of this Act;
(b) where before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 a reconnaissance
permit or prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land
for any mineral, the permit holder or the licensee shall have a right
for obtaining a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease, or a
mining lease, as the case may be, in respect of that mineral in that
land, if the State Government is satisﬁed that the permit holder or the
licensee, as the case may be,—
(i) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations,
as the case may be, to establish the existence of mineral contents in
such land in accordance with such parameters as may be prescribed
by the Central Government;
(ii) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the
reconnaissance permit or the prospecting licence;
(iii) has not become ineligible under the provisions of this Act; and
(iv) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining
lease, as the case may be, within a period of three months after the
expiry of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence, as the case
may be, or within such further period not exceeding six months as
may be extended by the State Government;

8 For short, ‘Amendment Act, 2015’.
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

(c) where the Central Government has communicated previous
approval as required under sub-section (1) of Section 5 for grant of
a mining lease, or if a letter of intent (by whatever name called) has
been issued by the State Government to grant a mining lease, before
the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, the mining lease shall be granted
subject to fulﬁlment of the conditions of the previous approval or
of the letter of intent within a period of two years from the date of
commencement of the said Act:
Provided that in respect of any mineral speciﬁed in the First Schedule,
no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted under clause
(b) of this sub-section except with the previous approval of the Central
Government.
6. Rule 61 of the Concession Rules, 2016 states that all applications
for mining lease of minor minerals including reclassiﬁed minor minerals
vide S.O. No. 423 (E) dated 12.02.2015 received prior to giving eﬀect
to the Concession Rules, 20169, irrespective of its duration of pendency
shall become ineligible. In other words, these applications are not to be
considered. The proviso makes an exception and states that if an applicant,
who had made an application prior to 29.07.2016, had been issued a Grant
Order or a Letter of Intent, or any other order requiring alteration of the
applicant’s position, his application for mining lease may be considered
after due compliance of all necessary conditions. The question is whether
the respondents’ case is covered by the exception in terms of the proviso
to Rule 61 of the Concession Rules,2016. We have already referred to the
reasoning given by the division bench of the High Court dealing with the
Concession Rules, 2016, and would like to quote the ﬁndings which hold
that the proviso would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
These observations read:
“25. ….Neither such recent policy nor can the provisions of the West
Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 can apply to the
application of the writ petitioners made in March, 1998 and more so
as the order of the Joint Secretary to grant lease is dated 13 th October,

9 The Concession Rules, 2016 came into eﬀect on 29.07.2016
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) 293
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

2006 and that of this Court directing grant of long term lease is dated
10th September, 2014 are prior to such policy and prior to the said
Rules came into operation. It further appears that necessary mining
plan taking into account the environmental aspect has been submitted
by the writ petitioners and the appellant/State has raised no grievance
in respect thereof.”
7. The policy referred to in the aforesaid paragraph is in terms of the
letter dated 02.02.2018 issued by the Principal Secretary, State of West
Bengal, wherein it is speciﬁed that obtaining a Conversion Certiﬁcate is a
mandatory condition for the purpose of a mining lease. Reference in the
impugned judgment to the order dated 13.10.2006, or for that matter, the
Letter of Intent dated 26.10.2006 is inconsequential as the said orders were
recalled and revoked on 03.12.2010. The orders did not survive and continue
to operate thereafter. Writ Petition No. 7505 (W) of 2003 was disposed of
ex-parte, without noticing that the order dated 13.10.2006 had been recalled
or cancelled, albeit the judgment had directed that the application for grant of
lease would be considered in accordance with law and the rules applicable at
the time of consideration. The order dated 03.12.2010 was never challenged
by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih
and has attained ﬁnality. At best, the case of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih is that the application dated
06.03.1998 should be considered in accordance with law.
8. The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih has relied upon judgment of this Court in Bhushan Power and
Steel Limited v. S.L. Seal, Additional Secretary (Steel and Mines), State
of Odisha and Others10. In the said case, the predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioner therein had made an application for grant of lease before the State
of Odisha for mining of Iron Ore in an area measuring 1250 acres. The
application was in view of the proposal to set up a steel plant in the district
of Sambalpur, Odisha. The rejection for the grant of the mining lease to M/s.
Bhushan Power and Steel Limited was challenged in a Writ Petition in the
High Court, which was dismissed, but the appeal preferred before this Court
was allowed vide judgment dated 14.03.2012 in Bhushan Power and Steel

