The State of West Bengal & Ors vs M/S. Chiranjilal (Mineral) ,2018

CITATION	SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)…….Diary No(s).8300/2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT	4 October,2018
COURT	Calcutta High Court
APPELLANT	THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
RESPONDENT	M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH & ANR.
BENCH	JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER                , JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

Introduction:

“The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. M/S. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih & Anr.” is a notable legal case that took place in the Indian judicial system. The case involves The State of West Bengal as the appellant, M/S. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih & Anr as the respondent. The case is related to legal disputes or matters involving the M/S. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih and.The State of West Bengal. The year 2018 signifies the year in which the case was heard or decided by the relevant court.

Facts of the Case:

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the grant of a mining lease for the extraction of Dolomite in the state of West Bengal. The dispute began in 1978 when the respondents, M/S. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries, applied for a mining lease. Dolomite was initially classified as a non-scheduled major mineral, but it later became a minor mineral by a notification in 2015. The land in question consisted of multiple plots covering about 88.85 acres.

Several government officials and departments were involved in the decision-making process. The District Land and Land Reforms Officer recommended the grant of the lease for most of the plots, but the Mining Officer rejected this recommendation. There were contradictory reports and hearings, and ultimately, the Joint Secretary of the Commerce and Industries Department offered a personal hearing to the writ petitioners.

Over the years, there were multiple legal proceedings, including writ petitions, and decisions regarding the grant of mining leases. The parties involved also provided various documents and fulfilled certain conditions.

Issues Raised:

The main issues raised in the case were:

1. Whether the respondents, M/S. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries, needed to obtain conversion certificates under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, for the land they applied for a mining lease.

2. Whether the respondents were required to obtain clearance under Section 14Y of the same Act, especially considering that they did not own the land but had the consent of individual landowners for mining.

Appellant Contention:

1. The State of West Bengal and the appellant authorities contended that the respondents were required to obtain conversion certificates and clearances as per the relevant sections of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. 

2. They argued that the land exceeded the ceiling limit, and therefore, Section 14Y clearance was necessary.

Respondent Contention:

1.M/S. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries argued that they did not need conversion certificates for the land classified as ‘Dungri’ and that consent from individual landowners should be sufficient. 

2. They also claimed that they were not the owners of the land, and therefore, the provisions related to ceiling limits should not apply to them.

Judgment:

The Court held that conversion certificates and clearances were not necessary for the mining lease. They argued that the State had allowed mining activities on ‘Dungri’ land without requiring conversion in the past. They also stated that the respondents did not own the land, and the ceiling limit provisions did not apply to them.

The Court criticized the State’s delaying tactics in granting the lease and found no merit in the State’s arguments. They ordered the State to execute the mining lease in favor of M/S. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries within a specified time frame.

Conclusion:

The Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the order to grant the mining lease, and set a deadline for the execution of the lease. They also vacated any interim orders, and no costs were awarded.

References

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115157184/
2. https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=16788#:~:text=Chiranjilal%20(Mineral)%20Industries%20of%20Bagandih%20filed%20Writ%20Petition%20No.,the%20application%20of%20Respondent%20No..

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N2q_M0LVaSG1oB_ytgEJILu5CcmAGZQF/view

This Article is written by Jaishree Sharma student at Rajasthan University, Jaipur; and an Intern at Legal Vidhiya.