Page No.# 1/37 GAHC010046332025 2026:GAU- AS:10351-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/73/2025 STHENOS CEMENT PVT LTD 347, SANTOSH ROY ROAD, BARISHA SAKHERBAZAR, JAMES LONG SARANI, KOLKATA-700008, THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. ARUN SARAF, S/O MR. RAMAKANT SARAF, R/O 347, SANTOSH ROY ROAD, BARISHA, SAKHERBAZAR, JAMES LONG SARANI, KOLKATA-700008 2: MR ARUN SARAF SHAREHOLDER OF APPELLANT NO.1 SON OF MR. RAMAKANT SARAF OF 347 SANTOSH ROY ROAD BARISHA SAKHERBAZAR JAMES LONG SARANI KOLKATA-70000 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MINES, GOVT. OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001 2:INDIAN BUREAU OF MINES THROUGH THE CONTROLLER GENERAL 2ND FLOOR INDIRA BHAWAN CIVIL LINES NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA -440001 3:REGIONAL CONTROLLER OF MINES BHUBANESWAR AND GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE Page No.# 2/37 HOUSE NO. 216 3RD FLOOR ABOVE IDBI BANK CHANDMARI POST-BAMUNIMAIDAN DIST- KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI ASSAM-781021 4:THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH THROUGH THE DIRECTOR OF MINES DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINING GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH R K MISSION COMPOUND ITANAGAR -791111 (ARUNACHAL PRADESH.) 5:MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN JORBAGH ROAD NEW DELHI-110003 Advocate for the Petitioner : G KAUSHIK, MR. P GOSWAMI, SR. ADV.,P KUNDU,MR R SENSUA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. U GOSWAMI, DY. SGI,GA, AP Linked Case : WA/89/2025 SKAMORD MINING PVT LTD AND ANR 347 SANTOSH ROY ROAD BARISHA SAKHERBAZAR JAMES LONG SARANI KOLKATA 700008. THROLGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTAIVE MR ARUN SARAF AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS SON OF MR. RAMAKANT SARAF RESIDENT OF 347 SANTOSH ROY ROAD BANSHA SAKHETAZAR JAMES LONG SARANI KOLKATTA 700008 Page No.# 3/37 2: ARUN SARAF SHAREHOLDER OF PETITIONER NO. 1 SON OF MR. RAMAKANT SARAF R/O- 347 SANTOSH ROY ROAD BARISHA SAKHERBAZAR JAMES LONG SARANI KOLKATA-700008. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINES GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110001. 2:INDIAN BUREAU OF MINES THROUGH THE CONTROLLER GENERAL 2ND FLOOR INDIRA BHAWAN CIVIL LINES NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA-440001. 3:REGIONAL CONTROLLER OF MINES BHUBANESWAR AND GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE HOUSE NO. 216 3RD FLOOR ABOVE IDBI BANK CHANDMARI POST-BAMUNIMAIDAN DIST.- KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI ASSAM-781021. 4:THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH THROUGH THE DIRECTOR OF MINES DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINING GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH R.K. MISSION COMPOUND ITANAGAR-791111 (ARUNACHAL PRADESH). 5:MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH SECRETARY INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN JORBAGH ROAD Page No.# 4/37 NEW DELHI-110003. 6:THE STATE LEVEL ENIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY ARUNACHAL PRADESH SEIAA THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS PCCF OFFICE COMPLEX ITANAGAR P. SECTOR ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-791111. ------------ Advocate for : MR R SENSUA Advocate for : MR. U GOSWAMI DY. SGI appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS Linked Case : WA/92/2025 TASSO ALLOYS PVT LTD 347 SANTOSH ROY ROAD BARISHA SAKHERBAZAR JAMES LONG SARANI KOLKATA-700008 THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. ARUN SARAF SON OF MR. RAMAKANT SARAF R/O- 347 SANTOSH ROY ROAD BARISHA SAKHERBAZAR JAMES LONG SARANI KOLKATA-700008. 2: ARUN SARAF SHAREHOLDER OF PETITIONER NO. 1 SON OF MR. RAMAKANT SARAF R/O- 347 SANTOSH ROY ROAD BARISHA SAKHERBAZAR JAMES LONG SARANI KOLKATA-700008. VERSUS Page No.# 5/37 THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINES GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHASTI BHAWAN NEW DELHI - 110001. 2:INDIAN BUREAU OF MINES THROUGH THE CONTROLLER GENERAL 2ND FLOOR INDIRA BHAWAN CIVIL LINES NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA-440001. 3:REGIONAL CONTROLLER OF MINES BHUBANESWAR AND GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE HOUSE NO. 216 3RD FLOOR ABOVE IDBI BANK CHANDMARI POST-BAMUNIMAIDAN DIST.- KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI ASSAM-781021. 4:THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH THROUGH THE DIRECTOR OF MINES DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINING GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH R.K. MISSION COMPOUND ITANAGAR-791111 (ARUNACHAL PRADESH). 5:MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH SECRETARY INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN JORBAGH ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 6:THE STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY ARUNACHAL PRADESH SEIAA THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS PCCF OFFICE COMPLEX ITANAGAR Page No.# 6/37 P. SECTOR ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-791111. ------------ Advocate for : MR R SENSUA Advocate for : MR. U GOSWAMI DY. SGI appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS Linked Case : WA/90/2025 TASSOALLOYS PRIVATE LTD AND ANR 347 SANTOSH ROY ROAD BARISHA SAKHERBAZAR JAMES LONG SARANI KOLKATA-700008 THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. ARUN SARAF SON OF MR. RAMAKANT SARAF R/O- 347 SANTOSH ROY ROAD BARISHA SAKHERBAZAR JAMES LONG SARANI KOLKATA-700008. 2: ARUN SARAF SHAREHOLDER OF PETITIONER NO. 1 SON OF MR. RAMAKANT SARAF R/O- 347 SANTOSH ROY ROAD BARISHA SAKHERBAZAR JAMES LONG SARANI KOLKATA-700008. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINES GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI - 110001 2:INDIAN BUREAU OF MINES Page No.# 7/37 THROUGH THE CONTROLLER GENERAL 2ND FLOOR INDIRA BHAWAN CIVIL LINES NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA-440001. 3:REGIONAL CONTROLLER OF MINES BHUBANESWAR AND GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE HOUSE NO. 216 3RD FLOOR ABOVE IDBI BANK CHANDMARI POST-BAMUNIMAIDAN DIST.- KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI ASSAM-781021. 4:THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH THROUGH THE DIRECTOR OF MINES DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINING GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH R.K. MISSION COMPOUND ITANAGAR-791111 (ARUNACHAL PRADESH). 5:MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH SECRETARY INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN JORBAGH ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 6:THE STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESMENT AUTHORITY ARUNACHAL PRADESH SEIAA THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS PCCF OFFICE COMPLEX ITANAGAR P. SECTOR ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-791111. ------------ Advocate for : MR R SENSUA Advocate for : MR. U GOSWAMI DY. SGI appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS Page No.# 8/37 Linked Case : WA/91/2025 TASSO ALLOYS PVT LTD AND ANR. 347 SANTOSH ROY ROAD BARISHA SAKHERBAZAR JAMES LONG SARANI KOLKATA-700008 THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. ARUN SARAF SON OF MR. RAMAKANT SARAF R/O- 347 SANTOSH ROY ROAD BARISHA SAKHERBAZAR JAMES LONG SARANI KOLKATA-700008. 2: ARUN SARAF SHAREHOLDER OF PETITIONER NO. 1 SON OF MR. RAMAKANT SARAF R/O- 347 SANTOSH ROY ROAD BARISHA SAKHERBAZAR JAMES LONG SARANI KOLKATA-700008. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINES GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI - 110001. 2:INDIAN BUREAU OF MINES THROUGH THE CONTROLLER GENERAL 2ND FLOOR INDIRA BHAWAN CIVIL LINES NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA-440001. 3:REGIONAL CONTROLLER OF MINES BHUBANESWAR AND GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE HOUSE NO. 216 Page No.# 9/37 3RD FLOOR ABOVE IDBI BANK CHANDMARI POST-BAMUNIMAIDAN DIST.- KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI ASSAM-781021. 4:THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH THROUGH THE DIRECTOR OF MINES DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINING GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH R.K. MISSION COMPOUND ITANAGAR-791111 (ARUNACHAL PRADESH). 5:MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE TRHOUGH SECRETARY INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN JORBAGH ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 6:THE STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA) ARUNACHAL PRADESH THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS PCCF OFFICE COMPLEX ITANAGAR P. SECTOR ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-791111. ------------ Advocate for : MR R SENSUA Advocate for : MR. U GOSWAMI DY. SGI appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS Page No.# 10/37 - B E F O R E - HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY For the appellants :Mr. K.Venugopal,Sr.Advocate, assisted by Mr. N. Laud Advocate Mr. R. Sensua, Advocate Mr. A. Mathews, Advocate Mr. S. Das, Advocate Mr. G. Kaushik, Advocate Mr. B. Kanjilal, Advocate For the respondents :Mr. U.K. Goswami, C.G.C. Mr. A Chandran, Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh Date on which judgment was reserved : 16.07.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 29.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : No, Has the judgment been pronounced? : Yes, Page No.# 11/37 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Arun Dev Choudhury, J) 1. These intra-court appeals arise from a common Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2025, passed in WP(C) No.1104/2022, WP(C) No.1844/2022, WP(C) No.1861/2022, WP(C) No.1850/2022 & WP(C) No.1857/2022 wherein, the learned Single Judge examined the validity of mining leases granted by the State of Arunachal Pradesh in favour of the writ petitioners/appellants under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, (for short, MMDR Act) and the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concessions Rules, 2016 (for short, the Rules, 2016). 2. The learned Single Judge also rejected the challenge made by the appellants to the orders dated 07.01.2022 issued by the Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines (for short, IBM), revoking the earlier approvals granted to the Mining plans of the appellants. 3. By the impugned common judgment & order under appeal, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, holding inter alia that the mining lease deeds had been executed in contravention of mandatory provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules, 2016; that no enforceable right had accrued in favour of the appellants by virtue of execution of the lease deeds and that subsequent amendments introduced by the Parliament operated upon the appellants' claim. 4. The principal questions before the learned Single Judge were whether the Page No.# 12/37 mining lease deeds executed in favour of the appellants were valid notwithstanding absence of approved mining plan mandated under Section 5(2)(b) of the MMDR Act and whether any enforceable right had accrued to the appellants prior to the amendment introduced by the MMDR Act 2015 for the reason of communication of grant of mining lease under Rule 7(6) of the Rules, 2016 by the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 5. As all the appeals involve substantially identical questions of fact and law, they were taken up for final hearing together. 6. The material facts giving rise to the present appeals are substantially undisputed. 7. On 24-02-2014, the Department of Geology and Mining, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, granted prospecting licences in favour of the appellants for exploration of graphite in different areas of the State and formal deeds of prospecting licences were executed on 28-05-2014 for an initial period of three years. Upon expiry of the original term, the licences were renewed on 08-08-2018 with effect from 29-05-2017, and the corresponding deeds of renewal were executed on 09-08-2018. The renewed licences remained valid until 29-05-2019. 8. After the expiry of the appellants' prospective licences, on 16-8-2019, the appellants submitted applications to the State Government seeking the grant of Mining leases under Rule 7(1) of the Rules, 2016, read with Section 10A(b) of the MMDR Act. The prescribed application fee accompanied each application. 9. By separate communications dated 21-08-2019, the State Government conveyed its decision to grant mining leases in favour of the appellants for a period of 50 years. The communication required the appellants to comply Page No.# 13/37 with various statutory requirements within the stipulated period, including obtaining approval of mining plans, securing requisite forest and statutory clearances and complying with all applicable legal requirements before the lease could be operationalised. 10. It is also not in dispute that the conditions stipulated in those communications remained unfulfilled within the period specified therein. 11. More than a year later, on 25-01-2021, the appellants submitted their Mining plans to the State Government and simultaneously requested the execution of the Mining lease deeds. On 28-01-2021, the State Government directed the appellants to deposit the requisite stamp duty and registration charges for the execution of the lease deeds. 