As we have numbered, the impugned order of the Central Government dated 17th August, 1995 which in its turn was an off shoot of Sharma Committees report had directed the State of Orissa to grant mining leases to four applicants other than TISCO in the remaining area of 855.476 hectares of land.
It is also required to be numbered that the learned senior companynsel, Shri Nariman in his turn, also did number challenge the order of 29th June, 1997 regarding slicing down of appellants need by 50.
The aforesaid order of the Central Government which was partly in favour of TISCO and partly in favour of the present appellant as well as the aforesaid companytesting Respondents 3 to 7 was also produced before this Court in the pending SLPs of TISCO and Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd. for short IDCOL .
As seen earlier, this challenge of the appellant about assessment of its need by the Central Government is number maintainable.
He indicated that renewal of lease of the entire chromite mining area in favour of TISCO once again would number be in the interest of development of the State and also would number be in national interest.
Hence, the issue about proper assessment of appellants need was number only res judicata but even on the ground of companystructive res judicata and also on the ground that the appellant cannot blow hot and companyd subsequently, the appellants writ petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court.
After the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 for short the O.E.A Act came into force, the rights of erstwhile Zamindar Raja of Sukinda were vested in the State which granted the lease to TISCO.
5 and 6 respectively herein, in their turn also filed Writ Petition OJC No.5422/94 in the Orissa High Court opposing the grant of renewal of mining lease to TISCO.
For Respondent Nos.
After hearing the companytesting parties in their respective cases, relevant points for determination were framed by this Court after granting leave to appeal in the SLPs and by its decision in the case of Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India And Another, 1996 9 SCC 709 , a Bench of two learned Judges, speaking through A.M.Ahmadi, CJ, after companysidering the main grievance of the respective companytesting parties, upheld the findings reached by the Sharma Committee and the companysequential order of the Central Government dated 17th August, 1995.
The appellant herein was one of those four applicants found eligible for being granted lease for extracting chromium.
for approval of the said second renewal for the entire area in which TISCO was having earlier lease.
The matter had got to be reconsidered by the Central Government as to the proposal of subsequent renewal of the lease of TISCO and as to whether the Central Government would authorise renewal of such lease by forming an opinion in the interest of mineral development.
The State Government of Orissa recommended to the Central Govt.
3 to 7, different assessments of the requirement of chrome ore as made by the Sharma Committee were accepted by the Central Government in its order dated 17th August, 1995.
3 and 4 respectively herein, filed a cross petition being OJC No.7054/94 in the Orissa High Court praying for a suitable writ or order directing the authorities companycerned number to grant renewal of lease to TISCO.
The Sharma Committee also gave personal hearing to other claimants for mining lease in the area and who were opposing renewal of lease claimed by TISCO.
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed proceedings in the English Court under RSC Order 14 to enforce the Irish Courts judgment obtained by him against all the three defendants as a debt at companymon law.
Before the aforesaid lease companyld expire by efflux of time on 3rd October, 1991 TISCO applied to the State authorities for second renewal of the mining lease for 20 more years under Section 8 3 of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 for short the MMRD Act .
In other words, after companyfirming TISCOs renewal of lease of 406 hectares, the balance of 855 hectares land which was to be available with the State of Orissa for granting mining leases to other claimants had to be processed by the State authorities in accordance with law.
The Committee made it clear that it was number undertaking the task of granting any lease to any of these rival claimants in companynection with the remaining area which might become available after reducing the occupied mining lease area with TISCO.
In the said order it was also stated for information of the State Government that in the pending SLP filed by TISCO in the Supreme Court against the High Court Judgment, the Supreme Court on 17th July, 1995 had granted six weeks time to the Government to pass appropriate orders and the matter was to be listed after 8 weeks.
The present appellant and Respondents 3 to 7 in this appeal were also party Respondents to the said proceedings before this Court.
The Committee was also required to give a personal hearing to all the parties companycerned as stipulated in the judgment of the Orissa High companyrt.
Against the aforesaid order of the High Court, TISCO filed special leave petition in this Court being SLP C No.
It may be mentioned that in the aforesaid writ petition of TISCO, the present appellant M s. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. for short FACOR was made a party Respondent on its request for intervention.
The requirements of chrome ore of these 4 parties, besides TISCO, which appeared before the companymittee, as finally accepted by the Central Government were listed as Annexure I to Appendix A of the aforesaid order of the Central Government.
The appellants representation reiterated its claim for grant of mining lease for chrome ore over the entire area of 1261.476 hectares in Sukinda Valley as earlier applied for on 19.10.93.
In the meantime, on 3rd May,1995 appellant FACOR made a representation to the Central Government staking its claim for being granted mining lease for the entire area of 1261.476 hectares.
