In Brief
Five civil appeals challenged an NGT order suspending mining leases in Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh, pending issuance of forest notification. The appellants sought either extension of leases for the obstructed period or compensation. The Supreme Court held that mining leases cannot be extended beyond statutory procedures merely because operations were halted by court orders protecting forest areas. Rule 68 of the Mining Rules permits extensions only to aid mineral development within statutory framework. Rule 40(h) provides the statutory remedy: monetary adjustment. The Court directed refund of security deposits and advance royalties with 9% simple interest per annum, exercising Article 142 jurisdiction to do complete justice, but declined lease extension as contrary to statutory provisions and transparent mining policies.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[{"raw_citation": "Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P & Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 753", "case_name": "Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P & Ors.", "cited_year": "1986", "paragraph": "8", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Writ Petition No.29546/2003 titled Ved Prakash Garg & Ors. v. Additional District Judge", "case_name": "Ved Prakash Garg & Ors. v. Additional District Judge", "cited_year": "2003", "paragraph": "8", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "SLP (C) (Diary) No. 33675 of 2018", "case_name": "<UNKNOWN>", "cited_year": "2018", "paragraph": "8", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India and Ors. M.A. No. 1166 and 1164 of 2015 decided on 4.5.2016", "case_name": "T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India and Ors.", "cited_year": "2016", "paragraph": "5, 9, 31", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Sukhan Singh v. State of UP & Ors. (2015) 2 All LJ 619", "case_name": "Sukhan Singh v. State of UP & Ors.", "cited_year": "2015", "paragraph": "14a", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Nar Narain Mishra v. The State of UP and Ors. 2013 SCCOnline All 13919", "case_name": "Nar Narain Mishra v. The State of UP and Ors.", "cited_year": "2013", "paragraph": "14a, 19, 40", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Sulekhan Singh & Company and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2016) 4 SCC 663", "case_name": "Sulekhan Singh & Company and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.", "cited_year": "2016", "paragraph": "14a, 19, 40", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Mohammad Yunus Hasan v. State of UP & Ors. (2016) 4 All LJ 4", "case_name": "Mohammad Yunus Hasan v. State of UP & Ors.", "cited_year": "2016", "paragraph": "14b, 35", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Vijay Kumar Dwivedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 4 All LJ 690", "case_name": "Vijay Kumar Dwivedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh", "cited_year": "2016", "paragraph": "14c, 17, 37, 40", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Deepak Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 629", "case_name": "Deepak Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.", "cited_year": "2012", "paragraph": "21", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "J.P. Yadav v. Kanhaiya Singh & Ors. CA No.8621/2013 decided on 19.9.2013", "case_name": "J.P. Yadav v. Kanhaiya Singh & Ors.", "cited_year": "2013", "paragraph": "24", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "The contention that Rule 68 confers upon the State the powers to extend lease for the obstructed period was not accepted as the statutory provision of Rule 68 is in the nature of a relaxation rule in special cases and has to be read with the Rules which provide the manner in which the exploitation of minerals should take place."}, {"raw_citation": "Jagdish Prasad Nishad v. State of UP & Ors. (2015) 128 RD 150", "case_name": "Jagdish Prasad Nishad v. State of UP & Ors.", "cited_year": "2015", "paragraph": "24", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "The view taken by the High Court in Nar Narain Mishra case in the context of the applicability of the G.O. dated 31.5.2012 received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court in Sulekhan Singh case."}, {"raw_citation": "Beg Raj Singh v. State of UP & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 726", "case_name": "Beg Raj Singh v. State of UP & Ors.", "cited_year": "2003", "paragraph": "25, 41", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "M/s. Peethambra Granite Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP & Ors. Writ - C No. - 30066 of 2017 decided on 18.2.2020", "case_name": "M/s. Peethambra Granite Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP & Ors.", "cited_year": "2020", "paragraph": "26", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Delhi Transport Corporation v. Balwan Singh and Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 276", "case_name": "Delhi Transport Corporation v. Balwan Singh and Ors.", "cited_year": "2019", "paragraph": "35", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.