TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 11 (3) of the MMDR Act or Rule 35 of the MC Rules? Whether factors such as the past commitments by the State Government to applicants who have already set up steel plants, matter for consideration for grant of lease despite the MMDR Act and the MC Rules constituting a complete Code? Whether the recommendation in favour of respondents-Jindal and Kalyani saved by the operation of the Law of Equity? Whether the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench are justified in arriving at such conclusion? Whether it is advisable to remit it to the Central Government? - C.A. 7945-54 , 7955-61 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 13-9-2010 - SATHASIVAM, P DATTU, H.L ,JJ. JUDGMENT 1) Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 2) These appeals seek to challenge the common judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 05.06.2009 arising out of Writ Appeal No. 5084 of 2008 and allied matters and the decision of the State Government dated 26/27.02.2002 as well as the Central Government dated 29.07.2003. 3) The appellants in these appeals are Sandur Manganese Iron Ores Ltd. (in short Sandur ) and M/s MSPL Ltd. The princip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplied area. (ii) Again, on 24.06.1993, again the Company applied for grant of lease over an area of 513.16 Hectares within the area deleted from its original lease but it was rejected by the State Government on the ground that the area applied by them has overlapped with the area granted to one Sri Rangangoud and nine others. On 11.12.1993, the Company challenged the above decision of the State Government by filing a Revision Petition before the Government of India, Ministry of Coal and Mines, New Delhi. On 09.04.1999, the Government of India by holding that the order passed by the State Government was in violation of Rule 26 (1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as MC Rules ) and opposed to the principles of natural justice remanded the matter to the State Government for early disposal as per the provisions of Mines Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the MMDR Act ) and the Rules framed thereunder. On 26/27.02.2002, the Company got a letter from the State Government that out of the area of 513.16 Hectares applied for by it, only an extent of 256 Hectares (640 acres) was available and it could choose eithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Company has filed S.L.P.(C) No. 22077 of 2009 before this Court. b) The case of MSPL (Petitioner in SLP (C) Nos. 22943- 22952 of 2009) is as follows: (i) MSPL Limited filed above SLPs against the common judgment and order dated 05.06.2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in W.A. Nos. 5024, 5026, 5032, 5052, 5053, 5064-5066, 5077 and 5145/2008 setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 07.08.2008 in the writ petitions. (ii) On 24.05.2001, MSPL Ltd. made an application to the Director of Mines Geology (hereinafter referred to as the Mines Director ) for grant of a mining lease over an extent of 298.5 Hectares in the area known as Eddinpada in Kumaraswamy Range of the State of Karnataka which was part of a mining lease previously held by the appellant-Company in S.L.P. (C) No. 22077 of 2009. On 30.08.2001, the State of Karnataka requested the Central Government to relax the conditions set out in Rule 59(1) in favour of MSPL Ltd. under Rule 59(2). While the matter was under consideration of the Central Government, one Ziaullah Sharieff (another applicant for a mining lease) filed Writ Petition No. 35915 of 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said proposal. On 21.12.2004, a further representation was made to the Secretary, Department of Mines. Against the said approval, two others preferred writ petitions before the High Court for quashing of the said proposal. MSPL filed application for impleadment in the said writ petitions and the same was rejected by the learned single Judge vide order dated 21.07.2005. (iv) On 12.09.2005, MSPL preferred writ petition being W.P. No. 21608 of 2005 before the High Court challenging the recommendation in favour of Jindal and Kalyani. On 05.06.2006/27.06.2006, the Central Government granted approval to the recommendation dated 06.12.2004 of the State Government for grant of mining lease in favour of Jindal and Kalyani. Vide judgment dated 07.08.2008, learned single Judge of the High Court allowed W.P. No. 21608 of 2005 quashing the recommendation. Against the judgment of the learned single Judge, Jindal and Kalyani preferred W.A. Nos. 5026 5028 of 2008 respectively, before a Division Bench of the High Court. MSPL also filed W.A. No. 5057 of 2008 challenging the same judgment of the learned single Judge save and except to the extent that the recommendations of the State Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the MMDR Act, as amended by Act 38 of 1999, makes it clear that it is intended for the development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of Union. The relevant provisions from the Act are: 2. Declaration as to the expediency of Union control.--It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent herein after provided. 