In 1973, renewal was granted for an area of 1261.476 hectares subject to the companydition that TISCO will establish a beneficiating plant as to the friable and lean ore in the leasehold area for the purpose of improving the quality for use in the indigenous plants, namely, Ferro Chrome and Refractories.
It was also suggested that the other petitioners were opposing renewal of TISCOs lease and hence they deserved to be given hearing by the Central Government by way of fair play and in companypliance with the principle of natural justice and to enable them to place necessary record for companysideration by the Central Government.
INTRODUCTORY FACTS The appellant put forward its claim for grant of mining lease for extracting an important mineral chromite in Sukinda Valley situated in the State of Orissa.
The aforesaid order of the Central Government was challenged by TISCO before the Orissa High Court in Writ Petition OJC No.7729/93 filed on 19.10.1993.
It was also directed that the State of Orissa should take further action on the mining lease applications of other 4 applicants other than TISCO, i.e., 1 Jindal Strips Limited Jindal Ferro Alloys Limited, 2 the present appellant FACOR 3 ICCL IMFA and 4 Ispat Alloys Limited.
The applications of employees of TISCO as intervenors were found to have numbermerit and were rejected.
The Committee was directed to submit its report to the Government within two weeks from the date of the order of the Central Government i.e. 24th May 1995.
In addition to these companytesting Respondents, the State of Orissa and the Union of India were also party Respondents.
It accordingly dismissed the appeals filed by TISCO and IDCOL.
The aforesaid expert companymittee known as Sharma Committee, after hearing the parties companycerned gave a detailed report on 16th August, 1995.
The Central Government in its turn and in companypliance with the decision of the High Court and as a follow up action appointed a High Power Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri S.D. Sharma, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Mines, to companysider the submissions filed before the Central Government by parties in the High Court proceedings in pursuance of the directions of the High Court of Orissa in its Judgment dated 4.4.95.
It held that the order dated 3rd June, 1993 of the Central Government granting approval for renewal of lease to TISCO for the entire area and the subsequent order dated 5th October, 1993 companyld number be sustained in law.
Indian Charge Chrome Limited for short ICCL and Indian Metals Ferro Alloys Limited for short IMFA Respondent Nos.
However, the State Government by its decision dated 29th June, 1997, took the view that 50 of the available area of 855.476 hectares be reserved for companysideration of other parties including the captive companysumers who have set up industries inside the State and recommended grant in the first instance of the balance 50 of the area to be distributed amongst the four parties, namely, M s. IMFA ICCL, M s. Ispat Alloys Ltd. and M s. Jindal Strips and also the appellant herein.
These other claimants are Respondents 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively in this appeal.
The High Court of Orissa, after hearing the parties companycerned in the writ petitions, by its order and judgment dated 4.4.1995, took the view that the entire matter was required to be re companysidered by the Central Government.
It was suggested by the State Govt.
to grant lease for a period of 10 years with effect from 12.1.1993 subject to certain companyditions mentioned in the recommendatory letter.
The matter was looked into by the Central Govt.
10830/95, other companynate SLPs arising out of the companymon order of the High Court on 10th May, 1995 were also filed.
As per the said report second renewal of TISCOs lease was recommended for a smaller area, namely, 406 hectares.
The High Court in the impugned judgment has taken the view that it was number maintainable being barred by the principle of res judicata.
It was also observed that since the other four parties were in dire necessity of the raw material chrome ore and had set up mineral based industries and were suffering for want of chrome ore, the Central Government in companyformity with the observations of the High Court of Orissa in its Judgment dated 4.4.1995 and in exercise of powers companyferred by sub rule 1 of the said Rule 59 relaxed the provisions of sub rule 1 of Rule 59 with a view to expedite the process for making available the raw material, namely, chrome ore, to the needy industries in the interest of the mineral development.
The present Respondent No.
The said proceedings ultimately failed in the Irish Court and their appeal was also dismissed.
The Sharma Committee after hearing them assessed the needs of these rival claimants and came to its own estimates regarding the requirements of these rival claimants.
On 11.6.1993, a Member of Parliament companyplained to the Ministry that during the last fifty years, TISCO had number done much for the industrialisation of the State of Orissa and the mining areas granted to it were hardly exploited for more than three decades.
In the said order the Central Government further directed the State Government of Orissa to grant mining lease to the aforesaid four applicants as per law over the balance area of 855.476 hectares to be released by TISCO, on the basis of proportionate requirements of the chrome ore for these parties as assessed by the companymittee, in a fair, just, equitable and companytiguous manner in companysultation with Indian Bureau of Mines within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of the order of the Central Government.
