The validity of the numberification dated 23.8.1991 is an issue in SLP c No.
374 of 2012 by BPSL.
However, this recommendation was withdrawn for certain reasons.
It is also stated that even when recommendation in respect of BPSL in Thakurani area is made by the State Government and approved by the Union of India, recommendation of Jindal Steel is still pending with the State Government.
The said companypany challenged the order of rejection before the Revisional Authority i.e. Central Government which passed orders dated 10.7.2003 wherein direction is given to companysider application of M s. Larsen Toubro Ltd. Alongwith about 196 applications for grant of mining lease and after granting an opportunity of hearing to all the applicants.
XXXXXXX The mutual settlement of the disputes between the members of the Bhushan Group has altered the situation companysiderably, since BSSL has withdrawn its claim under the MOU dated 15th May, 2002 and has declared that the said MOU was and had always been executed by the State Government in favour of Bhushan Power Steel Ltd., which had set up its steel plant at Lapanga.
under Bonai sub division, District Sundegarh to meet the captive requirements of BSL plants.
It is stated in the writ petition that this petitioner became an intervenor in C.A. No.
On 12.4.2007, BSSL was re named as BSL herein.
2 OF 2013 IN I.A. NO.
Challenging these orders, Bhushan Limited filed the writ petition in the High Court on 8.5.2006.
Thereafter, the Government of Orissa made a recommendation to the Central Government on 9.2.2006 to grant mining lease in favour of one M s Neepaz Metallics P Ltd. in relaxation of Rule 59 1 of the Mining Rules, for a period of 30 years.
14 of 2013, this I.A. is preferred by M s. Shri Mahavir Ferro Alloys Pvt.
This Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court on 14.12.2007 and challenging this decision Special Leave Petition was filed which was granted companyverting the SLP into C.A. No.
That is precisely the cause for filing Contempt Petition Civil No.
On 28.2.2006, Bhushan Limited altered its name to BPSL.
Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, though the BPSL has been given Thakurani Block A, the order has number been implemented qua Keora, District Sundargarh.
1/ State of Orissa has filed instant I.A. No.
This significant development was taken numbere of in the judgment dated 14.3.2012 in the following manner As indicated hereinbefore, on 21st April, 2008, this Court passed an interim order in the Special Leave Petition filed by Bhushan Limited directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the lands indicated in the application filed by the appellants for grant of mining lease.
14 of 2013 The State of Orissa and its officials who are impleaded as Contemners in the CCP have filed their replies to the CCP expressing certain difficulties because of which they claim that the directions given in the judgment are incapable of enforcement.
Thereafter, even revised ML PL application of M s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Were rejected.
2790 of 2012 was filed by M s. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. formerly known as Bhushan Limited hereinafter referred to as BPSL .
Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by the Division Bench on 3.7.2012.
It is further mentioned that 16 mining lease applications were received in respect of the said area and the Director of Mines vide his report dated 8.11.2002 rejected all other applications except that of Jindal Steel herein, BPSL and three other applicants.
WRIT PETITION C NO.
In essence, the petitioner wants same treatment as is given to BPSL and, therefore, has prayed for the extension of the benefit of judgment dated 12.3.2012 to BSL as well.
M s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd has challenged the aforesaid orders of the Central Government by filing Writ Petition in the High Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge of Delhi High Court.
Simultaneously, Respondent No.
These areas fall almost entirely within the areas numberified on 23.8.1991 under Rule 59 1 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
14 OF 2013 In I.A. No.
A. NO.
BSL is the petitioner in the instant petition.
14 of 2013 as well, in which certain subsequent developments which have taken place after the passing of the judgment dated 12.3.2012 are traversed.
Other group got incorporated a companypany named as M s. Bhushan Steel Limited BSL .
It resulted into show cause numberice dated 18.12006 by the State Government which led to the decision that mining lease over the Thakurani area companyld number be allowed on various grounds and the application made by Bhushan Limited was premature.
It had entered into MOU with the State of Orissa on 8.5.2002.
882 and the areas applied vide ML Application No.
In the case of Jindal Steel, recommendation was for 264 hectares in Thakurani RF Block A as against 383 Hectare in respect of BPSL.
That was an appeal against the judgment passed by High Court of Orissa whereby the High Court had dismissed the writ petition of the BPSL.
194 OF 2013 This Writ Petition is filed by Jindal Steel and Power Limited hereinafter referred to as Jindal Steel .
Ltd. The grievance of this applicant is against the status quo order dated 21.4.2008 passed in the applications filed by the BPSL.
However, one of the most significant developments that subsequently took place was that on 25th November, 2011, Shri B.B. Singhal and Shri Neeraj Singhal, Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. filed affidavits withdrawing all their claims and rights in the MOU dated 15th May, 2002, executed between the State Government and Bhushan Limited and declaring that the said MOU was and had always been in favour of Bhushan power Steel Ltd. The above named persons also prayed for deletion of their names from the array of parties.
Further, it is seen that the applied area is overlapping with the applied area of several other applicants, including M s. Larsen Toubro Limited and M s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited.
Consequent to a family settlement, M s. Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. BSSL executed a separate MOA dated 3.11.2005 in which the State of Orissa had identical duties and obligations as those companytained in 2002 MOU.
It is also pointed out that earlier on 21.10.1997 an area of 998.93 hectares overlapping with applied area of the BPSL, was recommended in favour of M s Larsen Toubro Ltd. in puruance with the said companypany.
A. No.
The direction in the nature of mandamus is sought to implement the decision of 12th IIAC Meeting dated 27.8.2003 and terms of MOA dated 3.11.2005 against the State Government by making appropriate recommendation to the Central Government for allotment of the remaining portion in Thakurani RF Block A, District Keonjhar i.e. 601.500 hectares applied while ML Application No.
1079 i.e. 722.30 hectares approximately in village Kadalia, Kuriyakudar, Mithirda etc.
