Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by Rare(H) Minerals Private Limited, a company engaged in prospecting and exploration, challenging the Notification (Revised Guidelines for Making Selection of Applicants for Grant of Offshore Exploration Licence) issued on 29th December 2010 by the Union of India. The dispute arose in the context of applications for offshore exploration licences for 63 mineral-bearing blocks in the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea, notified on 7th June 2010 with the application window from 15th June to 14th September 2010. The petitioner applied for 17 blocks in the Arabian Sea within the deadline. However, after the last date for applications, the Union of India issued revised guidelines on 29th December 2010, altering the selection criteria. The petitioner, on 3rd January 2011, sought cancellation of the guidelines and, receiving no relief, filed the writ petition on 25th March 2011. The High Court passed an interim order on 28th March 2011 allowing the selection process to continue but not to be finalized. Letters of intent were issued on 5th April 2011, leading to interventions by successful applicants who were added as respondents. Meanwhile, parallel writ petitions were filed in the Madras and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, and transfer petitions were pending before the Supreme Court. The petitioner’s main legal contentions were that the revised guidelines were ultra vires the Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002, particularly exceeding the rule-making power under Section 35; that they violated Article 14 and the doctrine of legitimate expectation by changing the criteria after the application deadline; and that the guidelines were arbitrary and suffered from non-application of mind. The respondents defended the guidelines, asserting that in the absence of rules under Section 35, administrative guidelines were permissible to implement Section 12; that the public trust doctrine justified the criteria; that an alternative remedy under Section 34 barred the writ; and that the guidelines were framed by experts deserving judicial deference. The court heard detailed arguments from Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Additional Solicitor General for the Union, along with counsel for the added respondents. However, the judgment text available does not include the court’s analysis, reasoning, or final order; the record ends mid-sentence during submissions. Therefore, the outcome of the petition, the ratio decidendi, and the final decision remain unknown from the provided text.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law – Delegated Legislation – Validity of Guidelines under Parent Act – Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002, Section 35 – The petitioner challenged the Notification dated 29.12.2010 as being beyond the scope of the Act and the rule-making power under Section 35, contending it could only be issued by the Union of India. The respondents argued that in absence of rules, guidelines could be issued to facilitate working of Section 12. (Paras 5(a), 6(d))
B) Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Fairness in Administrative Action – Constitution of India, Article 14 – The petitioner submitted that issuance of guidelines after the last date for applications (14.9.2010) amounted to a change in selection criteria, violating Article 14 and the doctrine of legitimate expectation, as per precedents in Ramana Dayaram Shetty and Umesh Chandra Shukla. (Paras 5(b), 5(c))
C) Constitutional Law – Legitimate Expectation – Expectation Arising from Statutory Scheme – The petitioner claimed a legitimate expectation that its applications would be considered under the Act of 2002, and the subsequent guidelines prejudiced this expectation, relying on Global Energy Limited. (Para 5(b))
D) Administrative Law – Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002, Section 34 – The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 34, rendering the writ petition not maintainable, citing an unreported Madras High Court decision in W.P. No.12333 of 2011. (Para 6(a))
E) Constitutional Law – Public Trust Doctrine – Natural Resources – Constitution of India, Articles 297, 39(b) – The respondents invoked the public trust doctrine, arguing that mineral resources belong to the nation and the guidelines were meant to ensure proper exploitation, relying on Reliance Natural Resources Limited v. Reliance Industries Limited. (Para 6(c))
F) Administrative Law – Expert Determination – Scope of Judicial Review – The respondents submitted that the guidelines were framed by experts in the field and courts should be slow to interfere with such expert decisions. (Para 6(e))
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Notification (Revised Guidelines) dated 29.12.2010 is ultra vires the Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act 2002 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Law Points
- Section 35 Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act 2002
- Article 14 Constitution of India
- doctrine of legitimate expectation
- change of criteria after application deadline
- ultra vires delegated legislation
- public trust doctrine
- alternative remedy under Section 34
- guidelines in lieu of rules
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (09) 148
WRIT PETITION NO.1502 OF 2011
B.P. Dharmadhikari, A.S. Chandurkar
N.H. Seervai, A.A. Naik, K. Setalvad, S.K. Mishra, N.C. Phadnis, A.S. Mardikar, Anand Parchure
Rare(H) Minerals Private Limited
Union of India through Secretary Dept. of Mines, Controller General Indian Bureau of Mines, M/s U. A. Minerals Private Limited, Indian Garnet Sand Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., VIA Earth Resources Private Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public law writ petition under Article 226 challenging the validity of administrative guidelines issued by the Union of India for grant of offshore exploration licences.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the Notification (Revised Guidelines) dated 29.12.2010 and annulment of the selection process conducted pursuant to it.
