Summary
Sub-clause (b)(i) of rule I8 of Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966, which were framed under Act 67 of 1957, pro- vides that the lease for all minerals specified in sub- clause (i) of clause (a) may be renewed by the competent officer for one or more periods not exceeding ten years at one time.
Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, brought into force on 25th October, 1980 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing (i) dereservation of reserved forest, and (ii) the use of forest land for non- forest purposes.The appellants had been granted leases for quarrying minor minerals prior to the coming into operation of the 1980 Act. Their applications for renewal of leases under r.18 of the Rules were rejected by the competent authority on the ground that the lands fell under the reserved forests which were governed by the 1980 Act. Their revision applica- tions failed, and the High Court also rejected the writ petitions filed by them.563 In the appeals by special leave, it was contended for the appellants that the conditions precedent for the opera- tion of the Act were not existing, that there was no ques- tion of extending for non-forest purposes forest lands, since their's were existing quarry leases in areas which were at the relevant time dereserved forests, that they had not committed any breach of the terms of grant nor there were any other factors disentitling them to such renewal, that the words 'may be renewed' in r. 18(b)(i) should be read as 'shall be renewed', and so read they make it incum- bent on the Government to renew the lease if the lessee so desired, and as they had invested large sums of money in mining operations a duty was cast on the authorities to exercise the power granting permission in a manner that they could receive full benefit of their investments.For the respondents it was contended that after the coming into operation of 1980 Act there was no question of renewal of the leases because it had prevented renewal of lease without the approval of the Central Government.Dismissing the appeals, the Court,HELD: 1. Whether the power is one coupled with a duty must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and must be so decided by the Courts in each case. [569D]I.2 The Gujarat Minor Minerals Rules, 1966 dealt with a situation prior to the coming into operation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. While under r. 18 of the Rules there was power to grant renewal, which might have cast a duty on account of the investments made by the appellants in the areas covered by the quarrying leases, they could not claim renewals as a matter of right after the Act was brought into force. Their applications were rejected on good grounds. The orders of the appropriate authorities deal with the situation. [569G, F, 570B]Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford, [1880] 5 Appeal Cases 214 and Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn. 229, referred to.2.1 All interpretations must subserve and help implement the intention of the Act. The primary purpose of the Act of 1980 is to prevent further deforestation and ecological imbalances. Therefore, the concept that power coupled with duty enjoined upon the respondents to renew the lease, stands eroded by the mandate of the legislation manifest in the Act. The primary duty was to the community and that 564took precedence over the obligation to the individuals.[573C,A,569H-570A]2.2 The appellants are asking for renewal of the quarry leases. It will lead to further deforestation or at least it will not help reclaiming hack the areas where deforestations have taken place. The Central Government has not granted approval. If the State Government was of the opinion that this was not a case where it should seek approval of the Central Government, the State Government could not apparent- ly seek such approval. [572G, S73A]3. The ratio of any decision must he understood in the background of the facts of that case. A case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logi- cally follows from it. [572C]Quinn v. Leathem, [1901] Appeal Cases 495, referred to.State of Rajasthan v. Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal, [1965]3 SCR 402, State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and Others,[1985] 3 SCC 643, distinguished.See the full content of this document
Extract
Ambica Quarry Works & Anr. VS. State Of Gujarat & Ors.
PETITIONER: AMBICA QUARRY WORKS & ANR.Vs.RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT11/12/1986BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)SINGH, K.N. (J)CITATION: 1987 AIR 1073 1987 SCR (1) 562 1987 SCC (1) 213 JT 1986 1036 1986 SCALE (2)1037CITATOR INFO : R 1988 SC2187 (35,36)ACT: Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966: Rule 18--Renewal of lease-Lease granted prior to coming into operation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980--Renewal whether mandatory.Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Pre-existing mining leases-Renewal of--Whether could be claimed as a matter of right.Interpretation of statutes--Interpretation must sub- serve and help implement intention of Act. Expression 'may'when not construed as 'shall'.Constitution of India:' Article 141--Precedent--Ratio of a decision to be understood in the background of facts of the case.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4250-425 1 of 1986.From the Judgment and Order dated 9th August, 1985 of the Gujarat High Court in Spl. Civil Appln. No. 2471 of 1985 and 62 18 of 1983.Govind Dass, S.H. Sheth, Mrs. H. Wahi and M.V. Goswami for the Appellants.P...
See the full content of this document