12. The following day, i.e., on 29-01-2021, the mining lease deeds were executed in favour of the appellants, notwithstanding that the mining plans had not yet received approval and the statutory requirements contemplated under Rule 7 (10) had admittedly not been fulfilled. 13. It is only thereafter, on 02-03-2021, that the draft mining plans were forwarded to the IBM for approval. The mining plans were provisionally approved during May 2021, and the Regional Controller of Mines granted final approvals between 12-08-2021 and 17-08-2021. 14. In the meantime, the Parliament enacted the MMDR Amendment Act, 2021, which came into force on 28-03-2021. By the said amendment, provisions were inserted into Section 10A(2)(b) of the MMDR Act, providing inter alia for the lapse of the right to obtain a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease in respect of all pending cases falling within the ambit of the said provision, while simultaneously providing for reimbursement of expenditures incurred towards reconnaissance or prospecting operations in Page No.# 14/37 the manner prescribed therein. 15. Following the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2021, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh addressed communications dated 14- 10-2021 and dated 25-10-2021 to the Ministry of Mines seeking clarification regarding the validity of the mining plans approved in favour of the appellants, noticing that the mining lease deeds had been executed before fulfilment of the statutory requirements. 16. The Ministry of Mines, by communication dated 27-12-2021, directed the Controller General of IBM to enquire into the circumstances in which mining plans had been approved and to take appropriate corrective measures. Shortly thereafter, the concerned officer who had approved the mining plans was placed under suspension. 17. On 07-01-2022, the Regional Controller of Mines issued the impugned orders revoking the approval granted to the mining plans in all five cases by issuing separate but substantially identical orders. 18. The revocation was founded principally on the ground that the mining lease deeds had been executed prior to approval of mining plans; therefore, are contrary to the statutory scheme governing the grant of a mining lease, thereby rendering the lease void under the MMDR Act and incapable of surviving the amendments introduced in 2021. It was recorded that the approvals themselves expressly stipulated that they were subject to compliance with all applicable laws and would stand withdrawn if found inconsistent with any statutory provision or judicial direction. 19. Independent of the action of the IBM, the State of Arunachal Pradesh also Page No.# 15/37 commenced proceedings on 27-01-2022 for cancellation of mining deeds, taking the view that the lease had been executed contrary to the governing statutory framework. 20. We have heard Mr. K. Venugopal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Laud, learned counsel for all the appellants. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned CGC, representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. A. Chandran, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, State of Arunachal Pradesh representing the respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6. 21. Mr. Venugopal, argues that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the order dated 29-01-2021 merely communicated the State Government's intention to grant a mining lease and did not itself constitute an order of grant. It was contended that the order unequivocally states that “the Government hereby grants the mining lease” and therefore, it is an order of grant in its own right. According to him, Rule 7 of the Rules, 2016 also recognises such an order as the grant of a mining lease. According to him, Rule 7(10) and Rule 7(11) refer to an order for grant of a mining lease already issued under Rule 7(6) and contemplate revocation of such the order granting the lease only upon failure to execute the lease deed within the prescribed period and therefore, the Scheme of the Rule 7 reflects that it envisages no intermediate stage between the decision to grant lease and the order of grant. 22. It was next contended that the Amendment Act, 2021 was intended only to bring about the lapsing of applications which had not culminated in the grant of a mining lease. According to the appellants, once an order granting a mining lease had been issued under Rule 7(6), the application is finally disposed of and ceased to remain pending. Rule 7 throughout maintains a distinction between the order of granting a lease and the Page No.# 16/37 subsequent execution of the lease deed. 23. Mr. Venugopal, learned Senior counsel, pressed into service the proviso to Section 10A(2)(b), the statement of objects and reasons accompanying the Amendment Act, 2021 and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Aane Mines & Minerals Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2019) SCC OnLine Kar 3791 to contend that the Parliament intended only pending applications to lapse and not cases where the grant had already been made under Rule7(6) though the lease deed remained to be executed. 24. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the IBM was fully justified in considering and approving the mining plan after issuance of the grant order. Rule 7(10)(c) expressly contemplates that the mining plan is to be approved after the issuance of the order granting the mining lease. Subsequent approval of the mining plan by the IBM after inspection and scrutiny was in conformity with the statutory sequence prescribed under Rule 7. It was argued that any alleged irregularity in the execution of the lease deed could not invalidate the earlier grant order or the approval of the mining plan subsequent thereto. It was therefore argued that Section 10A(2)(b) constitutes a special transitional regime and therefore, Rule 7 must be construed harmoniously with Section 5(2)(b) of the MMDR Act so as to give effect to both the provisions without rendering Rule 7(10)(c) otiose. 25. Lastly, it was contended that the IBM lacked jurisdiction to revoke the mining plan once it had validly been approved. The MMDR Act and the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 confer upon the IBM only the power to scrutinise and approve the mining plans and do not confer any express power of revocation. Page No.# 17/37 Reliance was placed on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jaykaycem Vs. Union of India [ILR 2023 MP 212(DB], to contend that the power to approve does not carry with it an implied power to revoke. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge erroneously distinguished the said decision. Any condition incorporated in the approved mining plan cannot enlarge the statutory powers of the IBM or confer a jurisdiction which the statute itself does not recognise. 