3. Definitions:-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-- a. minerals includes all minerals except mineral oils; b. ....... c. mining lease means a lease granted for the purpose of undertaking mining operations, and includes a sub-lease granted for such purpose; d. ....... e. ....... f. ....... g. prospecting licence means a licence granted for the purpose of undertaking prospecting operations; h. prospecting operations means any operations undertaken for the purpose of exploring, locating or proving mineral deposits; (ha) reconnaissance operations means any operations undertaken for preliminary prospecting of a mineral through regional, aerial, geophysical or geochemical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he publication of such notification in respect of the lands within such area and had not been disposed of, shall be deemed to have been received on the same day for the purposes of assigning priority under this sub-section: Provided further that where any such applications are received on the same day, the State Government, after taking into consideration the matter specified in sub-section (3), may grant the reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applications as it may deem fit. (3) The matters referred to in sub-section (2) are the following:- a. any special knowledge of, or experience in, reconnaissance operations, prospecting operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant; b. the financial resources of the applicant; c. the nature and quality of the technical staff employed or to be employed by the applicant; d. the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on the minerals; e. such other matters as may be prescribed. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), where the State Government notifies in the Official Gaz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een reserved by the State Government under Section 17A of the Act shall be available for grant unless - (i) an entry to the effect that the area is available for grant is made in the register referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 7D or sub-rule (2) of rule 21 or sub-rule (2) of rule 40 as the case may be; and (ii) the availability of the area for grant is notified in the Official Gazette and specifying a date (being a date not earlier than thirty days from the date of the publication of such notification in the Official Gazette) from which such area shall be available for grant: Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to the renewal of a lease in favour of the original lessee or his legal heirs notwithstanding the fact that the lease has already expired: Provided further that where an area reserved under rule 58 or under section 17A of the Act is proposed to be granted to a Government Company, no notification under clause (ii) shall be required to be issued: Provided also that where an area held under a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence, as the case may be, is granted in terms of sub-section(1) of section 11, no notification under clause (ii) shall be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal study being carried out by the NEERI. 11) The materials placed further show that on 15.03.2003, the State Government issued a Notification under Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules notifying the availability of a large area for re-grant of mining lease which was referred to as the Held Area Notification . Pursuant to the same, MSPL made a fresh application on 16.04.2003 for grant of mining lease over the notified area. Kalyani and 88 other applicants also applied pursuant to the said Notification. Admittedly, Jindal did not apply pursuant to the Held Area Notification , even though some of its sister concerns applied for the grant. On 06.12.2004, the State Government made a recommendation to the Central Government under Section 5 of the MMDR Act for approval of the proposed grant of mining lease to Jindal and Kalyani. MSPL and some of the applicants made representations to the Central Government against the said recommendation made by the State Government. Challenging the recommendation dated 06.12.2004 of the State Government, writ petitions were filed by the aggrieved companies before the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Central Government gave its appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, according to them, in view of Section 2 of the Act, State Legislature is denuded of its legislative power to make any law with respect to the regulation of mines and mineral development. Finally, it was pointed out that there is no question of framing policy such as the Karnataka Mineral Policy to give out mining leases independently of the MMDR Act and the Rules. On the other hand, Mr. Harish N. Salve and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for Jindal and Kalyani, by drawing our attention to the very same provisions and the orders of the courts, submitted that the recommendations made by the State Government is in terms of the provisions of the Act and Rules and the Division Bench was right in affirming the same. 13) It is useful to refer notification dated 15.03.2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka which reads thus: GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NO. CI/16/MMM/2003 Government of Karnataka Secretariat Ms. Building Bangalore, Dated 15.03.2003 NOTIFICATION It is hereby informed for the mining public that the area noted in the annexure is available for regrant under rule 59 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The application for grant of mining leas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification. In all, the Chief Minister has considered 111 applications for grant of mining lease. The order further shows that notice under Rule 26(1) of the Rules was issued to all the applicants to appear for hearing on 12.10.2004 at 4.00 PM to make presentation for sanction of mining lease in their favour. On 12.10.2004, the hearing was adjourned. According to the State, applicants were heard on different dates. Out of 111 applicants, 85 applicants attended the hearing and 75 applicants gave their written representations. On 16.10.2004, the hearing was again adjourned, 72 applicants attended and 9 applicants submitted their written representations. Again, the hearing was held on 25.10.2004, 76 applicants attended and 27 applicants submitted their written submissions. On 04.11.2004, 16 applicants attended the hearing and 7 applicants submitted their written submissions. 