On 06.12.2004, a letter was issued by the State Government seeking approval of the Central Government for grant of lease to other applicants i.e. Jindal Kalyani.
Being aggrieved by the said recommendation, on 11.06.2007, the appellant Company filed Writ Petition No.
Again on 06.10.2004, the Under Secretary to the new State Government, Mines C I Department issued another numberice under Rule 26 1 of the Rules requiring the MSPL to appear before the Honble Chief Minister of Karnataka to make a presentation for sanction of lease.
Challenging the recommendation dated 06.12.2004 of the State Government, writ petitions were filed by the aggrieved companypanies before the High Court.
The learned single Judge clubbed this writ petition along with W.P. No.
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.
On 15.03.2003, the State Government issued Notification informing the general public that the areas mentioned in the annexure thereof were available for grant under Rule 59 of the Rules and interested persons were requested to file applications for grant of mining leases.
On 22.08.2008, Jindal Respondent No.5 herein filed A. No.
On the very same date, the State Government deleted an area of 9 sq.
On 21.12.2001, the Central Government returned all proposals for grant of mining lease pending before it to the State Government to await the report of the Regional Environmental Impact Assessment of the Bellary Hospet Region by National Environmental Engineering Research Institute NEERI .
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.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge, Sandur preferred Writ Appeal No.
On 15.12.2004, MSPL made representations both to the Minister for Mines and to the Secretary, Department of Mines in the Central Government against the said proposal.
In 1965, the Company, with the aim of value addition to Ores mined by the Company and also to industrial area, set up a 15 MVA Metal and Ferro Alloys Plant at Vyasankere near Hospet at a substantial capital companyt.
Vide judgment dated 07.08.2008, learned single Judge of the High Court allowed W.P. No.
On 21/23.06.1956, a lease was transferred in favour of the Company as per Government Order No.
miles out of the area held earlier.
On 16.04.2003, the appellant Company, by way of abundant caution, applied afresh for grant of mining lease over an area of 200 Hectares in the numberified area without prejudice to its rights for companysideration of its earlier application dated 24.06.1993.
5057 of 2008 challenging the same judgment of the learned single Judge save and except to the extent that the recommendations of the State Government to the Central Government insofar as it recommended the grant of mining to Jindal and Kalyani was quashed.
On 28.11.1964, the Company was companyverted into a Public Limited Company.
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.
It was further pointed out that the area companycerned in the said writ petition as also the area companycerned in the present appeals were included in the said numberification.
On 29.07.2003, the Central Government rejected the revision petition of MSPL.
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.
22077 of 2009 before this Court.
35915 of 2001 with the following direction in view of the subsequent numberification issued by the State Government dated 15.03.2003, inviting that the area is available for grant, the State Government is number expected number only to companysider the applications pending before it but also the applications that may be filed pursuant to the above said numberification numberwithstanding the earlier recommendation made by the second respondent.
21608 of 2005 filed by another applicant MSPL Ltd. On 07.08.2008, the learned single Judge quashed the Notification dated 15.03.2003 and the Mining Licences granted in favour of Jindal and Kalyani with certain observations.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, the State Government issued a numberification dated 15.03.2003 inviting applications from the general public for mineral companycessions over large areas of the State of Karnataka.
miles from the appellant Companys lease agreement on the ground that the said area is reserved for exploitation by the National Mineral Development Corporation in short NMDC a Government of India Undertaking.
On 29.07.2003, the Government of India allowed the revision petition filed by the appellant Company and directed the State Government to companysider the application dated 24.06.1993 filed by the appellant Company on merits, in terms of order dated 09.04.1999 of the Revisional Authority and pass a final order in the case.
A large number of other writ appeals were also filed, heard together and disposed of by a companymon judgment and order dated 05.06.2009.
While the matter was under companysideration of the Central Government, one Ziaullah Sharieff another applicant for a mining lease filed Writ Petition No.
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.
MSPL and some of the applicants made representations to the Central Government against the said recommendation made by the State Government.
On 25.01.1989, the State Government rejected the application on the ground that the area applied for was already reserved by NMDC.
These appeals seek to challenge the companymon judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 05.06.2009 arising out of Writ Appeal No.
In spite of this order, the State Government has number passed any order.
miles only instead of 29 sq.
On 15.03.2003, the State Government issued a Notification in exercise of its power under Rule 59 of the MC Rules reserving the entire area calling for applications from the general public for grant of mining leases and by numberifying large extent of previously held areas as available for grant of mines including the area applied by the appellant Company.
8971 of 2007 before the High Court.
On 19.09.1973, upon applying for renewal of the abovesaid lease, the Company was allotted an area of 20 sq.
On 12.09.2005, MSPL preferred writ petition being P. No.
