Meghalaya HC dismisses petition for setting aside govt OM that prospective license for coal shall be for area not less than 100 hectares

Syllad | The Rising MeghalayaDecember 3, 2024

The Meghalaya High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to set aside a clause in the government’s office memorandum issued on March 5, 2021 that an application for prospecting license for coal shall be for an area not less than 100 hectares.

In its judgment and order passed on Monday, the bench headed by Justice HS Thangkhiew said, “A perusal of the said minutes as above quoted, would show that though the area by the SOP has been fixed at 1 sq. km. that is 100 hectares, the proposal to reduce the minimum area to 50 hectares, was left open to be examined technically in future, as such, it is not that the prescription of 100 hectares is final, and not subject to review by the State Government.”

“Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the SOP which was notified vide the impugned Memorandum dated 05.03.2021, does not suffer from any lack of jurisdiction or is incompetent in any manner, as the same has been made in furtherance and in compliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in State of Meghalaya vs. All Dimasa Students Union(supra), the stipulations of the MMDR Act, and Mineral Concession Rules, and as per the directions of the Ministry of Coal. The other submissions of the petitioner with regard to the provisions of the Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy 2012, or the Meghalaya Minor Rules 2016, and also the Meghalaya Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2022, are disregarded as they have no application or relevance to the issue at hand. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and as discussed above, the instant writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed,” it stated.

Regeenal Shylla, a resident of Moolang village in East Jaintia Hills District, in his petition had assailed the impugned Office Memorandum dated 05.03.2021, whereby the same has prescribed at clause – E(6), that an application for prospecting license for coal shall be for an area not less than 100 hectares.

The contentions of the petitioner are that the said clause in the Office Memorandum dated 05.03.2021, is not in consonance with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, hereinafter referred to as the MMDR Act, the Mineral Concession Rules 1960, and also not in conformity with the Meghalaya Mines and Mineral Policy 2012, the Meghalaya Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016, and the Meghalaya Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022.

LM Sangma, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the State respondents do not have any jurisdiction to issue their stipulation, inasmuch as, firstly, Section 6 of the MMDR Act though providing for maximum area for prospecting, the said Act does not prescribe the minimum area nor does the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 prescribe the minimum area 100 hectares for grant of prospecting license or mining lease for coal.

In his submissions the counsel has referred to Section 6 of the MMDR Act, and has also taken the Court to Sections 15, 15-A and 23-C of the MMDR Act, that deals with the powers of the State Government to make rules, with regard to mines and minerals.

The counsel has contended that in these provisions, there is nothing to show that the limit prescribed of not less than 100 hectares, is based on any provision of law, and that even in the Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy, 2012, at clauses – 5.1 and 5.2., which deals with grant of permission for prospecting licenses, the same does not empower the respondents to prescribe the minimum area. It has been further argued that even in the Meghalaya Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 15 of the MMDR Act, at Section 13 thereof, which deals with the area of mining lease, no provision of a minimum area of 100 hectares is present.

In concluding his submissions, the counsel has submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of State of Meghalaya vs. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-Hasao District Committee & Ors. reported in (2019) 8 SCC 177, had observed that there is no lack of jurisdiction in the State to frame policy, but the same was to be confined to the jurisdiction conferred on it by the MMDR Act, whereas the impugned memorandum has however exceeded this jurisdiction. He therefore prays that the impugned clause in the memorandum prescribing the minimum area be set aside and to allow prospecting licenses for persons who have coal bearing land in an area less than 100 hectares.