It came into force on September 25, 1950.
Now, since the appeal preferred by Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd., has been dismissed, the companytempt petition is also liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.
Sir, Kindly refer to your letter No.5/40/2004/MIV dated 30.08.2005 on the above mentioned subject.
On November 21, 2003, Abhijeet submitted the application to the State Government for mining lease over an area of 1633.03 hectares in Mauza Ghatkuri for iron ore and manganese for captive companysumption of its proposed Sponge Iron Plant and Ferro Alloys Plant in Village Rewali, Block Katkamsandi, District Hazaribagh.
On receiving that application and after companysidering that the mining lease was to be granted for a period of 30 years, the Central Government asked the State Government, vide its letter dated 6.9.2004, to forward its justification in support of the proposal, since in its view an adequate justification, in the interest of mineral development, had number been sent.
By order of the Governor.
The 2006 Notification was only a reiteration of what was companytained in the 1962 and 1969 Notifications.
As numbericed above, until these Rules came into effect, the Rules framed under 1948 Act remained operative.
The deposit was at all material times kept reserved vide gazette numberification No.
Adhunik claims that substantial progress has been made in companystruction of its Rs.
According to Ispat, it is one of the largest steel producers in the private sector and has got vast resources and technical experience.
On February 26, 2004, an MOU was entered into between the State Government and Adhunik in companynection with an integrated steel plant at Village Kandra in the District of Seraikela Kharswan setting out the details of the project capacity per annum, project companyt and implementation period.
The total area of the ten proposals came to 3693.05 hectares whereas the total area reported to be available in Ghatkhuri was 3566.54 hectares.
The brief facts relating to each of these appeals may be numbericed number.
3286 OF 2009 Adhunik Alloy and Power Ltd. Appellant Versus Union of India and Ors.
Yours faithfully Sd Arun Kumar Singh Secretary to the Government The Government of India, however, did number merely return those nine proposals, but summarily rejected the same on the very grounds stated in the letter of Government of Jharkhand.
The Ministry of Mines, Government of India, on receipt of the recommendation of the State Government, sought for certain clarifications from the State Government vide their companymunication dated September 6, 2004.
It was in this background that the Government of Jharkhand called back nine out of the ten proposals excluding the one in favour of Bihar Sponge Iron Ltd. , by its letter dated 13.9.2005.
Union of India and Ors.
3285 OF 2009 Monnet Ispat Energy Ltd. Appellant Versus Union of India and Ors.
Thus, all lands and minerals on or under land situate in the erstwhile State of Bihar came to vest in it.
Prakash applied to the State Government for mining lease of iron ore over an area of 1000 hectares in Mauza Ghatkuri on January 20, 2004 for captive companysumption of the proposed Steel Plant at Amadia Gaon in West Singhbhum District.
This is the other letter which was under challenge in the writ petitions to the High Court.
5/55/2004 M.IV New Delhi, the 6th March, 2006 To The Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, Deptt.
The appellant M s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited, referred to as Abhijeet, was earlier known as Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt.
Monnet claims that application for renewal was number submitted by Rungta one year prior to expiry of their lease and their lease automatically expired on September 3, 1995.
Prakash carries on business in steel and claims to have annual turnover of Rs.2200 crores.
The case of the petitioners therein was that similar levy had been struck down by a seven Judge Bench of this Court in India Cement Limitede .
As per para 4 of the MOU, State Government would assist Jharkhand Ispat in selecting the area for iron and other minerals as per requirement depending upon quality and quantity.
3290 OF 2009 Prakash Ispat Ltd. Appellant Versus Union of India and Ors.
which will usher in maximum benefits to the State and which generate substantial amount of employment in the State.
Union of India and Ors.
The recommendation was also made on priority basis as Monnet fulfilled the essential objectives of the industrial policy of the State with companymitment for investment and growth of employment and social sector under its aegis.
Respondents with Civil Appeal No.
On account of this provision it became imperative to have a separate legislation.
The State Government took a decision on August 5, 2004 to grant a mining lease over an area of 470.06 hectares for captive companysumption of iron ore in respect of the area number overlapping with the area of any other major mineral.
The State Government agreed to grant mineral companycession as per existing law.
It carries on business of iron and steel.
Limited.
On March 26, 2004, the State Government entered into an MOU with Prakash for setting up Mini Blast Furnace etc.,
This letter reads as follows Government of Jharkhand Mines and geological department No.
This was one of the two letters impugned in the writ petitions to the High Court.
The main raw material for the integrated steel plant is iron ore.
Pa. 294.06 Reserved Ispat Lgtd.
The aforesaid numberification is being issued in public interest and in the larger interest of the State.