26. Per contra, Mr. U. K. Goswami, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It was contended that Section 5(2)(b) of the MMDR Act imposes a mandatory statutory prohibition unless an approved mining plan exists. Rule 7 of the Rules, 2016 merely prescribes the procedural stages through which such statutory power is exercised and cannot be construed to dilute or override the statutory restriction imposed by the Parliament. 27. According to Mr. Goswami, learned CGC, the communication issued under Rule 7(6) merely identifies the successful applicant and initiates the final stage of the statutory process. Therefore, no enforceable mining right would arise until the mandatory requirement under Rule 7(10) was fulfilled and the lease deed was validly executed. 28. Lastly, it is submitted that once the mining leases themselves were contrary to the mandatory provisions of the MMDR Act, the challenge to the order of the IBM revoking the approvals of the mining plan became inconsequential. Even if there were some infirmities, the same would not validate mining leases that were void by the operation of Section 19 of the MMDR Act. 29. Mr A. Chandran, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, Page No.# 18/37 has not advanced any separate argument; however, adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Goswami, learned CGC. 30. The controversy in these appeals turns principally upon the interrelationship between Sections 5(2)(b), 10A & 19 of the MMDR Act and Rule 7 of the Rules, 2016. Since the rival submissions centre around these provisions, they are extracted below: A. Section 5 of the MMDR Act: 5. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting licences or mining leases. (1) A State Government shall not grant a 1 [reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] to any person unless such person – a. is an Indian national, or a company as defined in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956; and b. satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided that in respect of any mineral specified in the First Schedule, no 1 [reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] shall be granted except with the previous approval of the Central Government. (2) No Mining lease shall be granted by the State Government unless it is satisfied that: (a) there is evidence to show that the area for which the lease is applied for has been prospected earlier or the existence of mineral contents therein has been established otherwise than by means of prospecting such area; and (b) there is a mining plan duly approved by the Central Government or by the State Government, in respect of such category of mines as may be specified by the Central Government, for the development of mineral deposits in the area concerned. Page No.# 19/37 B. Rule 7 of the Rules of 2016 7. Rights of a holder of a prospecting licence to obtain a mining lease.- (1) The holder of a prospecting licence granted (i) prior to January 12, 2015, or (ii) pursuant to rule 5 may, upon fulfilment of the conditions specified in sub- clause (i) to sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 10A, make an application to the State Government for grant of a mining lease in the format specified in Schedule VI, within a period of three months after the expiry of the prospecting licence, or within such further period not exceeding six months as may be extended by the State Government. (2) The State Government shall send an acknowledgement of receipt of the application submitted under sub-rule (1) to the applicant in Schedule II, within a period of three days of receipt of the application: Provided that the holder of prospecting licence who has made an application within the time limits specified in sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 10A to the State Government for grant of a mining lease before commencement of these rules shall not be required to submit a fresh application subject to the payment of fee specified in sub-rule (3). (3) Application for grant of mining lease under sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by a non-refundable fee of rupees five lacs per square kilometre on a pro rata basis of the area over which the mining lease is applied for. (4) Pursuant to sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 10A, an existing prospecting licence holder may request for an extension of time for submission of the application referred under sub-rule (1) by submitting an application in writing to the State Government in the format specified in Schedule III. The State Government shall accept or reject such request within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt thereof. (5) The State Government shall have the right to seek any additional information, document or clarification from such applicant with respect to the application under sub-rule (1). (6) The State Government shall, on being satisfied that the conditions specified in sub-clause (i) to sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Page No.# 20/37 section 10A have been complied with, within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the duly completed application,: (a) communicate through an order its decision to grant the mining lease for any mineral other than those specified in the First Schedule to the Act, or (b) forward the application to the Central Government for its previous approval for grant of a mining lease for any mineral specified in Part C of the First Schedule to the Act. (7) In case of applications received under sub-rule (1) which have not complied with the conditions specified in sub-clause (i) through (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 10A, the State Government may, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse to grant a mining lease. (8) Where previous approval of the Central Government as required under clause (b) of sub-rule (6) has been sought, the application for such an approval shall be disposed of by the Central Government within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of receipt thereof, and the decision of the Central Government shall be duly communicated to the State Government. (9) The State Government shall, within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the decision of the Central Government as per sub-rule (8), communicate the decision of the Central Government to grant or refuse to grant the mining lease, as the case may be, to the applicant through a written order. (10) Upon issuance of an order under clause (a) of sub-rule (6) or sub-rule (9) for grant of a mining lease, the applicant for such mining lease shall: (a) obtain all consent, approval, permit, no-objection as may be required under applicable laws for commencement of mining operations; (b) provide a performance security to the State Government in the form of a bank guarantee as per the format specified in Schedule IV or as a security deposit, for an amount equivalent to 0.50% of the value of estimated resources, which performance security may be invoked by the Page No.