15) The order of the Chief Minister further shows that out of 111 applications, 55 are companies/firms and 30 are individuals. Out of 111 applicants, 11 have given more than one application in the name of their sister companies/partnership firms etc. The proceeding further shows that all applications were examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State by investing huge amounts , and by invoking Rule 35 of the MC Rules, the Chief Minister recommended or in other words filled up dotted lines by mentioning Jindal and Kalyani. 17) It is the grievance of the appellants, namely, Sandur and MSPL that the proceedings of the Chief Minister shows that the State Government was pre-determined to grant the lease in favour of Jindal and Kalyani. 18) A perusal of the proceedings of the Chief Minister shows that no clear reasons were given to show as to why Jindal and Kalyani were preferred over other applicants. There is also no plausible reason why the applications of the appellants herein were not considered favourably. A summary of the applications was prepared and at the end certain columns were left blank which the Chief Minister filled by hand and then signed the proceedings. 19) The evaluation of all 111 applications has been done in three successive stages in a manner not envisaged by Section 11. In the first stage of the process, the applications by individuals were discarded. In the second stage, those by companies as a whole and in the third stage, only companies with existing investment in steel plants out of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cants applies and not in the case of notification inviting applications, whether it is under the first proviso to Section 11(2) or 11(4) under the later proviso, upon notification, by deeming fiction all applications are treated as having been received on the same date. 21) Apart from the above infirmity, the proceedings of the Chief Minister also violate Section 11(4) of the Act which reads thus: (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), where the State Government notifies in the Official Gazette an area for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, all the applications received during the period as specified in such notification, which shall not be less than thirty days, shall be considered simultaneously as if all such applications have been received on the same day and the State Government, after taking into consideration the matters specified in sub-section (3), may grant the reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit. The above sub-section permits only the applications made pursuant to the notification to be taken into accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clusive subject for legislation by Parliament. Any legislation by the State after such declaration and trenching upon the field disclosed in the declaration must necessarily be unconstitutional because that field is abstracted from the legislative competence of the State Legislature. This proposition is also self-evident that no attempt was rightly made to contradict it. There are also two decisions of this Court reported in the Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, and State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch and Co. in which the matter is discussed. The only dispute, therefore, can be to what extent the declaration by Parliament leaves any scope for legislation by the State Legislature. If the impugned legislation falls within the ambit of such scope it will be valid; if outside it, then it must be declared invalid. 14. The declaration is contained in Section 2 of Act 67 of 1957 and speaks of the taking under the control of the Central Government the regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in the Act itself. We have thus not to look outside Act 67 of 1957 to determine what is left within the competence of the State Legislature but have to work i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nacting Section 15 of Act 67 of 1957, the Union of India has taken all the power to itself and authorized the State Government to make rules for the regulation of leases. By the declaration and the enactment of Section 15, the whole of the field relating to minor minerals came within the jurisdiction of Parliament and no scope was left for the enactment of the second proviso to Section 10 in the Land Reforms Act. The enactment of the proviso was, therefore, without jurisdiction. 