HP High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Validity Of S.8A MMDR Act & 1986 Mining Reservation Order
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has issued notice in 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.
For reference: “Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, deals with the period of grant for mining leases for minerals other than coal, lignite, and atomic minerals”.
Background:
The petitioner is a long-time local mining lease holder and resident of District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh.
He contended that he is being treated unfairly by being denied a 50-year automatic extension that other pre-2015 mining leases are getting under Section 8A(3), and Section 8A(9) is being misused to exclude him from this benefit.
The petitioner submitted that this clause is being applied to him wrongly and discriminatorily, violating articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, even though he had a valid original lease.
Further, the petitioner challenged a 1986 state order which has been mechanically and retrospectively applied to his case, despite the fact that he is an existing, bona fide mining lease holder whose rights crystallised prior to and independent of the said notification.
He contended that the notification is being used as a blanket bar to deny him renewal and extension, while similarly situated leaseholders 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 leaseholder.
The petition projected 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.
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).
The case is listed for consideration on 10th March, 2026.
Case Name: Atma Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
Case No.: CWP No. 14797 of 2025
Petitioner: Advocate Ganesh Barowalia