Filing Reason
Petitioner had applied for exploration licences for 17 offshore blocks in Arabian Sea under the initial notification dated 7.6.2010; after the application deadline, the Union issued revised guidelines altering selection criteria, which the petitioner claimed were ultra vires the parent Act and arbitrary.
Previous Decisions
High Court on 28.3.2011 passed interim order allowing selection process to continue but not to be finalized; on 28.11.2011, interim order was confined to the 17 blocks applied for by the petitioner. Related writ petitions were pending before Madras High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court; transfer petitions were pending before the Supreme Court. Application for staying proceedings was rejected on 12.8.2013.
Issues
Whether the Notification (Revised Guidelines) dated 29.12.2010 is beyond the scope of the Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act 2002 and the rule-making power under Section 35
Whether the issuance of guidelines after the last date for applications violates Article 14 and the doctrine of legitimate expectation
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Act
Whether the guidelines are arbitrary and suffer from non-application of mind
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that guidelines were beyond the rule-making power under Section 35 and could only be issued by the Union of India, not the Controller General, relying on Nazir Ahmad and Parmeshwar Prasad.
Petitioner contended that issuing guidelines after the last date of applications changed the selection criteria, violating Article 14 and the doctrine of legitimate expectation, citing Ramana Dayaram Shetty, Umesh Chandra Shukla, Monarch Infrastructure, and Global Energy Limited.
Petitioner submitted that guidelines exceeded delegated legislation and were de hors the Act, relying on Academy of Nutrition Improvement and Sandur Manganese.
Petitioner argued guidelines were arbitrary and showed non-application of mind, relying on P.N. Kaushal, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, and Mamata Mohanty.
Respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 34, rendering the writ petition not maintainable.
Respondents contended that the guidelines were not a 'Notification' but merely revised guidelines, and in absence of rules under Section 35, administrative guidelines could be issued to facilitate Section 12, relying on multiple Supreme Court decisions including Sant Ram Sharma and U.P. State Electricity Board.
Respondents invoked the public trust doctrine under Articles 297 and 39(b), citing Reliance Natural Resources Limited.
Respondents argued that the guidelines were framed by experts and the court should not interfere.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the Notification (Revised Guidelines for Making Selection of Applicants for Grant of Offshore Exploration Licence) issued on 29th December 2010.
The facts relevant for considering the aforesaid challenge are that, according to petitioner-Company it carries on the business of prospecting, exploring and operating licence and quarries.
Shri N. H. Seervai, learned Senior Counsel assailing the Notification dated 29th December 2010 made the following submissions:
This Court on 28th March 2011 has issued notice to the respondents and had passed an interim order permitting the continuation of the process of selection but directed that the same should not be finalized without obtaining orders from this Court.
Procedural History
On 11.2.2010, the Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines was appointed as administering authority. A notification dated 7.6.2010 invited applications for grant of offshore exploration licences for 63 blocks; the application period was from 15.6.2010 to 14.9.2010. The petitioner applied for 17 blocks in the Arabian Sea. The impugned revised guidelines were issued on 29.12.2010. The petitioner made a representation on 3.1.2011 and a reminder on 10.3.2011. The writ petition was filed on 25.3.2011. On 28.3.2011, the High Court issued an interim order allowing the selection process to continue but restraining finalization. Letters of intent were issued to successful applicants on 5.4.2011. Intervention applications were allowed on 13.7.2011. On 28.11.2011, the interim order was confined to the 17 blocks applied for by the petitioner; intervenors for Bay of Bengal blocks were discharged. Respondent 3 was added. On 12.6.2012, hearing was deferred to 12.7.2012 with a direction that no further adjournments would be granted on the ground of pending transfer petitions. An application by respondent 3 to stay proceedings (C.A.W. 2045 of 2013) was rejected on 12.8.2013. The matter was heard finally on 13.8.2013 and judgment was pronounced on 17.9.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002: Section 12, Section 35, Section 34
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 297, Article 39(b)