23) In State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Others, (2004) 10 SCC 201, after referring to earlier judgments including M.A. Tulloch (supra) and Baijnath Kedio (supra), the Constitution Bench held as under: 95. .... .... All that the Court has said is that the 1957 enactment covers the field of legislation as to the regulation of mines and the development of minerals. As Section 2 itself provides and indicates, the assumption of control in public interest by the Central Government is on: (i) the regulation of mines, (ii) the development of minerals, and (iii) to the extent hereinafter provided. The scope and extent of declaration cannot and could not have been enlarged by the Court nor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it concerned with Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act which requires consideration of the extremely general criterion of the interests of mineral development before granting second renewal of a mining lease. Unlike in Section 11(3), no further criteria was specified and it was in this background, this Court upheld on the facts of that case that relevant material taken into account by the Committee set up by the Central Government rightly included captive consumption . In view of the factual situation, the said decision can have no bearing on initial grants of mining lease where the only permissible criteria are the matters set out in Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act. Issue (b) Whether the respondent-Jindal's application dated 24.10.2002 made prior to the Notification dated 15.03.2003 is capable of being entertained along with the applications made pursuant to the said notification. 30) The next vital issue that arises in this case is whether Jindal's application dated 24.10.2002 made prior to the Notification dated 15.03.2003 inviting applications for previously held area could be considered in view of Section 11(4) of the MMDR Act read with Rules 59 and 60 of the MC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mittee to Review the Existing Laws and Procedure for Regulation and Development of Minerals set up by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, submitted in January, 1998. We are concerned about para 2.1.21 of the Report which reads as under: ... The concept of first-come, first-serve has become necessary in view of the fact that the Act does not provide for inviting applications through advertisement for grant of PL/ML in respect of virgin areas. No doubt, there is provision in Rule 59 of MCR for advertisement of an area earlier held under PL/ML with provision for relaxation. In this background, the Committee recommended the introduction of the proviso to Section 11(2) permitting calling for applications by way of a notification. There is a distinction between virgin areas and areas covered under Rule 59 and Section 11(2) ought to be interpreted to cover virgin areas alone. If we consider Section 11 with the aid of the said Report, it makes it clear that Section 11(1) provides preferential right to the holder of reconnaissance permits or a prospecting licencee who has identified mineral resources in the area allotted to him for grant of a mining lease, subject to certai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that a consideration of the comparative merits of other applicants can arise only in a case where applications have been received on the same day. It is no doubt true that Section 11(2) of the Act read in isolation gives such an impression which, in reality, is a misleading one. We think that the sooner such an impression is corrected by a statutory amendment the better it would be for all concerned. On a reading of Section 11 as a whole, one will realise that the provisions of sub-section (4) completely override those of sub-section (2). This sub-section preserves to the S.G. a right to grant a lease to an applicant out of turn subject to two conditions: (a) recording of special reasons and (b) previous approval of the C.G. It is manifest, therefore, that the S.G. is not bound to dispose of applications only on a first come, first served basis. It will be easily appreciated that this should indeed be so for the interests of national mineral development clearly require in the case of major minerals, that the mining lease should be given to that applicant who can exploit it most efficiently. A grant of ML, in order of time, will not achieve this result. Even under ordinary p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt, Section 11(3)(d) was added as part of the substitution of Section 11 in the year 1999. Sub-section (d) provides that the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on minerals and it speaks about investment proposed to be made and not past investments. Thus it confines the concept of captive consumption of minerals to proposed investment and not past investments . Even the residuary clauses in Section 11(3)(e) are limited to matters as may be prescribed , which would necessarily mean matters prescribed by rules. This is fortified by decision of this Court in BSNL Ltd. Anr. vs. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. Ors., (2008) 13 SCC 597, para 45. 36) We have already quoted sub-section (4) of Section 11 which contemplates a situation where a notification is issued inviting applications for an area for grant. In contrast to the first proviso to Section 11(2), it provides that all applications received pursuant to a notification shall be considered simultaneously without assigning any priority in point of time, and after taking into account the matters specified in Section 11(3). Section 11(4), in effect, covers exactly the same field as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contrary to the Scheme of the MMDR Act as they were based on Section 11(5) which had no application at all to applications made pursuant to the notification dated 15.03.2003. 