10 (2017) 2 SCC 125.
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

Limited and Others v. State of Orissa and Another11, setting aside the order
of the State Government dated 09.02.2016, with the following directions:
“41. In the light of the above, the High Court erred in holding that it
could not interfere with the decision of the State Government calling
upon the appellants to sign a fresh MoU with the Government, during
subsistence of the earlier MoU. Since the State Government has already
made allotments in favour of others in relaxation of the Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960, under Rule 59(2) thereof, no cogent ground
had been made out on behalf of the State to deny the said privilege
to the appellants as well. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set
aside the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa and also
the decision of the State Government dated 9-2-2006, rejecting the
appellants’ claim for grant of mining lease.
42. During the course of hearing, we have been informed that Thakurani
Block A has large reserves of iron ore, in which the appellants can
also be accommodated. We, accordingly, direct the State of Orissa to
take appropriate steps to act in terms of the MoU dated 15-5-2002, as
also its earlier commitments to recommend the case of the appellants
to the Central Government for grant of adequate iron ore reserves to
meet the requirements of the appellants in their steel plant at Lapanga.”
9. The State of Odisha thereafter ﬁled an application for review of the
judgment in Bhushan Power and Steel Limited and Others v. State of Orissa
and Another12 (supra) which was rejected vide order dated 11.09.2012.
10. Alleging non-compliance and in-action of the judgment dated
14.03.2012, a contempt petition was ﬁled by M/s Bhushan Power and Steel
Limited. The contempt petition was contested by the State of Odisha on
several grounds, including that the judgment dated 14.03.2012 is incapable
of enforcement, for which reliance was placed on a subsequent judgment of
this Court in Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka13.
This stand did not ﬁnd favour with this Court and the oﬃcers of the State
Government were found to be in contempt of the judgment dated 14.03.2012

11 (2012) 4 SCC 246.
12 (2012) 4 SCC 246.
13 (2010) 13 SCC 1.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) 295
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

vide judgment dated 22.04.2014 in Bhushan Power and Steel Limited v.
Rajesh Verma14. Under these circumstances, the judgment dated 22.04.2014
had given one more opportunity to the State Government to send requisite
recommendation to the Central Government inter alia observing that this
Court cannot lose sight of the fact that there is a judgment inter se the parties,
which has become ﬁnal. Accordingly, the contention that the judgment of
this Court in Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited (supra) will not
undo the directions given in the judgment dated 14.03.2012 was rejected.
The relevant observations in the judgment dated 22.04.2014 read as under:
“21. We cannot lose sight of the fact that there is a judgment, inter
partes, which has become ﬁnal. Even when the civil appeal was being
heard, certain other parties claiming their interest in these very lands
had moved intervention applications which were dismissed. At that
time also it was mentioned that there are 195 applicants. However,
notwithstanding the same, this Court issued ﬁrm directions to the
State Government to recommend the case of the petitioners for mining
lease in both the areas. In view of such categorical and unambiguous
directions given in the judgment which has attained ﬁnality, merely
because another judgment has been delivered by this Court in Sandur
Manganese case , cannot be a ground to undo the directions contained
in the judgment dated 14-3-2012. Insofar as law laid down in Sandur
Manganese is concerned, that may be applied and followed by the State
Government in respect of other applications which are still pending.
However, that cannot be pressed into service qua the petitioner whose
rights have been crystallised by the judgment rendered in its favour.
It cannot be reopened, that too at the stage of implementation of the
said judgment.
22. …. Once we hold that the respondents are bound to implement the
direction contained in the judgment dated 14-3-2012, insofar as the
State Government is concerned, it is obliged to comply therewith and
such matters, along with other relevant considerations, can be left to
the wisdom of the Central Government while taking a decision on the
recommendation of the State Government.

