1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4246 of 2025 1 - Rekhchand Jain S/o Late Shrimal Jain Aged About 61 Years R/o Near Head Post Office Moti Talabpara, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Namely Mohammad Imran Qureshi S/o Late Anwarul Haque Qureshi, Aged About 40 Years R/o Moti Bhawan, Lane Nayapara, District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Mineral Resources Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Through Its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Paryavas Bhawan, North Balock, Sector - 19, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Geology And Minerals Department Second Floor, Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Mining Officer Office Of Mining Office Jagdalpur District - Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Member Secretary State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Chhattisgarh Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector - 19, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Environment Forest And Climate Change (Impact Assessment Division) New Delhi Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.09.02 18:16:51 +0530 2 7 - Collector (Mining Department ), Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Shri Rishabh Gupta, Advocate For State : Shri Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General For Respondents No.2 and 5 : Shri Animesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Shri Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General and Shri Tushar Dhar Diwan, Central Government Counsel Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 08/08/2025 1. The petitioner, by way of the instant writ petition, has challenged the legality, validity and proprietary of the order dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P1) passed by respondent No.1, whereby the authority, by invoking the provisions of Section 4A(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 20 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, has declared the mining lease of the petitioner as lapsed. The order passed by the State Government is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. The State Government while exercising the powers of under Section 4(A) of the Act of 1957 has failed to appreciate the proviso to Section 4(A) of the Act of 1957 and also failed to appreciate the reply filed by the petitioner. 3 2. Admittedly, the petitioner has applied for mining lease and vide order dated 17.05.2002 the lease was granted and the lease deed was executed on 10.06.2002 and registered on 12.06.2002 for a period of 20 years commencing from 10.06.2002 to 09.06.2022 and the said lease deed contains the covenant of renewal [Clause No. 24(2)]. 3. The petitioner started mining operation in the year 2002 itself. On 12.01.2015 the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 was notified and in pursuance of the same, the mines and mineral act has been amended. 4. On 27.05.2017 the Deputy Director has issued a letter, whereby the petitioner was informed that in view of the circular dated 19.05.2015 Clause No. 5.4 and in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27.02.2012 and the letter issued by Ministry of Environment dated 18.05.2012, it is mandatory to obtained Environmental clearance for the mines, having an area less than 5 hectare. 5. The petitioner has applied for environmental clearance on 22.06.2017 and 22.03.2018. The Member Secretary, State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, vide its letter dated 22.01.2018 has informed the lease holder that, the petitioner's lease land is situated nearby Kanger Valley National Park, therefore, now the petitioner is required to obtained the NOC from Central Level. 4 6. The petitioner has submitted the online application before Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, on 06.07.2021 and the said application still pending before Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, (Impact Assessment Division) New Delhi. The petitioner has filed the summery record of 33rd meeting of the expert held on 13.7.2021 and 16.7.2021 and Clause No.5 of the said minutes of meeting deals with the recommendation of the committee. 7. Clause No. 2.4 states that the committee has returned the proposal and ask ministry to take action against project proponent under E(P)A, 1986, now it is pending under consideration. From bare perusal of the aforesaid documents, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner is at not fall. 8. On 26.11.2021 the show cause notice was issued by the Collector to the petitioner and sought his explanation within a period of 30 days. The said notice was issued under Mineral Concession Rules 20(1) of the Rules of 2016. The notice was issued inter alia on the allegations that, in view of Rule 20 of the Rules of 2016 (the correct name of the Rule is "the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016". The mining lease of the petitioner has lapsed, because the production and dispatch is being discontinued for a continuous period of 2 years after commencement of production and dispatch. 5 9. The petitioner submitted the reply to the said show cause notice on 14.12.2021 and has categorically averred in the reply that, in view of the letter dated 22.06.2017 received on 24.07.2017, the petitioner has already made an application for its compliance and the matter is pending before the Central Ministry. The petitioner has categorically submitted that for want of NOC from the environment department, the mining operation has been stopped by Mining Inspection w.e.f. 10.02.2018. It has been further submitted that, for continuation of the mines he has paid the requisite amount. It was categorically averred that environmental clearance is not within the domain of the petitioner and therefore, the mining operation are not being carried out since 10.02.2018 and therefore, the matter may kindly be considered, looking to the aforesaid aspects. 