# 21/37 State Government as per the terms and conditions of Mine Development and Production Agreement and the mining lease deed. The performance security shall be adjusted every five years so that it continues to correspond to 0.50% of the reassessed value of estimated resources; (c) satisfy the conditions with respect to a mining plan specified in clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 5; and (d) sign a Mine Development and Production Agreement with the State Government as per the format specified by the Central Government after compliance of conditions specified in clause (a), (b) and (c) of this sub-rule. (11) The State Government shall execute a mining lease deed with the applicant in the format specified in Schedule VII within ninety days of fulfilment of the conditions specified in sub-rule (10), and if no such deed is executed within the said period due to any default on the part of the applicant, the State Government may revoke the order granting the lease and in that event the fee paid under sub-rule (3) shall be forfeited to the State Government. (12) The State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, reduce the area applied for at the time of grant of the mining lease. (13) The mining lease executed under sub-rule (11) shall be registered within a period of thirty days from the date of its execution; and the date of the commencement of the period for which a mining lease is granted shall be the date on which a duly executed mining lease deed is registered. C. Section 19 of the MMDR Act 19. Prospecting licences and mining leases to be void in contravention of Act - Any [reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] granted, renewed or acquired in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder shall be void and of no effect. D. Section 10A of the MMDR Act Page No.# 22/37 10A. [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 11A of this Act; (b) where before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 a mineral concession 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,- Provided that for the cases covered under this clause, including the pending cases, the right to obtain a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease or a mining lease, as the case may be, shall lapse on the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2021: 31. The principal argument advanced on behalf of the appellants proceeds on the footing that the expression “grant of a mining lease” occurring in Rule 7 (6) of the Rules, 2016 refers to a stage distinct from the execution of the lease deed contemplated under Rule 7 (11). According to the appellants, once the State Government issued an order under Rule 7 (6), the mining lease stood granted. Compliance with the requirements specified in Rule 7(10), including approval of a mining plan under Section 5(2)(b) of the MMDR Act, merely enabled the execution of a lease deed. Page No.# 23/37 It is therefore contended that even if the lease deeds were executed before fulfilment of statutory requirements, the grant of lease remained unaffected. 32. Let us now test such an argument under the Schemes of the MMDR Act and the Rules, 2016. 33. Section 5(2)(b) of the MMDR Act, 1957 opens with a statutory prohibition. It declares that no mining lease shall be granted unless the State Government is satisfied that an approved mining plan exists. The language is plainly prohibitory and regulates the very exercise of statutory power rather than prescribing a procedural formality. 34. The distinction between a procedural requirement and a condition precedent for exercise of statutory power is well recognised. Where the statute makes fulfilment of a condition sine qua non for exercise of power, the authority exercising such power acquires its jurisdiction only when such condition is satisfied. In our opinion, Section 5(2)(b) prescribes that category of conditions. The Parliament has made the existence of an approved mining plan a condition precedent to the lawful exercise of power to grant a mining lease. 35. A mining plan is not an empty formality under the statute. It embodies the technical, environmental and scientific framework within which the mining operations are to be undertaken. The requirement is intended to ensure that mineral resources are exploited only after scientific evaluation; that environmental safeguards are ensured; that only planned mineral development receives statutory approval. The Parliament has, therefore, in our opinion, insisted that the competent authority examines and approves the proposed mining plan before the rights in respect of mineral resources are created. Such a requirement is intended to ensure that the Page No.# 24/37 statutory power is exercised after the competent authority is satisfied that proposed mining operations conform to the standards prescribed under the MMDR Act, 1957. 36. If Section 5(2)(b) were construed merely as a requirement to be fulfilled after the grant of a mining lease, as projected by the appellants, the State Government could first grant mining leases and thereafter require the successful applicants to obtain approval of a mining plan. Such an interpretation would postpone compliance of a condition which the Parliament has expressly made mandatory for the exercise of power itself. We must avoid such a construction, which substantially weakens a legislative safeguard enacted in mandatory terms. 37. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that it regulates the exercise of statutory power to grant a mining lease. Unless such a requirement of an approved mining plan is fulfilled, the jurisdiction to complete the statutory grant does not arise. 38. Once the true nature of Section 5 (2)(b) is understood, the next question is whether any of those procedural stages contemplated under Rule 7 can by themselves amount to a statutory grant of a mining lease notwithstanding the prohibition contained in Section 5(2)(b). 39. The expression “grant of mining lease” is not defined either in the MMDR Act or the Rules, 2016. Its meaning therefore has to be gathered from the statutory context. The same expression may denote the decision to confer benefit, the formal act of creating legal rights or the culmination of the statutory process. In the MMDR Act, the expression must be understood in the context of Sections 5 & 19 and Rule 7 of the Rules, 2016. However, it would not be safe to hold that the expression “grant” invariably denotes a single event. Page No.# 25/37 40. The next and more important question is the meaning intended by the Parliament while enacting the MMDR Act and framing the statutory scheme governing the creation of mining rights. The same can be gathered from Sections 5 & 19 of the MMDR Act and Rule 7 of the Rules, 2016, as constituent parts of one integrated legislative scheme. 