14 (2014) 5 SCC 551.
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

xx xx xx
24. …. However, we are giving one ﬁnal opportunity to them to purge
the contempt by transmitting requisite recommendations to the Central
Government. It would be for the Central Government to consider the
said recommendations on its own merits and in accordance with law.
In case the recommendation is sent within one month from the date
of copy of receipt of this order, we propose not to take any further
action and the respondents/contemnors shall stand discharged from
this contempt petition. However, in case the respondents do not purge
in the manner mentioned above, it would be open to the petitioners
to point out the same to this Court by moving appropriate application
and in that event the contemnors shall be proceeded against.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. Consequent to the directions dated 22.04.2014, the State Government
had sent the requisite recommendation to the Central Government for grant
of mining lease of the area in question. The Central Government, however,
took the stand that having regard to the amendments in the MMDR Act,
1957, vide the Amendment Act, 2015 introducing Section 10-A, the request
made by M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited stands invalidated. In
view of the aforesaid stand, the Central Government had written letters to
the State Government, with a copy sent to M/s Bhushan Power and Steel
Limited. In the letter dated 13.05.2015, the Central Government had stated
that the proposal for according the prior approval for grant of mineral
concession was ineligible in terms of sub-section (1) to Section 10-A of
the MMDR Act, 1957 and, therefore, should be treated as closed. However,
the State Government might ascertain whether the proposal was safe from
ineligibility under Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 and thereupon
the State Government could take action accordingly. Similar view was also
expressed by the Central Government in the letter dated 29.05.2015 therein.
Consequent to these communications, the State government vide letter dated
09.07.2015 had informed M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited that their
applications for grant of mining lease had become ineligible as per sub-
section (1) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) 297
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

12. This Court in M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Limited15 (supra),
speciﬁcally examined the contention whether in the facts of the said case,
clause (c) to sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 could
be invoked in view of the contention raised by M/s Bhushan Steel and
Power Limited that the Letter of Intent was issued by the State Government
for grant of mining lease and, therefore, their application stands protected.
The submission was that the recommendation dated 24.05.2014, given by
the State Government should be treated as a Letter of Intent by “whatever
name called”, as it signiﬁes the intention to grant mining lease insofar as
the State Government is concerned. It was also argued that under the new
regime contained under Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957, approval of
the Central Government was not even required and the State Government
could have proceeded further and granted the lease.
13. The aforesaid arguments did not ﬁnd favour of this Court in the
case of M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Limited (supra) in spite of the
earlier judgment of this Court dated 14.03.2012 and the order passed in the
contempt petition dated 22.04.2014 with the observations therein that there
was failure of the State Government to comply with the directions. This
Court rejected the submissions in M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Limited
(supra) and held as under:
“17. Undoubtedly, as per sub-section (1) of Section 10-A, all
applications received prior to coming into force of the Amendment
Act, 2015, become ineligible. Reason for interpreting such a provision
is not far to seek. Before the passing of the Amendment Act, 2015, it
was the Central Government which had the ultimate control over the
grant of licences insofar as mining of major minerals is concerned.
As per the procedure then existing, the State Government could
recommend the application submitted by any applicant for grant of
mining lease to the Central Government and the Central Government
was given the power to grant or refuse to grant the approval. Thus,
“previous approval” from the Central Government was essential for
grant of lease, without which the State Government could not enter

