M/S M.P. Mineral Suppliers vs Government Of India Ministry Of Mines

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21838
1 WP-21199-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 16 OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 21199 of 2022
M/S M.P. MINERAL SUPPLIERS
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF MINES AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri Pranay Choubey,
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Chiranjeev Sharma, Advocate for UOI.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi Deputy Advocate General for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
The present The present petition is directed against the orders dated
24.08.2021 (Annexure P/18), 30.04.2010 (Annexure P/16) by which the
revision petition and review petition of the petitioner have been rejected and
order dated 09.08.2004 (Annexure P/12 issued by respondent no. 2
determining the lease of the petitioner as well as cancelling the application of
renewal of lease due to non-compliance/non-response to the notice issued by
the respondents).
2. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm having its registered office
at Station Road, Katni, engaged in the business of mining of limestone.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-03-2026
16:38:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21838
2 WP-21199-2022
Initially, a mining lease over an area measuring 12.347 hectares situated at

Village Piparhat, Tahsil Maihar, District Satna was granted on 18.08.1975 in
favour of Shri Sukhdeo Prasad Goenka for a period of 20 years, i.e., from
18.08.1975 to 17.08.1995. Subsequently, the lease was transferred in favour
of the present petitioner through its proprietor Shri Abhay Kumar Goenka by
order dated 11.07.1979, and a supplementary agreement was executed
accordingly.
3. The petitioner had been regularly depositing royalty on the
minerals extracted. However, in the year 1991, the respondents raised an
additional demand of Rs. 6,91,748/- alleging certain minor violations of
lease conditions. The petitioner submitted replies denying the allegations and
explaining that the demand was based on erroneous calculations. Despite
this, the lease was determined by the State Government vide order dated
21.05.1992 on the ground of alleged non-payment of royalty.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before
the Revisional Authority, which granted interim protection and later, by
order dated 11.04.1994, set aside the order determining the lease, directing
the State Government to verify the alleged dues and issue a fresh notice if
required.
5. Before the expiry of the lease on 17.08.1995, the petitioner
applied for renewal and deposited Rs. 5,16,825/- as determined by the
Mining Officer. However, the respondents again issued a notice dated
10.01.1997 raising a fresh demand of Rs. 7,43,682/- and calling upon the
petitioner to submit certain documents, failing which the renewal application
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-03-2026
16:38:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21838
3 WP-21199-2022
would be rejected. The petitioner submitted a reply explaining that the

alleged dues were disputed.
6. Thereafter, the State Government passed an order dated
09.08.2004 determining the lease and rejecting the renewal application
without granting any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner challenged the
said order before the Central Government Revisional Authority, but the
revision was dismissed by order dated 30.04.2010.
7. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application under Rule 56
of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, which remained pending for more
than ten years and was ultimately dismissed by order dated 24.08.2021 on
the ground that review was not maintainable under the Minerals (Other Than
Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 30.04.2010 and
24.08.2021, the petitioner has approached this Court on the following
grounds.
9. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for petitioner that the
impugned orders are illegal and unsustainable in law. The respondent No.1
wrongly refused to entertain the review application on the ground of
maintainability under the new rules, ignoring the fact that the review had
been filed and admitted under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and was
required to be decided in accordance with those rules.
10. It is further submitted that the Revisional Authority further failed
to appreciate that in the earlier round of litigation the order determining the
lease had already been set aside and the matter was remanded to the State
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-03-2026
16:38:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21838
4 WP-21199-2022
Government with specific directions to properly assess the royalty dues and

conduct physical verification of the leased area. However, the State
authorities failed to comply with the said directions and again determined the
lease without proper verification or reassessment of the dues.
11. It is also submitted that the Revisional Authority also acted
arbitrarily in keeping the review application pending for more than ten years
and thereafter rejecting it on the ground of maintainability without
examining the substantial issues raised by the petitioner.
12. The further contention of the petitioner is that it was also not
appreciated that the royalty demand raised against the petitioner was disputed
and based on erroneous calculations. Despite this, the same demand was
reiterated even after remand and penalty was added without proper
justification.
13. It is contended that being a statutory authority discharging quasi-
judicial functions, respondent No.1 was required to exercise its jurisdiction
in accordance with settled legal principles. However, the review application
was rejected arbitrarily without proper consideration. Therefore, prays for
setting aside the impugned orders.
14. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents before
the Revisional Authority was that the revisionist did not pay the royalty since
1994 and demand notice dated 30.01.1995 and 18.04.1996 were sent by the
Collector to the Revisionist. Subsequently, the State Government also issued
notices dated 10.01.1997, 07.08.2000, 26.08.2002 and 03.04.2003 to
complete his application and to deposit the outstanding amount. As the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-03-2026
16:38:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21838
5 WP-21199-2022
revisionist did not take any action to these notices, the application for