22077 of 2009 is as follows Shri Y.R. Ghorpade, ex Ruler of Sandur State, was granted lease for mining of Iron Manganese Ores under Order No.
During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Central Government gave its approval for grant of mining lease in favour of Jindal and Kalyani on 05.06.2006 and 27.06.2006 respectively.
MSPL also filed W.A. No.
21608 of 2005 quashing the recommendation.
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.
Kalyani and 88 other applicants also applied pursuant to the said Notification.
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.
The appellants in these appeals are Sandur Manganese Iron Ores Ltd. in short Sandur and M s MSPL Ltd. The principal respondents are M s Kalyani Steels Ltd. in short Kalyani and M s Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd. in short Jindal .
However, the Company was further granted renewal of lease for another 1.46 sq.
On 13.05.2002, the Company filed a revision petition before the Government of India against the said decision of the State Government.
By judgment dated 07.08.2008, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by MSPL and Sandur as well as others and quashed the grant on the ground among others, that Jindals application prior to the Held Area Notification companyld number have been entertained in view of Section 11 4 of the MMDR Act and Rules 59 and 60 of the MC Rules.
miles which was leased earlier.
Admittedly, Jindal did number apply pursuant to the Held Area Notification, even though some of its sister companycerns applied for the grant.
5026 5028 of 2008 respectively, before a Division Bench of the High Court.
When the companypany numbericed that the NMDC did number initiate any Mining Lease Application on the said area, then on 29.09.1987, it applied for mining lease over an area of 2 sq.
22943 22952 of 2009 is as follows MSPL Limited filed above SLPs against the companymon judgment and order dated 05.06.2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in W.A. Nos.
By the impugned companymon order dated 05.06.2009, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 07.08.2008 and upheld the validity of Notification of the State Government dated 15.03.2003 and the proceedings dated 06.12.2004 and the companysequential approval of the Central Government were held valid.
Against the said approval, two others preferred writ petitions before the High Court for quashing of the said proposal.
On 13.05.2002, Sandur filed a revision before the Central Government under Rule 54 of the MC Rules challenging the proposal of the State Government dated 30.08.2001, in favour of the MSPL.
On 24.10.2002, Jindal made an application for grant of mining lease over a part of the same area previously held and surrendered by Sandur.
miles within the said deleted area.
Apart from these, the State of Karnataka and the Union of India are also arrayed as respondents.
Three sister companycerns of Jindal were also arrayed as respondents.
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.
5026 of 2008 in the High Court.
On 30.08.2001, the State of Karnataka requested the Central Government to relax the companyditions set out in Rule 59 1 in favour of MSPL Ltd. under Rule 59 2 .
35915 of 2001 GM MMS before the High Court seeking declaration that he is entitled for grant of a mining lease in his favour.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant Company has filed S.L.P. C No.
In 1980, Sandur also set up two more 20 MVA Furnaces in the Plant for manufacture of Ferro Silicon by entering into an agreement with the State Government and the Karnataka Electricity Board to receive power at a viable tariff.
Vide letter dated 06.12.2004, the State Government sought the approval of the Central Government under Section 5 1 of the MMDR Act to grant lease to Jindal over an area of 200.73 Hectares and Kalyani over an area of 179.70 Hectares in respect of a part of the land mentioned in S.No.1 to the Notification dated 15.3.2003.
During pendency of the said revision, Sandur also filed W.P. No.
I.1432 38 GE43.55 22.
22767 of 2002 seeking a mandamus to the Central Government to companysider its revision petition.
On 30.04.2004, the respondent Mines Director sent a numberice to the MSPL for making submissions.
Factual matrix The case of Sandur Petitioner in SLP C No.
Against the judgment of the learned single Judge, Jindal and Kalyani preferred W.A. Nos.
On 21.12.2004, a further representation was made to the Secretary, Department of Mines.
22077 of 2009.
On 18.01.1954, the appellant Company was incorporated as a Private Limited Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.
However, NMDC was number granted lease and in 1992, one Sri H.G. Rangangoud was granted 60 Hectares out of the same applied area.
GEO.Ms.068 dated 26.02.1953, for a period of 20 years companymencing from 01.01.1954 to the extent of 29 sq.
MSPL put forth its claim and submitted a detailed presentation to the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister.
The case of MSPL Petitioner in SLP C Nos.
By judgment and order dated 29.03.2004, the High Court disposed of Writ Petition No.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
5084 of 2008 before the High Court.
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 companyld choose either Block A 168 Acres or 67 Hectares or Block B 472 Acres or 189 Hectares .
On 16.04.2003, pursuant to the said numberification, MSPL made an application for the same area previously held by Sandur.
miles, falling within the boundaries of the Sandur State.