38) We have already extracted Rules 59 and 60 and analysis of those rules confirms the interpretation of Section 11 above and the conclusion that it is Section 11(4) which would apply to a Notification issued under Rule 59(1). Rule 59(1) provides that the categories of areas listed in it including, inter alia, areas that were previously held or being under a mining lease or which has been reserved for exploitation by the State Government or under Section 17A of the Act, shall not be available for grant unless (i) an entry is made in the register and (ii) its availability for grant is notified in the Official Gazette specifying a date not earlier than 30 days from the date of notification. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 59 empowers the Central Government to relax the conditions set out in Rule 59(1) in respect of an area whose availability is required to be notified under Rule 59 if no application is issued or where notification is issued, the 30-days black-out period specified in the notification pursuant to Rule 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the area available for grant of a licence or a lease, would be premature, and shall not be entertained and the fee, if any, paid in respect of any such application shall be refunded. It would therefore follow that as the areas which are the subject-matter of the present appeals had been reserved by the State Government for the purpose stated in its notification, and as those lands did not become available for the grant of a prospecting licence or a mining lease, the State Government was well within its rights in rejecting the applications of the appellants under Rule 60 as premature. The Central Government was thus justified in rejecting the revision applications which were filed against the orders of rejection passed by the State Government. 41) Even thereafter, this Court has consistently taken the position that applications made prior to a Notification cannot be entertained. In our view, the purpose of Rule 59(1), which is to ensure that mining lease areas are not given by State Governments to favour persons of their choice without notice to the general public would be defeated. In fact, the learned single Judge correctly interpreted Section 11 read with Rules 59 and 60. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation along with Rule 59(1) and not the first proviso to Section 11(2) as contended by the respondents. Issue (c) Whether the order of the High Court of Karnataka in Ziaulla Sharieff's (supra) permit the consideration of the Jindal's application dated 24.10.2002 which was made prior to the notification dated 15.03.2003. 42) We have already discussed this issue. In addition to the same, perusal of the order of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 35915 of 2001 shows that the State Government was directed to consider only the application of the MSPL and the applications filed by the impleading applicants and others pursuant to the Notification dated 15.03.2003 in accordance with law and in terms of the provisions of the MMDR Act and MC Rules. In other words, the High Court did not issue any direction to consider all applications made prior to the notification. To put it clear, there was no mandamus from the High Court to consider prior applications. The word others qualify the phrase pursuant to and not the class of applicants who had applied even prior to the Held Area Notification dated 15.03.2003. As a matter of fact, the High Court had merely directed the St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stments would not have qualified on the proposed investment criterion under Section 11(3)(d), in addition to MSPL and Sandur. This could have been a basis to exclude those with proposed investments in steel plants from consideration. 44) It is also relevant to point out that Rule 35 specifies one additional factor apart from the factors set out in Section 11(3). The plain language of Rule 35 requires its application only in cases covered by Section 11(2) and not by Section 11(4). Therefore, to the extent that it is Section 11(4) that covers Notification under Rule 59(1) and not Section 11(2), in this way also, the State Government committed an error in relying on Rule 35 to exclude the appellants, i.e., MSPL and Sandur. To justify the recommendation in favour of the respondents-Jindal and Kalyani, in the proceedings of the Chief Minister, State heavily relied on Rule 35 on the premise that it is intended to give preference to those who have made existing investments in industries based on iron ore and that the respondents - Jindal and Kalyani, qualify on this consideration. However, as discussed above, Rule 35 only permits the State Government to take additional factor of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he MC Rules since it was a case of relaxation by the Central Government under Rule 59(2), as is clear from paragraph 15 of the judgment. 47) It is useful to mention that subsequent to the decision in TISCO (supra), this Court in Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. Anr. vs. Union of India Ors., (2006) 12 SCC 331 (Paras 20 26) held that considerations of captive mining cannot be the controlling factor for grant of lease. Issue (f): Whether factors such as past commitments made by the State Government to applicants who have already set up steel plants is not a relevant matter for consideration for grant of lease. 