The division bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjit More and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew having perused the provision of Section 10 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957  coupled with the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Meghalaya (supra), were of the view that Section 10A(2)(b) is not applicable to the State of Meghalaya.

The petitioner has approached the High Court in the interest of the people of Meghalaya and of people affected by the impugned order/notification who are unable to approach the High Court for personal reasons.

Amit Kumar, Advocate General, challenged the maintainability of the PIL in Meghalaya High Court on the ground that Section 10A (2)(b) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is not applicable in the State of Meghalaya by virtue of the provision of Section 10 (Application for prospecting licenses or mining leases) of the said Act.

He also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal named State of Meghalaya vrs. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-Hasao District Committee and Ors. with connected appeals (2019) 8SCC 177.

The bench observed the following while dismissing the petition, “It is pertinent to note that in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act Act, 2021 section 13 reads:-

“In section 10A of the principal Act, in sub-section (2),— 
(i) in clause (b), the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:— “Provided that for the cases covered under this clause including the pending cases, the right to obtain a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease or a mining lease, as the case may be, shall lapse on the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2021: Provided further that the holder of a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence whose rights lapsed under the first proviso, shall be reimbursed the expenditure incurred towards reconnaissance or prospecting operations in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.”; 
(ii) after clause (c), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:— “(d) in cases where right to obtain licence or lease has lapsed under, clauses (b) and (c), such areas shall be put up for auction as per the provisions of this Act: Provided that in respect of the minerals specified in Part B of the First Schedule where the grade of atomic mineral is equal to or greater than the threshold value, the mineral concession for such areas shall be granted in accordance with the rules made under section 11B.”.

The PIL filed by N.D. Rumnong seeks the following reliefs: 
A. Declare the impugned first proviso newly inserted in Section 10A(2)(b) of the Act, vide Section 13(i) of the Amendment Act, 2021, as ultra vires of the Constitution of India for being discriminatory and manifestly arbitrary on the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against public interest, and/or 
B. To save the said impugned first proviso from being rendered unconstitutional, this Hon’ble Court may please expound the scope of the same in such manner in public interest so that apart from pending applications, it would also nullify and render void all such Orders which had allowed pending applications saved by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10A and grant a prospecting licence or a mining lease prior to the commencement of the said Amendment Act, 2021, but a licence is yet to be issued or a mining lease deed is yet to be executed and registered as per the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjit More and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew while dealing with the PIL observed that the issue raised in this PIL is rather serious. The petitioner has also brought on record that due to negligence and shortage of specialists in the Civil Hospital, Shillong, cancer patients have to wait for radiotherapy treatment for months together.

The petitioner submitted that the State Government has failed to fix the responsibility and take action against those responsible for not utilising the amount received from the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India had sanctioned Rs 26.16 crore for the establishment of a Cancer Treatment Centre at Civil Hospital, Shillong, due to lapses and negligence on the part of the authorities concerned, out of the amount of Rs 19.84 crore received by State respondents, only Rs 9.77 crore of Utilization Certificates were furnished to the Government of India.

It is further the grievance of the petitioner that the State has only one Population Based Cancer Registry at Civil Hospital, Shillong, covering only four districts i.e. East Khasi Hills, West Khasi Hills, Ri-Bhoi and JaintiaHills and non-inclusion of the remaining seven districts of the State of Meghalaya in Population Based Cancer Registry is highly improper, arbitrary and illegal on the part of the State respondents.

The petitioner has also made grievances about the implementation of the Megha Health Insurance Scheme in the State of Meghalaya. In this regard, he contends that though the said scheme provides for financial aid amounting to ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) to all the citizens of the State, however, due to non-availability of the Cancer Hospital and medicines in the State, the said scheme has remained on paper only.

The present PIL has been filed by one Lurshaphrang Shongwan, resident of Mawlai Kynton Massar, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya seeks the following reliefs:

(i) a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent’s authorities to utilize the amount of Rs. 19.84 crore received by the State Respondents and to constitute inquiry as to the in-ordinate delay in completion of the Canter Treatment Centre at Civil Hospital, Shillong till date for the non proper utilization of funds amounting to Rs. 26.16 crore sanctioned by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Government of India.
(ii) a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Respondents to establish an Oncology Department in the various District Hospitals of the state so as to ensure the easy access of treatment to the cancer patients of the state. 
(iii) a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to improve the quality of cancer care treatment in their respective hospitals and also to strengthen the Community Health Centres (CHCs) and Primary Health Centres (PHCs) in early diagnosis and screening according to the Operational Guidelines of the National Programme for Prevention and Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular Disease & Stroke (NPCDCS), to establish Tertiary Cancer Care in the various districts and also to appoint specialist in the different oncology department of the respondents hospitals providing cancer treatment to the patients. 
(iv) a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to make cancer as a notifiable disease and to conduct mass awareness programmes or outreach programmes in sensitizing people about the various causes of cancer and the importance of early diagnosis. 
(v) a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to include the remaining seven District of the states i.e. West Garo Hills (Tura), East Jaintia Hills (Khliehriat), East Garo Hills (Williamnagar), South Garo Hills (Baghmara), South West Garo Hills (Ampati), South West Khasi Hills (Mawkyrwat) and North Garo Hills (Resubelpara) in the State Population Based Cancer Registry (PCRB) programme so as to acquire the accurate data of patients suffering from the disease. 
(vi) a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the state respondents to create a component under MHIS or a separate cancer patients fund for providing speedy,  effective and better financial aid to the cancer patients of the state. 
(vii) a writ in the nature of prohibition and mandamus directing the State Respondents not to allow the advertising agencies to publicly display any advertisements which will affect the health and safety of the people of the state especially the minors.

The petitioner further contended that non-availability of a comprehensive Cancer Hospital and failure of the respondents to strengthen and establish screening centres for early detection and treatment of cancer in the Community Health Centres and Primary Health Centres have caused serious inconveniences and financial problems to the citizens of the State.