10. On 24.03.2025 the petitioner was directed to appear before the Secretary of the Department for hearing. The power of attorney holder of the original lease holder/petitioner has attended the hearing and shown all the documents to the Secretary and it was also submitted before the Secretary that, the grant of NOC by the environmental department is not under the control of the petitioner. 11. Without considering the reply, the documents the respondent No.1 has passed the order dated 13.06.2025 and declared the lease of the petitioner as lapsed by invoking the powers under 6 Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Rule 20 of The Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016. It has been held by the Secretary that, since 10.02.2018 the mining operation has not been carried out therefore, in view of the provisions of Rule 4A(4) of the Act of 1957 and in view of Rule 20(1) of the Rules of 2016, the lease hold by the petitioner has been declared as lapsed and the authorities have been directed to take action. The petitioner has already applied for renewal of the lease on 10.12.2021 and the mining officer Bastar vide its order dated 5.1.2022 has directed the petitioner to comply with the relevant provisions before execution of the amended lease. 12. For want of environmental clearance, which is not within the control of the petitioner, the petitioner is neither in a position to get the renewal of the lease nor he is in a position to carry out the mining operation. It is admitted position that, the proceedings for grant of environmental clearance/NOC is pending before the competent authority and state is also aware about the said facts and therefore, the authorities have committed gross illegality in passing the impugned order and declared the lease of the petitioner as lapsed. The state authorities are aware that, the petitioner is not at fault and he has timely made an application before the competent authorities, which is pending under consideration. 7 13. Due to amendment carried out in the Mines and Minerals Act and due to the lethargic attitude on the part of the authorities, the petitioner could not get the environmental clearance. Hence, this petition. 14. Following reliefs have been sought in this petition: “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and quashing the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 (Annex.P/1) passed by the respondent No.1 and the authorities may further be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of the lease. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, (Impact Assessment Division) New Delhi may kindly be directed to conclude the proceedings pending since 2018 and the State authorities may further be directed to take necessary steps and provide all necessary information and documents to the respondent No.6 so that the pending matter for grant of environmental clearance before the respondent No. 6 can be disposed of within the stipulated period. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 8 15. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length. 16. On the issue of admission, learned counsel appearing for the respondents drew attention of this Court that this petition is not maintainable under the law and there is no proposal for environmental clearance pending before the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Impact Assessment Division) Non-Coal Mining Sector. 17. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that proposal for terms of reference of the petitioner for Chhote Kadma Limestone Mine (MLA 2.80 Ha) with production of 20500.05 TPA at Village Chhote Kadma, Tahsil Darbha (Jagdalpur), District Bastar, Chhattisgarh – [Proposal No.IA/CG/MIN/209114/2021, File No.J- 11015/35/2021-IA-II(M), Consultant : P and M Solution] – Terms of Reference (Violation) has been pending. He further contended that the Committee noted that the instant proposal is located at a distance of 4.14 km., SE from Kanger Valley National Park which is notified by Ministry’s Notification S.O. 3653(E) dated 10.10.2019. The Committee also observed that the PP made presentation using KML file for showing the location of Kanger Valley National Park by drawing the boundary of the Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) and informed that the mine lease area is located 2.8 km, NW away from the Eco 9 Sensitive Zone (ESZ). Therefore, the Committee was of the view that the submission made by the PP needs to be authenticated by the Competent Authority in the State along with the authenticated location map and the same was agreed by PP and therefore the Committee returned the proposal in present form and asked Ministry to take action against Project Proponent under E(P)A, 1986. 18. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the view of the Committee is that the PP needs to be authenticated by the competent authority in the State along with the authenticated location map and the same was agreed by the PP. On that basis, the Committee returned the proposal. He further contended that thereafter the Collector, District Bastar has issued show cause notice to the petitioner under Rule 20(1) of the Mining Concession Rules, 2016. Thereafter, reply (Annexure P10) has been filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, vide Annexure P11, the State Government, Mineral Resources Department, in view of Section 4A(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 20(1) of the Mining Concession Rules, 2016, has declared the lease as lapsed. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that on 18.5.2012, the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests issued an office memorandum regarding implementation of an order of the Hon’ble Supreme 10 Court dated 27.2.2012 in I.A. No.12-13 of 2011 in SLP (C) No.19628-19629 of 2009 in the matter of Deepak Kumar etc. vs. State of Haryana and others directing inter alia as under: “We, in the meanwhile, order that leases of minor mineral including their renewal for an area of less than 5 hectares be granted by the States / UTs only after getting environmental clearance from the MoEF.” Learned counsel further contended that the proposal of the petitioner has already been rejected by the Expert Appraisal Committee as per Annexure P15, therefore, the only remedy available to the petitioner is under Section 16(i) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which provides as under: “16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction.—Any person aggrieved by,— xxx xxx xxx (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); xxx xxx xxx 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: 11 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.” 20. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, only on the point of maintainability of this petition, this Court finds that the proposal for environmental clearance raised by the petitioner has already been decided by the Expert Appraisal Committee as per Annexure P15, which states is under: “7. The Committee noted that the instant proposal is located at a distance of 4.14 km., SE from Kanger Valley National Park which is notified by Ministry’s Notification S.O. 3653(E) dated 10.10.2019. The Committee also observed that the PP made presentation using KML file for showing the location of Kanger Valley National Park by drawing the boundary of the Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) and informed that the mine lease area is located 2.8 km, NW away from the Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ). Therefore, the Committee was of the view that the submission made by the PP needs to be authenticated by the Competent Authority in the State along with the authenticated location map and the same was agreed by PP and therefore the Committee returned the proposal in present form and asked Ministry to take action against Project Proponent under E(P)A, 1986.” 12 21. Therefore, for the purpose of appellate jurisdiction, the petitioner needs to approach before the National Green Tribunal under Section 16(i) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. 22. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referring to Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 35 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 submits that the petitioner may be allowed to represent before the Central Government. 23. Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 reads as under: “30. Power of revision by Central Government.—The Central Government may, of its own motion or on an application made within the prescribed time by an aggrieved party,— (a) revise any order made by a State Government or other authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by or under this Act with respect to any mineral other than a minor mineral; or (b) where no such order has been made by the State Government or other authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by or under this Act with respect to any mineral other than a minor mineral within the time 13 prescribed therefor, pass such order as it may think fit and appropriate in the circumstances: Provided that in cases covered by clause (b)the Central Government shall, before passing any order under this clause, give an opportunity of being heard or to represent in the matter.” Rule 35 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 reads thus: “35. Application for revision.—(1) Any person aggrieved by: (a) any order made by the State Government or other authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by or under the Act or the rules made thereunder; or (b) non-passing of any order by the State Government or other authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by or under the Act or the rules made thereunder, within the time prescribed therefor may, within three months of (i) the date of communication of the order to him; or (ii) the date on which the time period for passing such order expired, apply to the Central Government in the form specified in Schedule XI for passing of an order, pursuant to section 30. (2) The application should be accompanied by a bank draft for rupees ten thousand as application fee drawn on 14 a Scheduled bank in the name of ‘Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Mines’ payable at New Delhi or by way of a bank transfer to the designated bank account of the Ministry of Mines: Provided that any such application may be entertained after the said period of three months if the applicant satisfies the Central Government that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within time. (3) In every application under sub-rule (1) against the order of a State Government refusing to grant a mineral concession, any person to whom a mineral concession was granted in respect of the same area or for a part thereof, shall be impleaded as party. (4) the applicant shall, along with application under sub-rule (1), submit as many copies thereof as there are parties impleaded under sub-rule (3). (5) On receipt of the application and copies thereof, the Central Government shall send a copy of the application to each of the parties impleaded under sub-rule (3) specifying a date on or before which he may make his representations, if any, against the revision application: Provided that in case where the revision application has been filed for the reason that no order has been passed by the State Government within the time prescribed therefor, the Central Government shall before 15 passing an order give the State Government an opportunity of being heard or to represent in the matter.” 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that there is no good ground to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. This petition is disposed of with a direction that against the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P1) the petitioner may avail alternative remedy by approaching before the competent authority, if law permits. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Gopal