renewal of Mining Lease of the revisionist was rejected.
15. The revisional authority in its order has stated that the
Revisionist applied for renewal of a mining lease for Limestone and
Dolomite over 12.347 hectares in village Piprahat, District Satna, Madhya
Pradesh.
16. The State Government found the renewal application incomplete
and issued several letters/notices (dated 10.01.1997, 07.08.2000, 26.08.2002,
and 03.04.2003) directing the Revisionist to complete the application and
deposit the outstanding royalty amount. The Revisionist did not respond to
these notices and did not complete the required formalities or pay the
outstanding dues. The State Government therefore rejected the application
for renewal of the mining lease by order dated 09.08.2004.
17. In the revision application, the Revisionist argued that No
opportunity of hearing was given. Principles of natural justice were violated.
The royalty arrears were disputed. However, the authority found that
multiple notices had already been issued by the Collector and the State
Government. The Revisionist failed to take any action on those notices. The
Revisionist also did not show evidence of efforts to obtain copies of notices
or prove non-receipt. The authority concluded that there was no infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order dated 09.08.2004 passed by the Government
of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, the Revision Application was dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on the record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-03-2026
16:38:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21838
6 WP-21199-2022
18. Upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the material

placed on record, and the impugned orders, the principal questions that arise
for determination are: (i) whether the Revisional Authority committed any
error in dismissing the revision application against the order dated
09.08.2004 passed by the State Government rejecting the renewal of the
mining lease; and (ii) whether the order dated 24.08.2021 rejecting the
review application on the ground of maintainability calls for interference in
exercise of writ jurisdiction.
19. It is not in dispute that the mining lease in question was
originally granted for a period of twenty years commencing from 18.08.1975
and expiring on 17.08.1995. Prior to the expiry of the lease period, the
petitioner applied for renewal and deposited an amount of Rs. 5,16,825/- as
determined by the Mining Officer. However, the record also reveals that
disputes had arisen regarding non-payment of royalty and other dues, and the
authorities had raised demands towards the outstanding royalty amount.
20. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the State
Government and the concerned authorities issued several notices to the
petitioner dated 10.01.1997, 07.08.2000, 26.08.2002 and 03.04.2003
directing the petitioner to complete the renewal application and deposit the
outstanding royalty. The respondents have consistently asserted that despite
repeated communications, the petitioner failed to comply with the
requirements and did not clear the dues. The petitioner has not produced any
material to demonstrate that the directions contained in the said notices were
duly complied with.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-03-2026
16:38:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21838
7 WP-21199-2022
21. The Revisional Authority, while considering the revision

application, examined the record and noted that multiple opportunities had
been granted to the petitioner to complete the formalities and deposit the
outstanding amount. The authority further recorded that the petitioner neither
complied with the directions issued in the notices nor produced any
satisfactory evidence to show that the notices were not received or that
genuine efforts were made to respond to them. In such circumstances, the
Revisional Authority concluded that the State Government had acted within
its jurisdiction in rejecting the renewal application by order dated
09.08.2004.
22. The contention of the petitioner that the impugned order was
passed in violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be accepted.
The issuance of repeated notices by the competent authorities requiring the
petitioner to comply with the statutory requirements clearly afforded
sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to present its case and to rectify the
deficiencies in the renewal application. Failure on the part of the petitioner to
respond to such notices cannot subsequently be relied upon to allege
violation of natural justice.
23. Similarly, the argument that the royalty demand was erroneous
or required reassessment does not assist the petitioner in the present
proceedings. The material on record indicates that the petitioner did not take
appropriate steps before the competent authority to resolve the dispute
regarding the alleged dues or to comply with the conditions necessary for
consideration of the renewal application. In the absence of compliance with
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-03-2026
16:38:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21838
8 WP-21199-2022
statutory requirements and payment of dues, the State Government was

justified in declining the renewal of the lease.
24. With regard to the order dated 24.08.2021 rejecting the review
application, it is evident that the review was sought to be maintained under
the earlier provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. However, by
the time the matter was considered, the regulatory framework governing such
matters had undergone a change with the coming into force of the Minerals
(Other Than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules,
2016. The authority, upon examining the statutory scheme, concluded that
the review was not maintainable. This Court does not find any jurisdictional
error or perversity in the said conclusion warranting interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
25. It is well settled that the scope of judicial review under Article
226 is limited and does not extend to reappreciation of facts or substitution
of the Court’s view for that of the statutory authorities, unless the impugned
orders suffer from patent illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory
provisions. In the present case, the orders passed by the Revisional Authority
and the competent authority are based on the material available on record and
do not disclose any such infirmity. A Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Savita Rawat v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others W.P. No. 4278
of 2001 vide order dated 11.03.2016 held that mere filing of an application
for grant or renewal of a mining lease does not confer any vested right in
favour of the applicant. Mineral resources are public assets and the State has
full authority to regulate their grant in accordance with the statutory scheme.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-03-2026
16:38:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21838
9 WP-21199-2022
If statutory requirements are not fulfilled, the State is justified in rejecting

the application. It supports the proposition that renewal cannot be claimed as
a matter of right, especially where statutory conditions such as payment of
dues or completion of formalities are not complied with.
26. The disputed lease was granted for the period from 18.08.1975
to 17.08.1995. Thereafter, an application for renewal of the lease for a
further period of 20 years was filed, which was rejected by the Mining
Department. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal;
however, the appeal was dismissed. Against the appellate order, the
petitioner filed a revision, which was also rejected on 30.04.2010 vide order
(Annexure P/16). Thereafter, a review application was filed against the
revisional order, which was rejected on 24.08.2021 vide order (Annexure
P/18). Vide letter dated 10.01.1997 (Annexure P/10), the petitioner was
informed that he had not submitted the approved mining plan and had also
failed to deposit the outstanding royalty amounting to Rs. 7,43,682/-. The
petitioner was requested to deposit the said amount within 30 days, failing
which proceedings for cancellation of the lease would be initiated.
Thereafter, vide letter dated 05.03.1997 (Annexure P/11), the petitioner
requested the authority to keep the renewal application pending and sought
time to deposit the outstanding royalty. Subsequently, vide letter dated
09.08.2004 (Annexure P/12), the disputed lease was cancelled due to non-
compliance with the earlier letters dated 10.01.1997, 07.08.2000, 26.08.2000,
and 03.04.2003.
27. In the year 2015, the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-03-2026
16:38:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21838
10 WP-21199-2022
Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 came into force. Rule 8 of the said

amendment is relevant for resolving the present dispute. The relevant
provision of the amended Act is reproduced below:

“This Act may be called the Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015.”
8. After section 8 of the principal Act, the following section shall
be inserted, namely: — “8A.
(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to minerals other
than those specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule.
(2) On and from the date of the commencement of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015,
all mining leases shall be granted for the period of fifty years.
(3) All mining leases granted before the commencement of the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment
Act, 2015 shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of
fifty years.
(4) On the expiry of the lease period, the lease shall be put up for
auction as per the procedure specified in this Act.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2), (3)
and sub-section (4), the period of lease granted before the date of
commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, where mineral is used for
captive purpose, shall be extended and be deemed to have been
extended up to a period ending on the 31st March, 2030 with
effect from the date of expiry of the period of renewal last made or
till the completion of renewal period, if any, or a period of fifty
years from the date of grant of such lease, whichever is later,
subject to the condition that all the terms and conditions of the
lease have been complied with.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2), (3)
and sub-section (4), the period of lease granted before the date of
commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, where mineral is used for
other than captive purpose, shall be extended and be deemed to
have been extended up to a period ending on the 31st March, 2020
with effect from the date of expiry of the period of renewal last
made or till the completion of renewal period, if any, or a period
of fifty years from the date of grant of such lease, whichever is
later, subject to the condition that all the terms and conditions of
the lease have been complied with.
(7) Any holder of a lease granted, where mineral is used for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-03-2026
16:38:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21838
11 WP-21199-2022
captive purpose, shall have the right of first refusal at the time of
auction held for such lease after the expiry of the lease period.
(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the period
of mining leases, including existing mining leases, of Government
companies or corporations shall be such as may be prescribed by
the Central Government.
(9) The provisions of this section, notwithstanding anything
contained therein, shall not apply to a mining lease granted before
the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, for which
renewal has been rejected, or which has been determined, or
lapsed."

28. The contention of the respondents is acceptable that, in terms of
Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957, as amended in 2015, the maximum statutory lease period was extended
up to 31.03.2020, whichever is later. However, after the cut-off date of
31.03.2020, the lease cannot be renewed in view of the Amendment Act,
2015, which has come into force. In the present case, the petitioner’s lease
had already lapsed after the expiry of the sanctioned period, much prior to
the enactment of the 2015 Amendment. Therefore, Section 8A of the MMDR
Act does not apply to the present case and the lease period cannot be deemed
to have been extended up to 31.03.2020. It is also clear that the petitioner
never deposited the royalty/dead rent despite demand, and the lease was not
operated after 1997. Proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
petitioner. After the amendment in the Mines and Minerals Rules, the lease
could not be renewed. As the mine remained non-operational since 1997 and
no approved mining plan was submitted by the petitioner, the lease was
rightly cancelled by the competent authority.
29. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-03-2026
16:38:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21838
12 WP-21199-2022
interference with the impugned orders dated 30.04.2010 and 24.08.2021 in

exercise of writ jurisdiction.
30. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUDGE
MSP

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 17-03-2026
16:38:00