M/s Trinity Infrastructure Vs. The State of M.P. and others

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

WRIT PETITION, 25364 of 2019, Judgment Date: Sep 21, 2020

Law laid down - 

Question No.(I) : The stone for making Gitti by mechanical crushing (i.e. use of crusher) specified at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, is governed by Rule 6 under Chapter III and supported by Rules 9, 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, 29 and 30 of the 1996 Rules in respect of its grant and renewal. It does not show that the quarry lease in respect of Mineral at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I on Government land shall be allotted by open auction and thus, it does not enlarge its scope to be covered by Rule 7 of the 1996 Rules. There is clear distinction in respect of grant/renewal of quarry lease of Mineral at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I governed by Rule 6 and the allotment of Mineral at Serial No.3 of Schedule-II by auction as per Rule 7 of the 1996 Rules.

Question No.(II): The Mineral at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I is specifically held to be covered by Rule 6 of the 1996 Rules, which admits of the quarry lease for the said mineral by application for grant or renewal and not by auction. There cannot be two processes i.e. one by open auction for Government land and another by way of grant for private land in respect of the said Mineral.

Question No.(III): In absence of any finding to even remotely associate the Mineral at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I with Mineral at Serial No.3 of Schedule-II of the 1996 Rules it would not be correct, just and proper to hold that the Mineral at Serial No.6 of Schedule-I is covered under Serial No.3 of Schedule-II, therefore, the process of auction as provided under Rule 7 of the 1996 Rules has to be followed in larger public interest. Hence, the judgment in W.P. No.6215/2019 (Prathvi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and others) decided on 27.06.2019 – modified vide common order dated 08.11.2019 in R.P. No.1051/2019 (State of M.P. vs. Prathvi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) has not correctly read the legal conclusions enunciated by the Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1 and the Constitution Bench judgment in Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1, and thus, stand overruled.

Question No.(IV): Division Bench judgment of Gwalior Bench in W.P. No.19690/2019 (Smt. Prabha Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others) has made the correct interpretation of the Rules 6 and 7 of the 1996 Rules. Additionally, the similar questions referred in W.P. No.6767/2020 (M/s Aman Stone Crusher vs. State of M.P. and others) stand answered accordingly.

* The Court’s jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It is well known that in a given case the court can iron out the fabric but it cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of provision is plain and unambiguous. It cannot add or subtract words to a statute or read something into it which is not there. It cannot re-write or recast legislation. Reliance placed upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth, (1977) 4 SCC 193; Nelson Motis vs. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 711; Nasiruddin vs. Sita Ram Agarwal, (2003) 2 SCC 577, Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umarji vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2004) 6 SCC 672.

* The Courts are not concerned with the policy involved or that the results are injurious or otherwise, which may follow from giving effect to the language used. If the words are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. The Courts always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect. Decision in Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta, (2005) 2 SCC 271 – relied upon.

M/s Trinity Infrastructure Vs. The State of M.P. and others