No Right to Seek Revival of Lapsed Mining Lease—Pending Applications Don’t Survive Repeal of Revival Provision: Delhi High Court

"A Mere Application for Revival Does Not Create a Vested Right" — Delhi High Court Declares Rule 20(7) Valid, Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Rejection of Revival Request. In a detailed and legally significant judgment, the Delhi High Court on 14 October 2025 dismissed two writ petitions filed by M/s Tarini Minerals Pvt. Ltd., upholding the constitutional validity of Rule 20(7) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (as amended on 02.11.2021). The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that no vested or accrued right exists in a pending revival application under a repealed statutory provision and that such applications must be adjudicated under the law as it stands on the date of decision.

The Court concluded that Rule 20(7), which nullified revival applications not decided by the State Government before 28.03.2021, is valid, intra vires, and consistent with the legislative intent of the amended Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act, 1957, as introduced by Act 16 of 2021.

The key constitutional issue before the Court was whether the deletion of the third proviso to Section 4A(4)—which had earlier allowed for revival of a lapsed lease—could extinguish the right of a lessee who had already filed a revival application before the provision was repealed. Tarini Minerals argued that their right to revival was protected under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and could not be taken away retroactively by an amendment in subordinate legislation.

"Revival of a Mining Lease is Not a Vested Right and Cannot Survive Legislative Repeal": Court Applies Hind Stone Doctrine

Rejecting the petitioner’s claim, the Bench held that a mere filing of an application for revival does not amount to the accrual of a vested legal right, stating:

“The right of consideration of the prayer seeking revival of a lapsed lease is akin to the right of consideration of a prayer seeking renewal of lease… revival, like renewal, is not a vested or accrued right.”

The Court invoked the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling in Hind Stone v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1981) 2 SCC 205, which held that:

“No one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for grant or renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions.”

In essence, the Court made clear that revival is not a matter of right, and any application must be dealt with as per the prevailing law at the time of adjudication, not at the time of filing.

"Rule 20(7) is in Harmony with the Parent Act—Not Ultra Vires": Delhi High Court Affirms Validity of Subordinate Legislation

A key challenge in the petition was the claim that the retrospective effect of amended Rule 20(7) was impermissible, since the MMDR Act does not empower the Central Government to frame rules with retrospective operation under Section 13.

The Court dismissed this contention, holding that Rule 20(7) was not an independent retrospective rule but a necessary amendment brought to align the rules with the statutory change made to Section 4A(4) by Act 16 of 2021. The Court observed:

“If Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 20 was permitted to remain on the statute book in its original form, it would have created an anomalous situation, wherein though the principal Act did not permit revival of lease, the Rules would have continued to permit it.”

The Bench emphasized that Rule 20(7) was not an overreach but a consequential amendment made in good faith to harmonize the rules with the amended statutory framework. Hence, it held:

“Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 20 has been amended in consonance with the amendment brought in Sub-Section (4) of Section 4A of the MMDR Act, and therefore, it cannot be said that it exceeds or travels beyond the Act.”

“No Protection Under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act—Only Vested Rights Survive Repeal, Not Mere Expectations”

The petitioner had also argued that Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, protects remedies and proceedings under repealed laws, thereby shielding its revival application filed in 2020. But the Court firmly rejected this claim, holding that Section 6 applies only to vested or accrued rights, and not to inchoate or expectational interests.

The Bench reasoned: “What is protected by Section 6 is a legal proceeding or remedy based on a vested right under a repealed Act. Revival of a lease is not such a right—it is contingent, discretionary, and purely statutory.”

This finding was supported by a comparative analysis of "revival" and "renewal" as legal concepts, and both were found to lack any inherency of right. Citing Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that mining leases are not matters of fundamental or proprietary right, but are entirely regulated by statute.

"The Law in Force on the Date of Decision Governs": Court Rules Revival Application Was Validly Rejected Under Amended Legal Framework

The Court decisively concluded that the petitioner’s revival application, pending as on 28.03.2021, lapsed by operation of amended Rule 20(7), and the rejection of the application on 11.02.2022 was legally justified. The Bench held:

“In view of the legal principles enunciated in Hind Stone (supra), the application seeking revival of the lapsed lease was rightly decided as per the amended Section 4A(4) of the MMDR Act and sub-Rule (7) of Rule 20 of 2016 Rules, which were in force on the date of deciding the said application.”

Dismissing the petitioner’s plea that the revival request should be decided on its merits under the old law, the Court emphasized:

“The submission that a right to seek revival crystallised on the date of application is misconceived and without force. The right never matured into an enforceable claim.”

Writ Petitions Dismissed, Rule 20(7) of the 2016 Rules Upheld as Constitutionally Valid

The Delhi High Court dismissed both writ petitions—W.P.(C) 1945/2023 and W.P.(C) 5633/2023—and upheld the validity and enforceability of Rule 20(7) of the 2016 Rules, as amended on 02.11.2021, in light of the statutory policy change that came into effect from 28.03.2021.

The ruling is a definitive judicial endorsement of the non-vested and regulatory character of mining lease entitlements, and clarifies the legal position on how applications under repealed or amended statutory regimes are to be treated. It also reinforces the principle that legislative repeal extinguishes expectations, not rights, unless the latter are fully vested.

The Court concluded without granting any costs.

Date of Decision: 14 October 2025