48) As discussed earlier, the State Government is denuded of all legislative and executive power under Entry 23 of List-II read with Article 162 after passing of the MMDR Act which are as under:- Entry 23, List II: Regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union. Article 162. Extent of executive power of State.- Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the Legislat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inerals development. In addition to the same, Anjum M.H. Gaswala (supra), Captain Sube Singh (supra), Singhara Singh's case (supra), this Court repeatedly held that the field of granting mining leases is covered by express statute and rules and the grants must be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules and no other consideration. From a perusal of the above settled legal position, it becomes clear that the State Government cannot grant mining leases keeping in mind any considerations apart from the ones mentioned in the MMDR Act and MC Rules. In those circumstances, no extraneous considerations such as past commitments made by the State Government to Jindal and Kalyani who have already set up steel plants can be entertained by the State Government while granting mining leases and must abide by the Act and Rules. Issue (g): Whether the recommendation in favour of Jindal and Kalyani saved by operation of law of equity? 50) The Law of Equity cannot save the recommendation in favour of Jindal and Kalyani because it is a well settled principle that equity stands excluded when a matter is governed by statute. This principle was clearly stated by this Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e other hand, it is the claim of the MSPL that in accordance with Section 11(3)(d) it had proposed to set up a steel plant for which it required iron ore. It was also brought to our notice that it had received permission from the State Government in this regard. With reference to the allegation that MSPL has a mining lease over an area of 722.94 hectares, it was pointed out that in actual it has a lease over an area of 347.22 hectares only. On 05.06.2009, MSPL filed an affidavit before the Division Bench stating that it holds only a single mining lease granted over five decades ago and the major proportion of which has been afforestated. It is also their grievance that the iron ore reserves in this lease have almost been exhausted over a period of 58 years, since 1952. The remaining iron ore cannot support a steel plant of the size that is being set up by MSPL. Since the entire field of granting mining lease is covered by MMDR Act and MC Rules, the State Government cannot use any consideration apart from the ones mentioned in the Act and Rules. Issue (h): About the impugned judgments of the single Judge and Division Bench: 52) In view of our conclusion, the Division Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 59(2) for relaxation in respect of an area that is considered and not the application for grant. It is only after the relaxation under Rule 59(2) by the Central Government of the requirement of the Notification under Rule 59(1) that the applications could be considered for grant of mining lease. 55) Though the learned single Judge in his order dated 07.08.2008 quashed the communication/recommendation of the State Government dated 06.12.2004 proposing to grant mining lease to Jindal and Kalyani, however, the learned single Judge traveled much beyond the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and quashed the entire Notification No. CI.16:MMM.2003 dated 15.03.2003. In our view, while approving earlier part of his order and quashing the communication/recommendation of the State Government dated 06.12.2004, the other observations/directions are not warranted in the light of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The said observations/directions are deleted. Issue (i): Whether it is advisable to remit it to the Central Government: 56) Learned senior counsel appearing for Jindal and Kalyani requested that inasmuch as the Central Government has already given its approva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be any valid approval of the Central Government relying on the defective recommendation. We have already concluded that the recommendation of the State Government dated 06.12.2004 is not valid with reference to the provisions of MMDR Act and the Rules, hence the invalid recommendation cannot be looked into by the Central Government. Further, proviso to Section 5(1) itself provides only for the Central Government either to grant or reject its approval to the State Government's recommendation in the case of mining lease for a mineral such as iron ore in the First Schedule. In our view, such consideration on the administrative side does not involve consideration of all the applicants based on their mining lease applications and after giving an opportunity of hearing. Inasmuch as the Central Government does not have all relevant materials before it, it may not be in a position to substitute itself for the State Government and, if not, it would be proper, in fact, it would be inconsistent with the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules to frame the issue on the administrative side of the Central Government. Even otherwise, inasmuch as we have heard the matter at length and we s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
