Content Provider | Supreme Court of India |
---|---|
e-ISSN | 30484839 |
Language | English |
Access Restriction | NDLI |
Subject Keyword | Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957/Mineral Concession Rules 1960-Sections (J) and 11(4)/ Rule 59(1) and(2) |
Content Type | Text |
Resource Type | Law Judgement |
Jurisdiction | India |
Case Type | Appeal |
Court | Supreme Court of India |
Disposal Nature | Others |
Headnote | Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957/Mineral Concession Rules, 1960-Sections(1) and 11(4)/ Rule 59(1) and(2)-Mining lease-Grant of-Previously lease-hold area held by TISCO-Renewal of lease C only in respect of some fraction of the area-Direction by Central Government to consider other four applicants for grant of lease in respect of the balance area-Rule 59(1) relaxed by Central Government in view of urgent need of the four applicants-State Government assessed the need of the four applicants· and recommended allotment only in respect of 50% of the balance area-Further remaining area thrown open for consideration of other claimants including the four claimants-Decision of the State Government approved by Court-Expert Committee appointed to consider grant of further remaining area-During pendency of consideration by Expert Committee, State Government recommended one fraction of further remaining area in favour of an applicant 'N'-Recommendation approved by Central Government by relaxing provision under Rule 59(1)-Recommendation assailed which was dismissed by High Court-Appeal to Supreme Court-Case challenging approval by Central Government before High Court, transferred to Supreme Court-During pendency of appeal grant of lease in favour of 'N' withdrawn by State Government! and the lease decided to be granted in favour of its own public sector undertaking-However the grant not approved by Central Government-Propriety of recommendation and its approval in favour of 'N'- Held, the recommendation and its approval is legal-There has been no infraction of Rule 59(2)-For grant of preferential right in favour of 'N' reasons in accordance with the requirements of Section 11(4) were recorded- It was permissible for the State Government to pick up any single applicant's application-Subsequent event is of no consequence since the issue before the Court is to examine the legality of the recommendation and its approval and not the right of 'N' to the lease-hold area-The subsequent event also does not exist in the eye of law as the decision of the State Government to grant the lease-hold area in favour of public sector undertaking was not accepted by the Central government. Practice and Procedure-Subsequent event-Effect of-Held, in view of the facts of the case and the issue for consideration before the Court, subsequent event is of no consequence.Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) which originally held mining lease for 1261.476 Hectares land, applied for renewal of the lease. Central Government granted approval for renewal in respect of only 650 Hectares and directed the balance area to be made available to other industries. On challenge of the order of the Central Government, High Court decided that entire matter required reconsideration by the Central Government. The challenge to the High Court order was ultimately disposed of by Supreme Court. Central Government pursuant to the observation of High Court appointed an Expert Committee, which recommended grant of lease to TISCO only in respect of 406 Hectares. Committee also took into consideration claims of other claimants. Central Government by order dated 17.8.1995 on the basis of Report of the Committee asked State Government to take steps for grant of 406 Hectares to TISCO and to consider the applications of other 4 claimants namely, Jindal, Ferro, IMFA and lspat Alloys in respect of balance area of 855.476 Hectares. It relaxed the provisions of Rules 59(1) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 in respect of the four claimants in view of their urgent need. State Government by order dated 29.6.1997 recommended for grant of lease to the four claimants in respect of the balance area of 855.476 hectares on the basis of 50% of their basic requirements i.e. 419 hectares. The recommendation of the State Government was confirmed by High Court and consequently by Supreme Court in Ferro Alloys Corpn. ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., [1999] 4 SCC 149. State Government in the meantime had appointed an Expert Committee to examine grant of the remaining 436.295 hectares. The Court in para 50 of the judgment in Ferro Alloys case observed that the balance area will have to be taken into consideration by the Expert Committee as well as State Government for grant of lease to other claimants, and while doing so the Government will have to take into consideration the remaining 50% assessed needs of the four applicants. While the matter was being considered by the Expert Committee, State Government considered the case of 'N' and the Chief Minister, recommended grant of mining lease for 84.881 hectares in its favour, taking into account the fact that they have already established a ferro chrome plant in the State, but they did not have any mining lease for chromium in their favour. Order of the Chief Minister was reiterated A again by order dated 14.1.1999 and finally on 28.1.1999, the recommendations were sent to the Central Government for approval. Central Government by its letter dated 27.6.2001 pointed out some deficiencies in the recommendation. Therefore State Government, by its letter dated 30.6.2001, asked Central Government to exercise its power B under Rule 59(2) and consider grant of approval had approved by invoking provisions under Section 11(4). Thereafter, State Government wrote a letter to Central Government stating that the recommendation by letter dated 30.6.2001 was not a valid recommendation. Central Government approved the recommendation after relaxing the provision under Rule 59(1) in exercise of its power under Rule 59(2). The allotment to 'N' was challenged by the appellant herein, before Orissa High Court. 