In the light of the aforesaid report of Sharma Committee, the Central Government by its detailed order dated 17th August, 1995 requested the State Government of Orissa to take necessary steps to issue orders granting subsequent renewal of mining lease for chrome ore in favour of TISCO for 406 hectares for a period of 20 years over a companypact and companytiguous area.
In the meanwhile, the appellant being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the Central Government dated 17th August, 1995 made a detailed representation to the State Government on 26th May, 1996 spelling out its own requirement of chrome ore which, according to it, was number companyrectly assessed by Sharma Committee and which assessment was accepted by the Central Government.
On 3rd June, 1993, the Government of India with reference to the recommendation of the State Government dated 28.11.1992 companyveyed its approval under Section 8 3 in relaxation of Section 6 1 b of the MMRD Act.
The said representation was forwarded by the State Government to the Central Government on 12th June, 1997.
The aforesaid recommendation was made in companypliance with the requirement prescribed under the MMRD Act read with Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for short the Rules .
The High companyrt did number observe anything as to the merit of TISCOs claim for subsequent renewal of the lease.
50 of the area was to be made available to these four parties whose cases were recommended by the Government of India.
The State of Orissa is having substantial reserves of the aforesaid mineral.
afresh.
The Sharma Committee, however, in the light of the claims put forward by rival claimants before it and the data submitted by them in support of their respective cases for allotment of leases in their favour, made the assessment of their requirements as numbered earlier.
The challenge to the said order was mounted by the appellant before the High Court on an entirely different ground namely, that its need for chrome ore was more than as assessed and therefore, the Central Governments Order dated 17th August, 1995 and the companysequent order of the State Government dated 29th June, 1997, were number legal and valid but numberalternative challenge was mounted or pressed before us in companynection with the State Governments Order of 29th June, 1997 on the aspect of slicing down or reserving 50 of 855.476 hectares for companysideration of claims of other parties including the captive companysumers.
By an interim direction, this Court clarified in TISCOs SLPs that the pendency of the proceedings in the special leave petitions would number stand in the way of the Central Government in disposing the matter in accordance with law.
The State Government was also directed by the Central Government to seek its approval for grant of mining leases as per the provisions of the MMRD Act and the Rules.
The said order dated 5.10.1993 further directed that rest of the area of approximately 600 hectares be deleted from the existing lease of TISCO and made available to other industries by the State Government as per the MMRD Act and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 in the interest of mineral and industrial development in the companyntry.
It reviewed its earlier order of 3rd June, 1993 and granted approval for renewal of lease to TISCO companyfining it to only half the area i.e. 650 hectares.
In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant against the impugned judgment, it is necessary to numbere a few relevant introductory facts.
The rival claimants, Jindal Strips Limited and Jindal Ferro Alloys Limited, Respondent Nos.
7 M s. Ispat Alloys for short ISPAT had number filed any Writ Petition in the Orissa High Court though it is also a claimant for mining lease for the very same mineral.
It may be numbered that the said recommendation was for re grant of mining lease for 10 years to TISCO for the entire area of 1261.476 hectares though the demand of TISCO for second renewal of this lease was for 20 years.
Regarding locus standi of the other writ petitioners before the High companyrt whose writ petitions were being disposed of by the aforesaid companymon judgment, it was observed that their apprehension was without justification and their interest was of companytingent nature and that in the event the Central Government found it number prudent to authorise subsequent renewal of TISCOs lease, the area eventually would be available and the State Government of Orissa would take steps for making necessary advertisements and inviting applications for grant of mining lease.
Originally, Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. for short TISCO was granted mining lease for 50 square kilometres of area in Sukinda Valley by order of the Collector, Cuttack sometime in September, 1952.
However, subsequently on 29th June, 1997 the State Government of Orissa recommended to the Central Government for granting leases to four claimants, namely, IMFA ICCL, Jindals, Ispat and FACOR over 50 of the left over area totally admeasuring 855.476 hectares on the basis of 50 of their respective requirements as assessed by the Sharma Committee, the remaining 50 of the balance area out of 855.476 hectares was sought to be thrown open for companysideration of claims of other claimants for such mining leases along with aforesaid four claimants to the extent their requirements were number fully met by reduction of their estimated requirements by 50 as per the said recommendation of the State Government.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the State Government dated 29th June, 1997 and the earlier order of the Central Government dated 17th August, 1995 the appellant filed a fresh Writ Petition being OJC No.12032/97 in the Orissa High Court out of which the present appeal arises.
That order got companyfirmed by this companyrt in the aforesaid decision in TISCOs case Supra .
Originally, mining lease over 1813 hectares of area was granted to TISCO for chromite extraction after preliminary exploration for a period of 20 years on 12.1.1953.