41. We have already dealt with Section 5. Now, let us deal with the appellants’ contentions that the order issued under Rule 7 itself constitutes the grant of a mining lease because the Rule expressly uses that expression. According to them, Rule 7 thereafter contemplates only the fulfilment of certain formalities before the execution of the lease deed; therefore, the grant and execution of the lease deed are two distinct legal events. 42. We have no difficulty in accepting the latter part of the submission. The statutory scheme undoubtedly contemplates more than one stage before a mining lease becomes operational. In our opinion, the order under Rule 7(6), the fulfilment of conditions specified in Rule 7(10), and the execution of the lease deed under Rule 7(11) are distinct statutory steps. But the real question is what legal consequence the Parliament intended to attach to each of these stages. 43. In our opinion, the order contemplated under Rule 7(6) cannot be equated with a complete statutory grant of a mining lease. It represents the decision of the State Government that the applicant has been found entitled, subject to fulfilment of statutory requirements, to receive a mining lease. It identifies the successful applicant and sets in motion the next stage of the statutory process by way of an order. It is a significant legal step, but by itself, it does not create an enforceable right to a mining lease in disregard of conditions imposed by the Parliament Page No.# 26/37 under Section 5(2)(b). 44. Equally, under Rule 7(10), the prospective lessee is required to obtain all consents and planning approval, satisfy the conditions with respect to the mining plan, and sign a mine development and production agreement before execution of a lease deed under Rule 7(11). 45. Therefore, the execution of a lease deed under Rule 7(11) is not an isolated contractual act. It is the culmination of the statutory process prescribed by the Act and the Rules. Its validity depends upon the prior fulfilment of the conditions which the Parliament has declared to be mandatory. 46. The statutory process therefore comprises three successive stages. Firstly, the State Government determines the successful applicant under Rule 7(6); secondly, the applicant fulfils the statutory requirements prescribed by Rule 7(10), including those mandated by Section 5(2)(b). Thirdly, the State Government executes the lease deed under Rule 7(11), thereby completing the statutory grant. 47. Although these stages are distinct, they are successive and interdependent stages of a single statutory process culminating in the creation of enforceable mining rights. 48. The fallacy in the appellants’ submission lies in treating the first stage as though it was independent of the remaining statutory process. The order under Rule 7 (6) undoubtedly identifies the successful applicant, but it neither authorises the creation of a mining right nor amounts to a completed statutory grant contemplated by the Act. Until the mandatory conditions prescribed by the Parliament are fulfilled, no enforceable mining right comes into existence. 49. The appellants, however, contend that if Section 5(2)(b) is interpreted as Page No.# 27/37 requiring an approved mining plan before the grant of a mining lease, Rule 7 of the Rules, 2016 is rendered otiose. According to the appellants, Rule 7(6) expressly contemplates an order granting a mining lease, whereas Rule 7(10) requires compliance with the conditions relating to the approved mining plan only thereafter. It was, therefore, argued that the Parliament itself recognised a distinction between a grant of a lease and compliance with Section 5(2)(b). 50. The submission deserves careful consideration. However, before examining the submissions and to understand the framework within which the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules, 2016 work, it is necessary to notice certain principles of law governing the interpretation of statutes and subordinate legislation. 51. It is a well-settled rule of construction that a statute must be read as a whole. An individual provision cannot be interpreted in isolation or in a manner that defeats the scheme of the enactment. 52. Every provision must be construed in the context of the statute of which it forms a part to give effect to the legislative object reflected in the enactment as a whole. Equally well-settled is the principle that rules framed under a statute are intended to carry out the purpose of the principal enactment. Being a form of delegated legislation, they derive their authority entirely from the statute. They cannot enlarge, curtail or dilute the conditions imposed by the Parliament. Where a rule is capable of more than one construction, the Court must ordinarily adopt the interpretation that preserves its consistency with the parent Act rather than one that places it in conflict. 53. The same presumption applies to the delegated legislation, and any interpretation that renders either the Act or the Rules wholly ineffective Page No.# 28/37 must therefore be avoided unless such a result is unavoidable. 54. The doctrine of harmonious construction is founded on these principles. It prescribes that where two provisions appear to overlap, the duty of the Court is not to choose one in preference to the other but to ascertain whether both can reasonably operate in their respective fields. It is only when reconciliation is impossible that the provisions of the parent statute prevail until over the delegated legislation. 55. The correctness of these rival submissions must therefore be tested in the light of the settled principles noticed above. 56. Section 5(2)(b) and Rule 7 do not deal with the same subject. Section 5(2)(b) regulates the exercise of statutory power to grant a mining lease. Rule 7 regulates the manner in which that power is exercised. The former is substantive, and the latter is procedural. Therefore, in our opinion, they operate in different but complementary fields. 57. Once this restriction is recognised, the apparent conflict projected disappears. 58. Considerable emphasis was laid upon the circumstances that the rule- making authority has in certain other provisions expressly referred to the “execution of lease deed”, whereas Rule 7(6) employs the expression “grant.” We do not find the said circumstance to be determinative. The meaning of the expression “grant” cannot be ascertained merely by contrasting it with other provisions dehors from the statutory context. The expression must derive its content from the MMDR Act itself, particularly Section 5(2)(b), which regulates the very exercise of power to grant a mining lease read in that context. Rule 7 cannot be construed as recognising a completed statutory grant prior to fulfilment of the mandatory conditions prescribed by the Parliament. Page No.