'N' and State Government filed interlocutory application seeking clarification of judgment in Ferro Alloys case wherein the Court observed that the observations in para 50 of the Judgment, will not in any way be construed to be pre-empting writ petition filed before High Court by the appellant herein. The writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed by Orissa High Court. Hence the present appeal. Appellant filed Writ petition before Delhi High Court challenging the order of Central Government approving the recommendation, which was subsequently transferred to this Court. During pendency of the SLP, State Government took a decision to E withdraw its earlier recommendation in favour of respondent 'N' and decided that the entire balance area of 436.295 hectares could be granted F to its own public sector undertakings i.e. Orissa Mining Corporation but approval was not granted by the Central Government for the grant. The questions for consideration before this Court were: 1. Whether the so-called reservation of the entire area for being exploited by the Orissa Mining Corporation puts an end to the right of.the respondents and the appeal as well as the writ petition could be disposed of on that ground?2. Whether in fact there has been any relaxation of the provisions of Rule 59(1) by the Central Government under Rule 59(2) in respect of the area in question and if so, once the relaxation having been granted, further any relaxation when the question of grant in favour of 'N' cropped up? 3. Whether State Government recorded special reasons in terms of Section 11(4) of the Act for treating the application of 'N' in preferential manner? and 4. Whether the Judgment in Ferro Alloys case prevented the State Government to take the case of any individual applicant and · consider the same on its own merits, before receipt of the recommendation of the Committee, which had been set up to find out the requirements of the respective claimants and submit the recommendation thereto? |
Judge | Honble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik |
Neutral Citation | 2002 INSC 543 |
Petitioner | M/s Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. And Anr. |
Respondent | Union Of India And Ors. |
SCR | [2002] Supp. (5) S.C.R. 295 |
Judgement Date | 2002-12-17 |
Case Number | 8501 |
National Digital Library of India (NDLI) is a virtual repository of learning resources which is not just a repository with search/browse facilities but provides a host of services for the learner community. It is sponsored and mentored by Ministry of Education, Government of India, through its National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT). Filtered and federated searching is employed to facilitate focused searching so that learners can find the right resource with least effort and in minimum time. NDLI provides user group-specific services such as Examination Preparatory for School and College students and job aspirants. Services for Researchers and general learners are also provided. NDLI is designed to hold content of any language and provides interface support for 10 most widely used Indian languages. It is built to provide support for all academic levels including researchers and life-long learners, all disciplines, all popular forms of access devices and differently-abled learners. It is designed to enable people to learn and prepare from best practices from all over the world and to facilitate researchers to perform inter-linked exploration from multiple sources. It is developed, operated and maintained from Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur.
Learn more about this project from here.
NDLI is a conglomeration of freely available or institutionally contributed or donated or publisher managed contents. Almost all these contents are hosted and accessed from respective sources. The responsibility for authenticity, relevance, completeness, accuracy, reliability and suitability of these contents rests with the respective organization and NDLI has no responsibility or liability for these. Every effort is made to keep the NDLI portal up and running smoothly unless there are some unavoidable technical issues.
Ministry of Education, through its National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT), has sponsored and funded the National Digital Library of India (NDLI) project.
Sl. | Authority | Responsibilities | Communication Details |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education |
Sanctioning Authority | https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives |
2 | Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur | Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project | https://www.iitkgp.ac.in |
3 | National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur | The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project | Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in |
4 | Project PI / Joint PI | Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project |
Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon |
5 | Website/Portal (Helpdesk) | Queries regarding NDLI and its services | support@ndl.gov.in |
6 | Contents and Copyright Issues | Queries related to content curation and copyright issues | content@ndl.gov.in |
7 | National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club) | Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach | clubsupport@ndl.gov.in |
8 | Digital Preservation Centre (DPC) | Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books | dpc@ndl.gov.in |
9 | IDR Setup or Support | Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops | idr@ndl.gov.in |