Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Maria Teresa Philomena D'Rocha Pegado, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 5 of the Goa Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2002, which deleted Chapter III of the Goa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1985. The petitioner claimed to be the owner of a landed property surveyed under No.213/1 of Revenue Village Morombi-O-Grand. On 12.7.1986, the petitioner's husband entered into an agreement granting a quarrying lease to respondent No.3 in respect of an area admeasuring 40,000 sq. metres with effect from 1st October, 1998. The State Government brought into force the Goa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1985 on 28th July, 1986 pursuant to powers under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Chapter III of the said Rules related to grant of quarrying lease in respect of land in which minor minerals belong to persons other than the State Government. This Chapter was deleted by Rule 5 of the Goa Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2002. The petitioner sought a declaration that Rule 5 is unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires Section 15(1)(1A)(d)(h) of the Act, and also prayed for a writ of mandamus to cancel the quarry lease executed between respondents No.1 and 2 and respondents No.3 and 4 on 28th September, 2000, and for quashing an order dated 12th October, 2004 in interlocutory proceedings in Civil Suit No.133/2004. However, the civil suit was dismissed and a first appeal was pending, so the court declined to consider the relief regarding the interlocutory order. The court examined the rule-making power under Section 15 of the Act and held that the State Government has the power to make rules for grant of quarry leases in respect of land belonging to private persons. The deletion of Chapter III by Rule 5 was held to be within the scope of the rule-making power and not ultra vires the Act. The court also noted that the quarry lease granted on 28th September, 2000 was valid and the deletion of Chapter III did not affect existing leases. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Delegated Legislation - Ultra Vires - Section 15, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Rule 5 of Goa Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2002 - Challenge to validity of Rule 5 deleting Chapter III of the principal Rules - Held that the State Government has power under Section 15 to make rules for grant of quarry leases in respect of land belonging to private persons, and the deletion of Chapter III does not exceed the rule-making power (Paras 1-10). B) Mining Law - Quarry Lease - Validity - Section 15, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Quarry lease granted on 28th September 2000 in favour of respondents No.3 and 4 - Challenge by petitioner claiming ownership of land - Held that the lease was validly granted and the deletion of Chapter III does not affect existing leases (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 5 of the Goa Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2002, which deleted Chapter III of the Goa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1985, is unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires Section 15(1)(1A)(d)(h) of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule 5 of the Goa Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2002 is held to be intra vires Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The quarry lease granted on 28th September 2000 is valid.
Law Points
- Rule 5 of Goa Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules
- 2002 is intra vires Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1957
- State Government has power to make rules for grant of quarry leases in respect of land belonging to private persons
- Deletion of Chapter III does not affect existing leases
- Quarry lease granted on 28th September 2000 is valid