# 29/37 59. Read as a whole, the Rule does not authorise the State Government to bypass Section 5(2)(b) of the MMDR Act. On the contrary, it expressly incorporates compliance with that provision before the statutory process is completed. Rule 7 continues to perform an independent and significant function. None of these functions prescribed under Sub-rules 6, 10 and 11 is inconsistent with Section 5(2)(b). Rule 7 merely prescribes the sequential procedure through which the statutory power is exercised. Properly construed, Rule 7 supplements, rather than contradicts, Section 5 (2)(b). It neither authorises the State Government to bypass statutory prohibition nor renders Section 5 (2)(b) redundant. 60. We are therefore unable to accept the submissions that Section 5(2)(b) of the MMDR Act renders Rule 7 of the Rules, 2016 otiose. 61. Equally unacceptable is the submission that the order contemplated under Rule 7(6) must itself be recorded as the complete statutory grant. Such an interpretation would enable the State Government to create enforceable mining rights before satisfying the very condition which the Parliament has declared to be mandatory. Delegated legislation cannot be enacted to dilute a restriction imposed by the parent enactment. 62. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants also relied upon the Statement of the Objects and Reasons accompanying the Amendment Act, 2021 to contend that the Parliament intended only those applications to lapse which had not resulted in the “grant of a mining lease”. We are unable to accept the submission. The Statement of Objects and Reasons is a legitimate aid to ascertain legislative purpose where ambiguity exists; but it cannot control or enlarge the meaning of the enacted provisions. Once Section 5(2)(b) declares that no mining lease shall be granted unless an approved mining plan exists, the expression “grant” occurring in the Page No.# 30/37 Statement of Objects and Reasons must necessarily receive the same statutory meaning. It cannot be construed to include the grant of a mining lease without fulfilment of the mandatory conditions prescribed by the Act. 63. The order issued under Rule 7(6) is neither an empty administrative formality nor the completed statutory grant of a mining lease. It is a statutory determination that the applicant has been found eligible to receive a mining lease subject to the fulfilment of conditions prescribed by the Act and the Rules. It marks the commencement of the final stage of the statutory process but does not conclude the process for granting a mining lease as contemplated under Section 5(2)(b). 64. It was urged that the order issued under Rule 7(6), coupled with the execution of lease deeds, vested in them a right which survives the legislative amendment. The subsequent omission of Section 10A from the statute would not divest rights that had already accrued. The appellants next contended that, irrespective of the validity of the lease deeds, they had acquired rights before the Amendment Act, 2021 came into force. 65. This argument necessitates an examination of the nature of the rights, if any, which had accrued to the appellants before the amendment came into force. 66. Before examining whether the appellants acquired any rights protected against the Amendment in 2021, it is necessary to briefly notice the legislative evaluation of the MMDR Act, inasmuch as the controversy cannot be appreciated in isolation from the statutory reforms undertaken by the Parliament. 67. Prior to the Amendment Act, 2015, the grant of mineral concessions was substantially based on applications submitted to the State Government. The Parliament, however, found that the existing regime suffered from Page No.# 31/37 serious deficiencies in transparency, objectivity and optimal utilisation of the nation's mineral resources. 68. The amendment introduced in 2015 marked a conscious departure from an earlier application-based regime towards the allocation of mineral concessions through competitive auction to secure transparency, objectivity and optimal utilisation of public mineral resources. The 2015 Amendment, accordingly, introduced a fundamental shift in legislative policy by making competitive auction the principal mode of allocating mineral concessions. The amendment reflected the Parliament's intention that mineral resources, being finite public assets, should ordinarily be allocated through a transparent competitive process designed to secure fairness, accountability and maximum public benefit. 69. The Parliament was, however, conscious that numerous applications and proposals under the earlier regime were at different stages of consideration when the new framework came into force, and therefore, Section 10A was conceived as a transitional provision. It was not intended to perpetuate the earlier regime but only to protect that limited category of cases in which statutory rights had sufficiently matured before this legislative transition. 70. Section 10A thus operated as a carefully framed Savings Clause during the legislative transition from an application-based regime to an auction- based regime. 71. The legislative framework underwent a further change with the Amendment Act, 2021, under which Section 10A was omitted. The omission is indicative of the Parliament's assessment that the transitional arrangement had served its purpose. 72. The legislative focus thereafter was to ensure that the grant of mineral Page No.# 32/37 concessions is governed by a restructured statutory framework rather than by residual claims arising under the superseded regime. The omission of Section 10A, therefore, reinforces the legislative intent that the rights under the earlier framework should survive only where they have already crystallised into enforceable statutory rights before the Amendment took effect. It is in this backdrop of the said legislative evolution that the appellants’ claim requires consideration. 73. It is by now well settled that not every favourable administrative decision matures into a vested statutory right. Whether such a right has accrued depends upon the statutory scheme governing its creation and upon the extent to which the conditions prescribed by the statute have been fulfilled. 74. In the present statutory framework, the identification of the applicants under Rule 7(6) undoubtedly confers a significant advantage upon the appellants. It excludes competing claims and entitles the appellants to proceed to the next stage of the statutory process. Yet, that advantage remains conditional and subject to compliance with the requirements prescribed by the Act and the Rules. Fulfilment of those statutory requirements matures into an enforceable statutory right. 