http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5874 of 2000

PETITIONER: State of Haryana & Anr

RESPONDENT: Aravali Khanij Udyog & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2007

BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & P. Sathasivam

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4855 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12611 OF 2001)  

P. Sathasivam, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5874   OF 2000

1)      Secretary to Government, Mines and Geology  Department, Haryana and Director of Mines and Geology,  Government of Haryana aggrieved by the order of the Punjab  and Haryana High Court dated 09.05.2000 made in C.W.P.  No. 3007 of 2000 have filed the above appeal.   BRIEF FACTS: 2)      On 18.02.1980, lease of mining silica sand was granted  to the respondent \026 M/s Aravali Khanij Udyog in respect of  139 hectares of land in certain areas of village Chelaka and  sand in Tehsil Nuh, Dist. Gurgaon, Haryana for a period of 20  years by the appellants.  Silica sand is a major mineral and is  found underneath the ordinary sand, a minor mineral.  In  order to exploit the silica, every lessee is required to remove  the overlaying ordinary sand in the interest of sale, systematic  and scientific mining.  As both ordinary and silica sand occur  one above the other, the State Government took a policy  decision in August, 1984 to grant the mining lease of ordinary  sand also to the lessee of silica sand for the purpose of  systematic and harmonious mining in accordance with the  Regulation No. 106 of Metalliferrous Mines Regulation, 1961.    3)      As per the said decision, on 27.09.1984, the respondent- herein was advised to apply for the mining lease of ordinary  sand.  According to the Department, in spite of four  reminders, no steps were taken by the respondent to apply for  the mining lease for the ordinary sand.  A notice dated  12.07.1985 was also served upon them.  Finally, the mining  lease was prematurely terminated on 06.05.1986.  Aggrieved  by the said order, the respondent filed a revision before the  Central Government.  On the basis of the undertaking of the  lessee, the Central Government, vide its order dated  28.03.1998, while restoring the mining lease of the respondent  also directed them to apply for the mining lease of ordinary  sand within 30 days of the order.  Subsequent to the order of  restoration, the respondent applied for the grant of mining  lease of ordinary sand which was granted to them for a period  corresponding with the mining lease period of silica sand i.e.  up to 17.02.2000.  Since the period of mining lease was to  expire on 17.02.2000, the respondent submitted a  representation on 01.03.1999 to the State Government

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

requesting for extension of the mining lease by 850 days on  the ground that for 850 days his mining lease remained  terminated in past.  Since no decision was taken by the State  Government on the request of the respondent, the respondent  filed a writ petition No. 602 of 2000 in the Punjab and  Haryana High Court, which, by order dated 16.02.2000,  directed the State to take a decision on the representation of  the respondent within a period of one month.  Pursuant to the  said direction and after hearing the counsel for the respondent  herein, by order dated 03.03.2000, the Financial  Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana,  Mines and Geology Department rejected the representation for  extension of the mining lease period.  4)      Questioning the rejection order of the Financial  Commissioner, the respondent herein filed C.W.P. No. 3007 of  2000 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing the  same.  Though serious objection was raised by the State  through their reply statement, the Division Bench of the High  Court, by order dated 09.05.2000, allowed the writ petition  and directed that the writ-petitioner shall be put into  possession of the lease by 01.06.2000.  Challenging the said  order, the State of Haryana filed the above appeal.  

5)      We heard Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhari, Mrs. June  Chaudhari, learned senior counsel and Mr. Manjeet Singh,  AAG for the appellants and Mr. K.B. Rohtagi, learned counsel  for the respondents.

6)      In view of the fact that the lease granted in favour of the  respondent had expired long ago and in the light of the  subsequent developments as well as orders of this Court, it is  unnecessary to traverse the claim of both the parties in detail.   It is not in dispute that the lease of mining granted in favour  of the respondent-herein expired on 17.02.2000.  However, it  is the grievance of the respondent that because of the conduct  of the Mining Department, they were not in a position to mine  for a period of 850 days, hence they are entitled to extension of  mining lease by 850 days for which they made a  representation on 01.03.1999.  Though the said  representation was considered and rejected by the Financial  Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana,  Mines and Geology Department, the said order was set aside  by the Punjab & Haryana High Court which is a subject- matter of the present appeal.   7)      Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants by  placing an affidavit of Shri S.K.Gupta, Assistant, Mining  Engineer, Gurgaon, Department of Mines and Geology,  Haryana dated 11.10.2007 (copy of which was supplied to  counsel for the respondent) submitted that after expiry of lease  period granted in favour of the respondent, the extraction  rights for minor mineral from the site in question were  auctioned on 20.12.2001 and given to M/s Dolphin Minerals,  Gurgaon who was the highest bidder.  He also submitted that  the said auction was challenged by the respondent-herein by  filing C.W.P. 19798 of 2001 before the High Court of Punjab  and Haryana and ultimately the High Court dismissed the said  writ petition on 12.09.2002.  The following information in the  affidavit of the Mining Engineer is relevant which reads as  under:- \0234\005. \005. Thereafter, the aforesaid bid (auction) was  confirmed in favour of M/s Dolphin Minerals, 182 Phase-IV,  Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon on 12.11.2002.  Since then the  aforesaid party i.e. M/s Dolphin Minerals is the lawful lessee  of the said site and the lease period is still existing.  Hence,  third party rights have been created and no effective order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

could be passed without hearing the said third party i.e. M/s  Dolphin Minerals.\024       

8)      In view of the above factual information, as rightly  pointed out by learned senior counsel for the appellants and in  view of the third party rights having been created, no relief  could be granted in favour of the respondent-herein at this  juncture.  

9)      In the same affidavit, the officer has stated that the  mineral extraction of the said site, along with all other sites  falling in Aravalis in Dist. Gurgaon has been stopped pursuant  to the orders passed by this Court in M.C. Mehta and T.N.  Godavarman Thirumalpad case.  In this regard, learned senior  counsel for the appellants placed an order passed by this  Court on 16.12.2002 wherein this Court prohibited mining  operation in forest areas.  Among the various directions, the  direction relating to Haryana State reads thus: \0232.  Under Notification dated 29th November, 1999 issued  under Section 23 of the Environment (Protection) Act for  certain Districts including Gurgaon District in the State of  Haryana, the Ministry has delegated power to grant approval  for mining purposes to the State.  The mining activities are  being regulated under the Notification dated 7th May, 1992  issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (Annexure  A-1 in IA No. 833).  We direct that, for the time being, no  mining shall be permitted within the areas of Gurgaon  District in the State of Haryana where mining is regulated  under the Notification dated 7.5.1992 issued under Section  3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, pursuant to  permission granted after 29th November, 1999.\024       As on date, the said direction is in force.   10)     From the above discussion, the following conclusion  would emerge: a)      the mining lease granted on 18.02.1980 in favour of  the respondent-herein had expired even on  17.02.2000; b)      after expiry of the lease, the site in question was  auctioned on 20.12.2001 and given to M/s Dolphin  Minerals, Guragon, who was the highest bidder.   Though the said order was challenged by the  respondent-herein, admittedly the writ petition was  dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.   c)      As per the order of this Court dated 16.12.2002, the  mining operation in the entire area of Gurgaon Dist.  is prohibited.  11)     In view of the same, the direction of the High Court  granting relief in favour of the respondent-herein cannot be  implemented at this juncture.  However, the respondent is free  to approach the appropriate court for damages/compensation  if the same are permissible in accordance with law.   12)     With the above observation, the appeal is allowed.   However, there shall be no order as to costs.  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4855 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12611 OF 2001)           13)     Leave granted.  14)     The respondent-herein questioning the order of the very  same High Court dated 21.03.2001 passed in C.W.P. 14277 of  1999 against cancellation of the lease filed the above appeal by  way of special leave. 15)     In view of our conclusion in Civil Appeal No. 5874 of  2000, the appeal filed by the respondent-herein \026 M/s Aravali

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

Khanij Udyog is dismissed.