15 (2012) 4 SCC 246.
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

into any such lease agreement with the applicant. Shortcomings of
this procedure were noticed by this Court in its judgment rendered
in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India [(2012) 3 SCC
1] (for short “CPIL case”) and also in Natural Resources Allocation,
In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 [Natural Resources Allocation,
In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1] . In these
judgments, this Court expressed that allocation of natural resources
should normally be by auction. Judgment in CPIL case had a direct
relevance to the grant of mineral concessions as the Government found
that it was resulting in multipurpose litigation which was becoming
counterproductive. Mining Ordinance, 2015 was passed on 12-1-
2015 which was ultimately replaced when Parliament enacted the
Amendment Act, 2015.
18. The exhaustive Statement of Objects and Reasons reveals that
the extensive amendment in the Act were eﬀected after extensive
consultations and intensive scrutiny by the Standing Committee on
Coal and Steel, who gave their Report in May 2013. As is evident from
the Statement that diﬃculties were experienced because the existing
Act does not permit the auctioning of mineral concessions. It was
observed that with auctioning of mineral concessions, transparency in
allocation will improve; the Government will get an increased share of
the value of mineral resources; and that it will alleviate the procedural
delay, which in turn would check slowdown which adversely aﬀected
the growth of mining sector.
19. The Amendment Act, 2015, as is evident from the objects, aims
at: (i) eliminating discretion; (ii) improving transparency in the
allocation of mineral resources; (iii) simplifying procedures; (iv)
eliminating delay on administration, so as to enable expeditious and
optimum development of the mineral resources of the country; (v)
obtaining for the Government an enhanced share of the value of the
mineral resources; and (vi) attracting private investment and the latest
technology.
20. The Amendment Act, 2015 ushered in the amendment of Sections 3,
4, 4-A, 5, 6, 13, 15, 21 and First Schedule; substitution of new sections
for Sections 8, 11 and 13; and, insertion of new Sections 8-A, 9-B,
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) 299
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

9-C, 10-A, 10-C, 11-B, 11-C, 12-A, 15-A, 17-A, 20-A, 30-B, 30-C
and Fourth Schedule.
21. These amendments brought in vogue: (i) auction to be the sole
method of allotment; (ii) extension of tenure of existing lease from the
date of their last renewal to 31-3-2030 (in the case of captive mines)
and till 31-3-2020 (for the merchant miners) or till the completion
of renewal already granted, if any, or a period of 50 years from the
date of grant of such lease; (iii) establishment of District Mineral
Foundation for safeguarding interest of persons aﬀected by mining
related activities; (iv) setting up of a National Mineral Exploration Trust
created out of contributions from the mining lease-holders, in order
to have a dedicated fund for encouraging exploration and investment;
(v) removal of the provisions requiring “previous approval” from
the Central Government for grant of mineral concessions in case of
important minerals like iron ore, bauxite, manganese, etc. thereby
making the process simpler and quicker; (vi) introduction of stringent
penal provisions to check illegal mining prescribing higher penalties
up to Rs 5 lakhs per hectare and imprisonment up to 5 years; and (vii)
further empowering the State Government to set up Special Courts
for trial of oﬀences under the Act.”
14. Thus, the object and purpose of the Amendment Act, 2015 is to
ensure that allocation of mineral resources is done through auctioning. This
is the reason why sub-section (1) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957
mandates that all applications received prior to 12.01.2015 shall become
ineligible. The exceptions or the saving clause applies to three kinds of
situations speciﬁed in sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act.
1957. The ﬁrst category is where an application has been received under
Section 11-A of the MMDR Act,1957. The second category is where
a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence has been granted the
permit holder or the licensee has the right to obtain a prospecting licence
followed by a mining lease and the State Government is satisﬁed that the
permit holder or the licensee has complied with the requirements speciﬁed
in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of
the MMDR Act, 1957. The reason for protecting this class of cases is on
account of the fact that they had altered their position by spending money
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

on reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations. Accordingly, the
principle of legitimate expectation is applied. The third category is where
the Central Government had already communicated their previous approval
or the State Government had issue Letter of Intent for grant of mining lease
before coming into force of the Amendment Act 2015. The raison dêtre,
it is observed therein, is that certain rights had accrued to these applicants
inasmuch as all necessary procedures and formalities had been complied
with and only formal lease remains to be executed.
15. Delving on the question of whether the letter for approval dated
22.05.2014 granted by the State Government can be treated as a Letter of
Intent predicated on the words by whatever name, which expression, it was
submitted, should be given a broad interpretation in view of the words ‘by
whatever name called’ was examined in-depth and in detail. Reference was
made to the legal dictionary for the meaning of the term ‘Letter of Intent’
as a preliminary understanding between the parties who intend to make
a contract or join together for further action. Reference was also made to
decisions of this Court in Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited v. Board
of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust and Others16 and Rajasthan Cooperative
Dairy Federation Limited v. Maha Laxmi Mingrate Marketing Service
Private Limited and Others17 However, the said contention was rejected
inter alia holding as under:
“26. Applying the aforesaid meaning, can it be said that Letter dated
24-5-2014 of the State Government would constitute a letter of intent?
We are afraid, answer has to be in the negative. Reason is simple. As
mentioned above, in order to enable the State Government to enter into
any lease agreement/contract with the prospecting licensee, “previous
approval” of the Central Government was essential. Unless such
approval came, the State Government could not communicate to the
prospecting licensee/lessee its intention to enter into any contract as the
prerequisite prior approval would be lacking. Therefore, no promise
could be held by the State Government to any applicant showing its
intention to enter into a contract in the future. Position would have

16 (2015) 13 SCC 233.
17 (1996) 10 SCC 405.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) 301
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

been diﬀerent had Letter dated 24-5-2014 been issued after receiving
previous approval of the Central Government. However, that is not so.
This letter to the Central Government was only recommendatory in
nature and ultimate decision rested with the Central Government. It is a
diﬀerent thing if the Central Government refuses to give its approval on
any extraneous reasons or mala ﬁdes or does not take into consideration
relevant factors/material while rejecting the application, which may
form a diﬀerent cause of action and may become a reason to challenge
the action of the Central Government rejecting the application on the
grounds that are available in law to seek judicial review of such an
action. However, we are not dealing with that situation in the instant
case. Our discussion is conﬁned to the plea raised before us viz.
whether Letter dated 24-5-2014 can be termed as “letter of intent”.
For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that it was not a letter
of intent. The application of the petitioner, therefore, would not be
covered by clause (c) of Section 10-A of the Act.
27. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioner herein had originally
succeeded in the appeal inasmuch as judgment dated 14-3-2012 was
rendered giving direction to the State Government to recommend
the case of the petitioner, in terms of the MoU entered into between
the parties, to the Central Government. This was not done and the
decision was reiterated in orders dated 22-4-2014 passed in Bhushan
Power and Steel Ltd. v. Rajesh Verma [. It is possible that had the
State Government acted promptly and sent the recommendations
earlier, the Central Government might have accorded its approval.
However, whether it could have done so or not would be in the realm
of conjectures. Insofar as the Central Government is concerned,
no direction was ever given by this Court. On the contrary, it was
categorically observed in the order dated 22-4-2014 in Bhushan
Power and Steel Ltd. v. Rajesh Verma that it would be for the Central
Government to consider the recommendations of the State Government
on its own merits and in accordance with law. If that has not been done
by the Central Government, it cannot be the subject-matter of present
contempt petition.”
16. The aforesaid judgment is relevant for our purpose, though in the
present case, post notiﬁcation No. S.O. 423(E) dated 10.02.2015, Dolomite
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

was notiﬁed as a minor mineral and hence, the approval of the Central
Government was not required for the reason that the Grant Order dated
16.07.2015 was hedged with pre-conditions, including the requirement
to submit consent letters of the owners of the land in question (Raiyats)
before the execution of the lease deed, or there was to be a stipulation that a
condition to this eﬀect would be incorporated in the draft lease. Therefore, in
our opinion, the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 is provisional, and is subject
to fulﬁlment of the conditions therein. This is clear from the terms of the
Grant Order dated 16.07.2015, which are reproduced below:
“
xx xx xx
(a) You have to furnish a Draft Mining Lease Deed in the model form
K us prescribed in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, as amended
upto date (1 rule 31 of MC Rules, 1960),
(b) The Draft Mining Lease Deed should be prepared in durable papers
neatly and suﬃcient space should be kept in between two lines in order
to permit, if necessary, correction therein,
(c) The Deed of Lease, after execution, shall be registered by you
at your own cost and no mining operation should be started before
registration of the Deed,
(d) You shall have to furnish the approved Mining Plan, if not submitted
rules 22(4) and 22A of MC Rules, 1960,
(e) You shall have to furnish the Environment Clearance (EC), if not
submitted from the M1EF Environment of Protection Act, 1986,
(f) You shall have to furnish Consent to Establish and Consent to
Operate from the WBPCB before execution of Deed of Lease [Section
25 and 26 of Water Act ,1974 and Section 21 of Air Act, 1981],
(g) You shall have to raise annually a minimum quantity of minerals
as stipulated in the approved Mine Plan [rules 22A and 45(ia) of MC
Rules, 1960],
(h) You shall have to deposit Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand) only
as Security for due observance of the terms and conditions of the lease,
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) 303
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

