Case Summary: Common Cause v. Union of India (2016)
Citation:(2016) 04 SC CK 0116 | Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 114 and 194 of 2014 | Date of Decision: 04-04-2016
Hon’ble Judges:J.S. Khehar and C. Nagappan, JJ.
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=1014015
Law Points Raised:
- Whether mining leaseholders without valid environmental clearances or approvals can continue operations.
- Whether possession of a subsisting mining lease is a necessary precondition for seeking permission to resume mining.
- Interpretation of Section 8 of the MMDR Act and Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules regarding renewals and validity of mining leases.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court ruled that a mining leaseholder must possess a valid and subsisting mining lease to seek revival of operations. The existence of approvals and clearances alone is insufficient without a valid lease. The Court clarified that under Section 8 of the MMDR Act, a lease is subsisting only during the period of original grant or a duly approved renewal. Rule 24A(6) was key in determining whether leases could be deemed extended pending renewal decisions.
Final Ruling:
The Court held that leaseholders could only resume mining operations if they had a subsisting lease and all requisite clearances. It accepted the amicus curiae's contention that mere clearances without a valid lease do not authorize resumption of mining. Directions were issued to assess the validity of mining leases before lifting the suspension imposed by the Court’s earlier order dated 16.05.2014.
Key Paragraph References:
- Para 1–2: Background of suspension of 102 mining leases due to lack of approvals.
- Para 3–4: Requirement of subsisting lease before revival of mining operations.
- Para 6–7: Detailed interpretation of Section 8, MMDR Act.
- Para 8–9: Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules and its legal implications.