The validity of the numberification dated 23.8.1991 is an issue in SLP c No.
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.
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.
Thereafter, even revised ML PL application of M s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Were rejected.
Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, though the BPSL has been given Thakurani Block A, the order has number been implemented qua Keora, District Sundargarh.
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of the disputes between the members of the Bhushan Group has altered the situation companysiderably, since BSSL has withdrawn its claim under the MOU dated 15th May, 2002 and has declared that the said MOU was and had always been executed by the State Government in favour of Bhushan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.
These applications were favourably companysidered by the State Government which agreed to accord due priority to Bhushan Limited for grant of suitable iron ore areas and also agreed to recommend the proposal to the Government of India for grant of a Coal Block.
14 of 2013, this I.A. is preferred by M s. Shri Mahavir Ferro Alloys Pvt.
That is precisely the cause for filing Contempt Petition Civil No.
A. No.
On 28.2.2006, Bhushan Limited altered its name to BPSL.
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.
374 of 2012 by BPSL.
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.
However, this recommendation was withdrawn for certain reasons.
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.
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.
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.
2790 of 2012 was filed by M s. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. formerly known as Bhushan Limited hereinafter referred to as BPSL .
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.
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.
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 had also applied for grant of lease of mining of iron ore for use in the proposed plant.
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.
For this purpose it had made a request for acquisition of land, measuring 1250 acres, which was acquired for Bhushan Limited.
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.
K SIKRI, J. All the aforesaid matters were heard analogously as they are inter companynected.
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.
31593 of 2010 and companynected cases which are number listed for hearing on 17.01.2013 before another Division Bench of this Honble Court.
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.
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.
Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by the Division Bench on 3.7.2012.
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.