under appropriate Head of Account which shall be refundable to you
after expiry of the period of Lease, unless the whole or a part of it is
withheld or forfeited by the Government for any default on you part
including default in payment of amount due to the Government [rule
32 of MC Rules, 1960],
(i) You shall have to submit consent letter(s) of the owner(s) of the
land under consideration before execution of the Lease Deed (Consent
of the Raiyats) or a condition to that eﬀect should be incorporated in
the Draft Deed (rule 22(3)(i)(1t)),
(j) You shall have to furnish the N.O.C., of the Forest Authority in
proper format in case the applied area falls in the forest area as notiﬁed
by the Appropriate Authority, alongwith the Draft Lease Deed or
a condition to that eﬀect should be incorporated in the Draft Deed
[Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980],
(k) For actual operation of quarrying or digging, ten (10) yards clear
margin shall be kept from the outer boundary of the adjacent 1 plot
or plots and maintain throughout the operation and you shall have to
give a written undertaking to that eﬀect or corporate a condition in
the Draft Lease Deed,
(l) You shall have to incorporate all the conditions as mentioned in
the M.C. Rules, 1960 in the Draft Lease Deed,
(m) You shall have to furnish up to date Royalty Clearance, Income Tac
Clearance and VAT Clearance certiﬁcates before execution of the Deed,
(n) You shall have to submit, along with the Draft Deed, a Geo-
Reference Map duly vetted by the DL&LRO and DMM, West Bengal,
if not submitted,
(o) You shall have obtained the permission under Section 14Y of
WBLR Act, 1955 for holding the required land,
(p) You have to furnish the Conversion Certiﬁcate for plots of land
from the Appropriate Authority (Section 4C of WBLR Act, 1955),
(q) You have to furnish the current Land Availability Report (LAR)
from the Appropriate Authority.
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

(r) In the event of non-execution of the deed within the stipulated
period on compliance with the above mentioned conditions the order
sanctioning the lease shall be liable to be revoked,
(s) You shall have to comply with all the statutory requirements before
presenting the Deed of Lease of execution to this Department,
(t) This Grant Order and subsequent execution of Lease Deed are
subject to the No Objection Certiﬁcate (NOC) to be obtained by this
Department form the Govt. of India since the applicant prayed for
mining lease on the ground that the Letter of Intent (Lol) was issued
for the mineral Dolomite which was a major mineral at the time of
order dated 10.09.2014 of the Hon’ble High Court.

xx xx xx”
17. Raiyat land is to be used for cultivation, etc., and not for mining.
Once the mining activity is undertaken, the Raiyats will not be able to use
the land. In terms of sub-section (10) to Section 2 of the WBLR Act, 1955,
a Raiyat means a person or an institution holding land for any purpose
whatsoever. However, the rights of Raiyat in respect of the land in terms of
sub-section (2A) to Section 4 of the WBLR Act, 1955 does not permit any
other person to quarry sand from his holding, dig or use, or permit any person
to dig or use, earth or clay of his holding for the manufacture of bricks or
tiles except with previous permission in writing of the State Government.
In case of breach of the condition, the prescribed authority may, after giving
notice and opportunity to a Raiyat to show cause, can levy a monetary
penalty. Further, on an order being passed, the land shall vest in the State
free from all encumbrances. Section 4-B of the WBLR Act, 1955 stipulates
that every Raiyat holding any land shall maintain and preserve such land in
a manner that the area is not diminished or its character is not changed or
the land is not converted for any purpose other than the purpose for which
it was settled or previously held except with the previous permission of the
Collector in writing. Equally signiﬁcant for our purpose is Section 3A of
the WBLR Act, 1955, which states that the rights and interests of all non-
agricultural tenants and under-tenants shall vest in the State free from all
encumbrances and provisions of Section 5 and 5A of the West Bengal Estates
Acquisition Act, 1953 shall apply. An exception is carved out by sub-section
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) 305
INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

(2) to Section 3A of the WBLR Act, 1955, where a non-agricultural tenant
or under-tenant is holding khas possession of any land, in which case he is
entitled to retain the land as Raiyat. There are also provisions relating to the
transferability of land by the Raiyat. If cultivation was not being undertaken
at the land in question, the classiﬁcation requires a change.
18. The controversy relating to Section 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955,
cannot simply be decided on the basis of Memo No. V/RTI/775/15 dated
06.03.2017 issued by the Deputy District Land and Land Reforms Oﬃcer,
Purulia, that as per the revenue records the land was recorded as ‘Dungri’.
The reason is that Raiyat land is not for mining. Thus, a contradiction
arises, as the grant of Raiyat land and the classiﬁcation of the same land as
‘Dungri’ is contradictory.
19. Further, whether the consent letter of the owners of the land in
question (Raiyats) obtained by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal
(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih still hold good, would be relevant as there
could be a change of hands on account of transfer, inheritance, etc. Connected
with this are the legal issues. First, whether the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih had altered its position post the
issue of the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015, but before enforcement of the
Concession Rules, 2016, to get the beneﬁt of Rule 61 of the Concessions
Rules, 2016? It is necessary to ascertain the facts and then alone one can
adjudicate and decide the question whether the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih is entitled to the beneﬁt of
the proviso to Rule 61 of the Concession Rules, 2016. This has not been
veriﬁed and ascertained. An issue would arise on whether the application
ﬁled by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of
Bagandih way back in 1998 would still hold good as at the time, when the
application was ﬁled, approval of the Central Government was required.
Another diﬃculty is that WBMDTCL has not been impleaded as a party,
though it was always contesting the claim made by the Respondent No.
1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih. On the question of
cancellation or rejection of the application made by WBMDTCL, we have
made observations supra. However, we need not examine these issues in
light of the order and directions we are issuing. Further, we feel that the
remand order should not be passed at this distinct point of time.
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

20. Having said so, it is the stand of the appellants – State of West
Bengal, that they are owners of 20.87 acres of the land in question and to
this extent, they have no diﬃculty in executing the mining lease. This being
the stated stand, which has also been aﬃrmed before us, there should be
no diﬃculty in granting of mining lease for the said area to the Respondent
No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih.
21. During the course of arguments before us, reference was made by
the appellants to the provisions of the WBLR Act, 1955 and the judgment
of this Court in Thressiamma Jacob and Others v. Geologist, Department
of Mining and Geology and Others18. We have not examined the said
aspects which are left open and not adjudicated upon. However, we deem
it appropriate to observe that the judgment of this Court in Thressiamma
Jacob and Others (supra) is prior to the enforcement of the Amendment
Act, 2015 and the Concession Rules, 2016. The amendments made by
the Amendment Act, 2015 were not subject matter of decision in the said
case and would have to be considered by the courts and the authorities as
a judgment’s binding ratio depends upon the legal provisions considered,
interpreted and applied in a given judgment. When the law changes by
an amendment in the legislation, the amended legal provisions have to be
considered, interpreted and applied.
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated, we partly allow the present
appeal and set aside the impugned judgment with a direction that the
government of West Bengal will execute a mining lease for 20.87 acres of
land in favour of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries
of Bagandih. The Writ Petition No. 20309 (W) of 2016 will be treated as
allowed to the extent as indicated above. The claim of the Respondent No.
1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih towards the balance
area for the grant of mining lease will be treated as rejected and dismissed.
In the facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.

Headnotes prepared by: Appeal partly allowed.
Ankit Gyan

18 (2013) 9 SCC 725.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "mining lease"Sign in to search