Keshkal G.N. INDIA Bauxite Mines And Minerals Limited vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. On the first issue, the Court found that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not available against the Government when it exercises its statutory or sovereign functions, or when its officers act outside the scope of their authority. The Court cited several Supreme Court judgments to establish that assurances given by government officials cannot bar the government from enforcing statutory prohibitions or acting in public interest. The amendments to the MMDR Act, 1957, and the introduction of GST, which altered the statutory regime, further weakened the petitioner's claim based on prior assurances. Regarding the second issue, the Court implicitly rejected the argument that the area remained reserved, as the entire petition was dismissed. The Court concluded that the petitioner's claim based on promissory estoppel was without substance and that the writ petition was devoid of merit. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Keshkal G.N. India Bauxite Mines and Minerals Limited (J.V.C.), filed a writ petition seeking directions for the Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Limited (CMDC) to decide its application for a mining lease. The petitioner also sought to ensure their application remained alive and that the area reserved in 1981 for public sector undertakings for Bauxite mining would continue to be so reserved, despite amendments to the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act). The dispute stems from a 1981 notification reserving Bauxite mining rights for MPSMC, subsequent joint venture agreements between CMDC and the petitioner, and various rejections of mining lease applications by the Union of India due to non-compliance with statutory provisions and guidelines, particularly after the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015. The petitioner argued based on promissory estoppel and assurances given by government authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the respondent authorities to decide the application submitted by respondent No. 2 (CMDC) for grant of mining lease, and if not decided, whether the application should be treated as eligible and remain alive in view of Section 17(A)(2a) of the MMDR Act, 1957? (Question of law and mixed fact and law) 2. Whether the area reserved in 1981 for public sector undertakings for mining of Bauxite remains reserved even after amendments to the MMDR Act, 1957? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the State Government's actions and assurances created a legitimate expectation and that the principle of promissory estoppel should apply, preventing the respondents from resiling from their promises. They relied on the judgment in Monet Ispat and Energy Limited Vs. Union of India & others. They argued that the area should remain reserved for public sector undertakings as per the original reservation. Respondents' arguments: The State and Union of India argued that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against the Government when exercising its statutory or sovereign functions, citing various Supreme Court judgments like The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. Sipahi Singh and others, and M/s Jit Ram Shiv Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others. They asserted that the amendments to the MMDR Act, 1957, particularly Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act, superseded any prior assurances or policies.