Member Info for Professor1

(CONTINUED)
8.1 The effect of the interim order dated 29.04.2008 was that, notification dated 16.11.2007, in so far as it related to the area covered under the RP issued to the petitioner, was stayed. Only to be noticed, as indicated above, the area admeasured 207 sq. kms.

9. Apparently respondent no. 2 issued another notification on 05.02.2008. By virtue of this notification, respondent no. 2 evidently withdrew the ban on mining in scheduled tribal areas, and called for, fresh applications. The net effect of the said notification was that all pending applications for grant of PL/ Mining Lease (in short ML) were required, to be rejected. 9.1 This propelled the petitioner to file a second writ petition, i.e., CWP No. 1481/2008, once again, in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The grievance broadly raised in the said writ petition was that applications for grant of PL/ML had been invited, in respect of areas in which RP had already been issued to the petitioner and/or were already a subject matter of applications for grant of PL/ML to the petitioner.

10. It may be important to note that in the interregnum, the petitioner had, filed an application with respondent no. 2 for grant of PL. This application was evidently made pursuant to the issuance of notification dated 05.02.2008, lifting the ban. This application was also rejected on 11.04.2008.

11. The writ petitioner thereafter, apparently, filed yet another application on 17.04.2008, for grant of PL qua an area admeasuring 8.5 sq. kms. in the village Dagucha Amlawa, Tehsil Aaspur, Distt. Dungarpur. This application had been apparently preferred without prejudice to the fact that, its earlier application had been rejected on 11.04.2008 or its contention vis-à-vis the validity, scope and effect of the notification dated 05.02.2008.

12. In so far as the rejection of petitioner's application for PL vide order dated 11.04.2008 was concerned, a revision petition was filed under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals. (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short MMDR Act) read with Rule 54 of the Mines Concessions Rules, 1960 (in short MCR).

13. The High court of Rajasthan, on 12.09.2008, passed an interim order in CWP No. 1481/2008, wherein a challenge had been laid to the notification dated 05.02.2008, as indicated above. By virtue of the said interim order dated 12.09.2008, the court, after noticing the earlier interim order passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of the same court, on 29.04.2008, in the other writ petition, i.e., CWP no. 1864/2008 observed, in the operative part, as follows:

"....After perusing the order dated 29th April, 2008 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court, it is ordered that for the ara of 207 square kms. in respect of which, stay is already operating, no third party right or interest shall be created by the respondents...."
13.1 The effect of the aforesaid order was that no third party interest could be created by respondent no. 2 vis-à-vis the ar

(CONTINUED)
2. The petitioner had applied for a Reconnaissance Permit (in short RP) with respondent no. 2 for establishing gold, copper, led, zinc, nickel and associated minerals. The application was made; pursuant thereto on 03.09.2004 the petitioner was granted a RP in respect of the aforementioned minerals for an area admeasuring 207 sq. kms. in the Dungarpur and Banswara Districts in the State of Rajasthan as well as for an area admeasuring 654.7 sq. kms., in the North Jagpura, in the district of Udaipur. It is the say of the petitioner that, after literature survey was carried out qua the said area, as a matter of fact, the petitioner engaged with Hindustan Zinc Limited and procured an exploration report generated by the said company. This report was submitted to the concerned authorities. Thereupon, the petitioner executed a Reconnaissance Deed with respondent no. 2, on 19.01.2005.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that, in the meanwhile, i.e., on 15.09.2004, respondent no. 2 had thrown open the area for grant of Prospecting License (in short PL), over an area admeasuring 7.35 sq. kms. in the village Bhikia/ Bhakari, Tehsil Ghatol, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

4. The petitioner, who had applied for PL had its application rejected by respondent no. 2, which was communicated to it vide orders dated 3/20.04.2007 on the ground that it had not, purportedly, obtained the requisite approvals. It appears that respondent no. 2 in the interregnum had issued, in the year 2000 (i.e., on 05.09.2000, 12.09.2000 and 18.12.2000), orders reserving the area, in respect of which the PL was sought by the petitioner, which tended to favour departmental prospecting.

5. Against the rejection of the petitioner's application for a PL, a revision petition was filed. This revision petition bearing no. 25/87/2007-RC-1, was filed on 29.06.2007.

6. On 16.11.2007, respondent no. 2 apparently took out a notification reserving three blocks in the village Bhukia and Bamanpura having a total area of 158.26 sq. kms. in district Banswara for departmental prospecting and exploration for a period of three years. The said notification is said to have been published by respondent no. 2 on 22.11.2007.

7. Evidently, on 29.03.2011, the petitioner's revision petition challenging the rejection of its PL application vide order dated 03/20.04.2007, was also dismissed.

8. In the meanwhile, a writ petition was filed in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur being: CWP No. 1864/2008 to assail notification dated 16.11.2007. It is not disputed that in this writ petition an interim order has been passed by the court, on 29.04.2008. The operative part of the said interim orders reads as follows:

".....In the meanwhile, operation of the notification dated 16.11.2007 shall remain stayed, so far as it relates to the area of 207 sq. kms. covered by the reconnaissance permit earlier existed in favour of the petitioner, till the next date of hearing...."
8.1 The effect of th

Hi Bitcoin

Your question - "why has the state denied permission" - I may add ILLEGALLY

The answer to this is a simple one - The state basically wants a bigger piece of the cake and so are getting awkward with us knowingly the law is staked against them. This is evident from what I am about to cut and paste (THIS WAS IN DELHI HIGH COURT ) where at para 15, the respondent states (WHICH OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT STAND A LEG IN LAW - HENCE THE STAY ORDER)

"15. Respondent no. 2, followed the order dated 03.07.2009, with yet another order dated 10.03.2010, whereby it declared that in the scheduled tribal areas, RP/PL/ML for major minerals, would be granted only to an enterprise of the State, i.e., the Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (in short RSMML). (THE INTERESTING BIT NOW) The said order went on to state that, RSMML could, however, enter into a joint venture with a private investor, subject to RSMML having a minimum of 51% share in such a joint venture. A further condition was put that, at least 20% of the profits from the mining in the notified scheduled tribal areas would be spent for welfare of the local tribals, and that, the said amount would be in addition to dead rent and royalty. Conditions pertaining to engagement of persons from the area to the extent of 50%, was also inserted in the said order".

You need a lawyer's hat on to untangle what is said in the whole transcript copied and pasted here from a site INDIA KANNON.ORG:-

Delhi High Court
Metal Mining India Pvt. Ltd. vs Uoi And Anr. on 16 August, 2012
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
8$~37-42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment delivered on: 16.08.2012

+ W.P.(C) Nos. 8621/2011, 8622/2011, 8623/2011,
8624/2011, 8625/2011 & 8626/2011
METAL MINING INDIA PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
versus
UOI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Mr R.P. Dave, Mr R.R. David, Mr C.A. Sinha & Mr Febin Mathew, Advs.

For the Respondents: Mr Jatan Singh, CGSC for Resp/UOI.

Dr Manish Singhvi, Adv. for State of Rajasthan/R-2.

CORAM :-

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J (ORAL) WP(C) No. 8621/2011 & CM No. 19495/2011 (Stay) WP(C) No. 8622/2011 & CM No. 19497/2011 (Stay) WP(C) No. 8623/2011 & CM No. 19499/2011 (Stay) WP(C) No. 8624/2011 & CM No. 19501/2011 (Stay) WP(C) No. 8625/2011 & CM No. 19503/2011 (Stay) WP(C) No. 8626/2011 & CM No. 19505/2011 (Stay)

1. By virtue of the captioned writ petitions challenge is laid by the petitioner to an interim order dated 15.09.2011 passed by respondent no. 1. The challenge is laid in the background of the following facts:

2. The petitioner had applied for a Reconnaissance Permit (in short RP) with responden

Hi Bitcoinbuyer

The biggest difference with Omi is that if that turns out to be a monster ( say greater than 3m ounces) then under the Agreement you end up diluted to owning only 20% whereas with PAT, we know we are unlikely to get diluted for the reasons mentioned by ST.

Hi ST

Thanks for your post and glad you covered off those significant points.

Absolutely Mickey

Hi Bitcoinbuyer

Reference to "why sell 10% for £900k"?

If you check when Newmont first came in partnership with Omi, they acquired 20% for a mere $2m which at the rate of £1 to $1.3037 then was a mere £1.5m. This was after Omi had fantastic drill results and a prospect of a 5m to 10m ounces mine.

I have learnt the hard way not to sell out of fear with no real basis / substance.

Hi Bitcoinbuyer

But no management will explicitly say that they will get this project. All they can say and did say was it is resolvable. However, I strongly believe that there was a slip of tongue from Mr Bolton when he said it was "imminently resolvable" which he did not utter when he did the interview with Tony present.

I should add that if you count the weekends, both parties only get 14 days to produce something workable.

Bitcoinbuyer

It has come from 2 horses mouths that you can add two zeros to your market cap if Bhukia license arrives. To determine that, one has to do their own research. But this has very kindly done by a few here and spelt out for others. To re-iterate, LEGALLY, WE CANNOT FALTER OTHERWISE THIS MATTER WOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSED MANY YEARS AGO.

There is a perfect reason why the state Govt of Rajasthan want to bite time - they know they have no legal basis to argue in the courts nor do they want to bring the country into dispute because this can simply go into the international tribunal with exorbitant costs for both parties and eventually the state govt losing. Hence, at the 4th December ruling was 'the parties praying for time'.

Talking about receiving extra time to resolve issues and come to amicable agreement and tying up all follow up legal matters this would indeed take significant amount of additional time - its not that we are negotiating a car purchase on a lease!!

Talking now about the actual number of working days which both parties have secured:-

1) Extension requested - on 4th Dec.

2) Court holidays in Dec / Jan - From 21 Dec 2020 to 1 Jan 2021 inclusive (please see the calendar posted by the courts)

3) Both parties got 5 days this week

4) Both parties will get 5 days next week

5) I believe 2nd and 3rd Jan 2021 falls on aweekend.

6) So we have a hearing which is on working day 2 of the new year - I think everyone should ask themselves why the case hearing has been given on the 2nd Jan (which could be the only earliest possible date the courts could give bearing in mind they need to sort their own affairs on working day 1) and not say on the 2nd Feb. This is because both parties would have had the required time necessary so thrash out and finalise issues. In view of the fact that this case has dragged on for so long, the courts ate not in a mood to grant any further extension to the state govt.

All I would say is that I am a long term holder here and can see through for myself- for completeness I can say that I am also a long term holder in Omi and EUA.

All this has done is provided good opportunity to top up to those who believe in here. Its all there to see. Why was there, unlike the case I looked at earlier which was also listed for 8th Dec, the judgement for the revised date not given for PAT?

Guys

This does not change our legal rights.
Why did they ask for more time? Was it :-

1) due to covid OR

2) because they were negotiating

It cannot be the first one as they can have a meeting via video.

Mickey

On the other case I mentioned of last night which was also listed for 8th, there was a clear judgement that it has been relisted to 5th Jan. The reason given was DUE TO COVID. I will take a copy of that verdict and post it here.

No judgement was given in case of PAT.

Mickey

I will have a look at this now

Hi Rob

Where does it say this?

Hi Mickey

I have just seen the messages. Whete does it say the case has been relisted?

And, this is significant because if for covid reasons the 8th Dec hearing was not possible through physical presence then it most certainly was possible via video conferencing just like the 4th Dec one.

I have also checked another case (between invidividuals as opposed to a company and the state) which was due to be heard on the 8th but could not take place for reasons of covid (possibly illness). However, in that case, even though between individuals only, a clear judgement was issued postponing the hearing date.

From the above, it is clear that our case never actually went to court on the 8th and for very good reason - Agreement between the parties.

RNS expected soon.

From the below - we now know that our 4th Dec hearing was via video conferencing

"Rajasthan High Court hearings to take place through video conferencing from Nov 23 till Dec 5
The hearings of Rajasthan High Court will take place only through video conferencing from November 23 till December 5. This decision shall be applicable to both Jaipur and Jodhpur benches of Rajasthan High Court and notification regarding this has been issued due to an increase in Covid-19 cases in both cities.

Physical hearing of cases will not take place in both Jaipur and Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court during this period ".

"Though physical filing counters shall remain open, it is advised to prefer E-filing for safety of all concerned. The link of E-filing portal is available on the Home page of website of Rajasthan High Court in eServices Menu. User Guide and Help Videos for E-filing are available on the E-filing portal ".

ST - many thanks for this. I am inclined to enrol myself to learn charting in my spare time as I find it fascinating. Hopefully I can find a good online course.