75. A distinction must therefore be maintained between a statutory expectation and a vested statutory right. The former remains conditional upon fulfilment of statutory requirements, whereas the latter arises only when every condition prescribed by the statute has been satisfied. 76. When the Parliament has declared that a mining lease shall not be granted unless the conditions specified in Section 5(2)(b) are satisfied, the existence of such conditions becomes indispensable to the creation of the right itself. Till such requirement is fulfilled, the applicants for a mining Page No.# 33/37 lease possess no more than an expectation that upon fulfilling the statutory requirements, the mining lease shall lawfully be brought into existence. 77. We have already held that on the date the lease deeds were executed, the requirements for the execution of a mining plan under Section 5(2) (b) were not fulfilled. Consequently, the statutory process did not reach the stages at which enforceability would arise. The execution of the lease deed, admittedly being contrary to the mandatory provisions of the MMDR Act, did not cure that difficulty, and no right accrued for the reason that the statute itself had postponed such right until the fulfilment of the mandatory conditions. 78. The appellants, therefore, did not acquire the vested statutory right. At the highest, they possessed a conditional entitlement to obtain the mining lease upon compliance with the statutory requirement. Such entitlement, being dependent upon the fulfilment of statutory prescription, cannot be equated with the vested rights immune from the subsequent legislative stages. 79. In this context, reference may be made to Section 19 of the MMDR Act. It leaves no room for ambiguity. It declares that every mining lease granted in contravention of the Act or the Rules shall be void and of no effect. The Parliament has consciously used the expression “void” rather than voidable. Invalidity therefore follows automatically by operation of law. Since the lease deeds in the present appeals were executed admittedly without compliance of Section 5(2)(b), they never acquired validity notwithstanding their execution. 80. Though the learned Senior counsel for the appellants contends that Section 19 operates only upon the lease deed and not upon the earlier Page No.# 34/37 grant order issued under Rule 7 (6) and, therefore, even if the lease deed is rendered void, the earlier order granting a mining lease under Rule 7(6) survives and is sufficient to preserve the appellants’ rights under Section 10A, cannot persuade us any further, nor can the appellants derive any independent benefit from the order issued in exercise of power under Rule 7(6). The legality of the grant must ultimately be tested against the provisions of the MMDR Act and not upon the understanding adopted by the authorities implementing it. 81. Once it is held that the order under Rule 7 (6) merely identifies the successful applicant and proceeds to the final statutory process, it shall necessarily follow that such order cannot survive independently of the mandatory conditions governing the creation of the mining lease. The exercise of power under Rule 7 (6) derives its finality from the successful completion of the statutory process under Rule 7(10) & Rule 7(11). Beyond that, in the absence of compliance with Section 5(2)(b), no enforceable right could be crystallised. 82. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Aanne (supra). The controversy considered therein was that the application stood pending on record even after the State Government had already taken a decision thereon. The present appeals raise materially different issues, namely whether a valid statutory grant of mining lease could come into existence without compliance of the requirement of Section 5(2)(b). Since that question did not arise for consideration in Aanne(supra), it does not assist the appellants. 83. In view of the conclusions recorded above, the remaining issues relating to the jurisdiction of IBM to revoke already approved mining plans, the conditions incorporated in the approval orders and alleged breach of the Page No.# 35/37 principles of natural justice become academic. Even if those submissions were to be accepted, they would not alter the legal consequence flowing from the statutory provisions discussed above. It is therefore, in our opinion, not necessary to examine those issues separately. 84. For the foregoing discussions and the reasons recorded, we hold and direct that: (i) Section 5(2)(b) of the MMRD Act and Rule 7 of the Rules, 2016 are not inconsistent with each other. Section 5(2)(b) prescribes the substantive conditions upon which the statutory power to grant a mining lease may be exercised. At the same time, Rule 7 regulates the procedural steps through which the power is implemented. Both provisions operate harmoniously within a single statutory framework. Neither provision renders the other redundant. (ii) The communications issued by the State Government under Rule 7(6) of the Rules, 2016 did not, by themselves, amount to a completed statutory grant of mining lease within the meaning of the MMDR Act. Those communications represented the decision of the State Government to proceed with the grant subject to fulfilment of the mandatory conditions prescribed by the MMDR Act and the Rules, 2016. Since the requirement to have an approved mining plan under Section 5(2)(b) had not been met, the statutory process remained Page No.# 36/37 incomplete. (iii) The lease deed executed on 29.01.2021, being contrary to the mandatory requirements of the Act, did not create any enforceable right. A mining lease executed in violation of Section 5(2)(b) is rendered void by operation of Section 19 of the MMDR Act and is incapable of creating an enforceable statutory right. (iv) The appellants did not acquire any vested or accrued statutory right capable of surviving the provisions under Section 10A of the Amendment Act, 2015. The statutory conditions necessary for the creation of an enforceable mining lease had not been fully satisfied prior to the amendment. (v) The rights asserted by the appellants, therefore, remain contingent upon compliance with statutory requirements of an approved mining plan and did not crystallise into vested rights protected against legislative change in the absence of such an approved mining plan. (vi) There are no errors in the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in appeals. The impugned judgment correctly appreciated the statutory schemes of the MMRD Act and the Rules, 2016 Page No.# 37/37 and rightly concluded that the appellants were not entitled to the relief claimed. 85. The Writ Appeals are accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order under appeal is affirmed. 86. There shall be no order as to costs. 87. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant