Himachal High Court issues notice challenging exclusionary clause of Section 8A of MMDR Act and State reservation policy in mining leases

Today, the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla issued notice in CWP No. 14797 of 2025, titled Atma Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors., a writ petition which raises substantial questions regarding the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“MMDR Act”), as amended in 2015, and the legality of the State Government’s 1986 reservation notification concerning limestone mining in District Sirmaur.

The petition has been filed and argued by Advocate Ganesh Barowalia, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sh. Atma Ram, a long-time local mining lease holder and resident of District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh.

Core Issue: Section 8A(3) benefit vs. exclusionary bar under Section 8A(9)

The writ petition assails the discriminatory application of Section 8A(9) of the MMDR Act, 1957, which operates as an exclusionary provision to deny the benefit of automatic extension of pre-2015 mining leases to 50 years under Section 8A(3), in cases where renewals have earlier been rejected, determined, or treated as lapsed.

On the strength of a mining lease originally granted in the 1980s and continuously pursued through litigation and representations, the petitioner contends that:

1. All mining leases granted before the 2015 Amendment are statutorily deemed to be of 50 years’ duration under Section 8A(3); and
2. Section 8A(9), to the extent it excludes genuine pre-existing lease holders like the petitioner from this 50-year benefit, is being applied arbitrarily and discriminatorily, infringing Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petition specifically seeks reinterpretation, read-down, or setting aside of Section 8A(9) to the extent it debars extension of the petitioner’s lease, despite (i) prior valid grant, (ii) full compliance with statutory requirements, and (iii) continuous efforts for renewal extending well before and after the 2015 amendment.

Challenge to 1986 Reservation Notification and State Action

The writ petition also assails the Government Notification No. Udyog (Chh) 7-25/86 dated 08.12.1986, whereby the entire area of District Sirmaur (except already leased/ licensed areas) was reserved for exploitation exclusively by the Government.

The petitioner’s case, as projected by Advocate Ganesh Barowalia, is that:

• The 1986 reservation policy has been mechanically and retrospectively applied to his case, despite the fact that he is an existing, bonafide mining lease holder whose rights crystallised prior to and independent of the said notification.
• The notification is being used as a blanket bar to deny him renewal and extension, while similarly situated lease holders have been granted 50-year extensions, resulting in palpable discrimination.

The petition therefore prays for the setting aside or inapplicability of the 1986 notification to the petitioner’s lease, to the extent it obstructs his rights as a legitimate lease holder.

Environmental Stewardship and Public Interest Dimension

A central and distinguishing feature of this case, strongly emphasised by Advocate Ganesh Barowalia, is the extraordinary environmental contribution made by the petitioner, which the authorities have allegedly failed to acknowledge in a fair and lawful manner.

The petition places on record:

• Afforestation of approximately 4,000 Cheel (pine) trees undertaken by the petitioner on his own land;
• Development of forest land now valued at more than ₹15 crores, as per valuation of the Forest Circle Officer, Renukaji (Annexure P-24);
• Prior diversion of about 60 bighas of land in favour of the Forest Department in lieu of mining lease and forest clearance;
• Inspection reports indicating that the original leased area itself was in the form of rock with no standing trees, and that the petitioner’s mining operations are capable of being conducted in a systematic and scientific manner consistent with environmental norms.

Despite this, the authorities have, inter alia, refused forest clearance, declined renewal, and relied upon the 2015 amendment and the 1986 notification to shut out the petitioner, while allegedly granting favourable treatment to other similarly placed lease holders.

The petition therefore projects the case as not merely an individual grievance, but as a test case on how the legal system treats genuine local entrepreneurs who have actually improved the environment while seeking to conduct scientific mining.

Long Litigation History and Procedural Grievances

The press note further records that, as highlighted by Advocate Ganesh Barowalia in the petition:

• The petitioner’s eligibility and rights were first recognised by the High Court as far back as 1986 in CWP No. 194 of 1986, leading to the sanction of the mining lease.
• Subsequent challenges and representations have been pursued through CWP No. 6946 of 2010 and CWP No. 1324 of 2016, culminating in the present writ petition after the discovery of fresh material and the impact of post-2015 statutory changes.
• The impugned orders, including:
  • Cancellation of lease on 24.12.2009,
  • Rejection of renewal on 23.05.2012, and
  • Rejection letter dated 03.03.2024 by the State Geologist citing compulsory auction through competitive bidding,
    are challenged as arbitrary, non-speaking, and passed in violation of principles of natural justice, including absence of proper hearing to the petitioner and the erstwhile transferee, Sh. Jalam Singh.

The petition seeks quashing of these impugned orders, restoration and extension of the lease in terms of Section 8A(3), and directions for expeditious and fair consideration of all pending forest and mining permissions.

Constitutional and Policy Significance

According to Advocate Ganesh Barowalia, CWP No. 14797 of 2025 raises questions of wide constitutional and policy importance, including:

1. Whether a bonafide pre-2015 mining lease holder, who has fulfilled all statutory and environmental obligations and has been continuously pursuing renewal, can be denied the benefit of Section 8A(3) solely because of a past technical “rejection” or “determination”, when the factual and legal circumstances now justify renewal.
2. Whether Section 8A(9), when interpreted rigidly and applied without regard to individual equities and legitimate expectations, violates Articles 14 and 21 by creating an unreasonable and arbitrary classification among similarly situated lease holders.
3. Whether a State-level reservation notification (like the 1986 notification for District Sirmaur) can be used to retrospectively impair and defeat the vested and crystallised rights of existing lease holders.
4. How the law should treat genuine local mine operators who have demonstrably promoted afforestation and environmental protection while seeking scientific, regulated mining.

The outcome of this case is likely to impact numerous pre-2015 mining lease holders across Himachal Pradesh and potentially across India, especially those whose renewals were rejected or delayed on technical or procedural grounds but who now seek the benefit of the 50-year deeming provision under Section 8A(3).

Role of Advocate Ganesh Barowalia

The petition has been conceptualised, drafted, and argued by Advocate Ganesh Barowalia, who has:

• Structured the case as a combined challenge to:
  • the impugned individual orders,
  • the discriminatory application of Section 8A(9) of the MMDR Act, and
  • the over-broad application of the 1986 reservation notification;
• Brought on record an extensive documentary trail of Annexures P-1 to P-29, covering more than four decades of litigation, inspections, forest clearances, valuation reports, afforestation certificates, and RTI material;
• Placed the matter squarely in the constitutional framework of Articles 14 and 21, focusing on equality, livelihood, fair procedure, and legitimate expectation; and
• Projected the case as a model for reconciling environmental protection with local industrial development and livelihood interests.

With the issuance of notice on 1 December 2025, the Hon’ble High Court has taken cognizance of the constitutional and statutory issues raised, calling upon the State of Himachal Pradesh, the Union of India (Ministry of Mines), and the concerned forest and mining authorities to respond.