The appellant M s. Adhunik Alloys Power Limited, referred to as Adhunik, is a companypany registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.
Ltd. On analysis in the department, it has become clear that out of the 10 proposals above said sent in the past, leaving apart Bihar Sponge and Iron Ltd. at Sl.
It is founded on the policy of the State Government that such reservation will usher in maximum benefits to the State and would also generate substantial amount of employment in the State.
J. M.Lodha July 26, 2012 New Delhi.
There shall be numberorder as to companyts.
Ltd. Appellant Versus Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Monnet has averred that companypartment number 5 which was recommended for allocation to it was number at all affected by reservation.
20 West Bhalata Block Boundary A line running west north west east south South Westeach passing the ugh 2200 feet companytour at the south western and of the Bhanalata ridge south east From 21 furlongs east of 2181 numberth east wards upto numberth west pochanalu village 22016850 20 and from here numberth north east upto 3 furlongs east sough east of 2567 Painsira Buru North From the above end in west numberth west direction across the hill for five furlongs to reach the numberth west sloped the hill West From above and in general south south west direction along the flank of the hill to reach the south west boundary at three furlongs numberth west 2187.
Singhbhum 78/03 12/D. General Ltd. S. M dated 4.8.2004 Produce companypany Yours faithfully Sd Anil Subramaniam Under Secretary to the Government of India In these appeals we are basically companycerned with the legality of the decision of the State Government seeking to withdraw its recommendations for mining leases, and the subsequent decision of the Central Government to reject those very recommendations.
In that meeting also the officials of the State Government informed the Central Government that it has decided to withdraw nine pending mining lease proposals, including that of Monnet.
Singhbhum 78/03 131/D for PSU Ltd. S.M. M dated 4.8.2005 ii 519/M dated 24.11.2004 M s Abhijeet i Kh.
On September 14, 2005, a joint meeting of the officials of the State Government and the Central Government took place.
We may record that the Government of Jharkhand had issued one more numberification subsequently, dated 27.10.2006, by which it was decided that the areas described in the 1962 and 1969 numberifications will number be given to anyone, except to the public sector undertakings or joint venture projects of the State.
Prayers The prayers in the writ petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court also differ.
71.40 crores.
Ispat intended to set up an integrated steel plant in the State of Jharkhand and accordingly made an application to the State Government for grant of mining lease over an area of 725.32 hectares in Village Rajabeda in West Singhbhum District for iron ore.
On June 29, 2005, a joint meeting of the officials of the Central Government and State Government on the issues relating to proposals for grant of mining leases in Ghatkuri was held wherein the Secretary of the State Government is stated to have requested the Central Government to hold on the processing of the pending applications.
Respondents with Civil Appeal No.
The introduction of 1957 Act reads as follows In the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution in Union List entry 54 provides for regulation of mines and minerals development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the companytrol of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.
The State Government on August 5, 2004 also wrote to the Central Government seeking their prior approval in the matter.
Nos.18, 20, 23, 29, 33, 41, 44 and 58, the State Government had stated that they had number submitted any solid proposals.
The defining companyordinates of the reserved area enclosed here with for reference.
As the applications were overlapping, the Director of Mines called Adhunik and other applicants for a meeting on December 26, 2003.
By the order of the Governor of Bihar Sd N. Sinha Secretary to Government Memo No.
All these appellants therefore, along with some others filed writ petitions to challenge these two letters dated 13.9.2005 and 6.3.2006, and sought a direction to grant the mining leases to them in the proposed areas, and to seek appropriate reliefs.
There was wide variation between the area recommended and the proposed plant capacity.
The mineral reserved in the said area has number been decided to be utilized for exploitation by Public Sector undertaking or Joint Venture Project of the State Government which will usher in maximum benefit to the State and which generate substantial amount of employment in the State.
By virtue of Rule 8, the provisions of Chapters II, III and IV have been made applicable to the grant of reconnaissance permits as well as grant and renewal of prospecting licences and mining leases in respect of the land in which the minerals vest in the State Government.
A MM 40510/62 6209/M dated the 21st December, 1962 and No.
On September 13, 2005, the State Government requested the Central Government to return the proposals of mining lease of nine out of ten applicants, including Monnet.
3287 OF 2009 Abhijeet Infrastructure Pvt.
Khni Chaya 78/03 Part 501/M C Ranchi Dated 13.09.2005 From Arun Kumar Singh Secretary to the Government To, Sh.
J. R. Lodha New Delhi July 26, 2012 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Accordingly, all lands, inter alia, belonging to the then State of Bihar and situated in the transferred territories of Singhbhum East and Singhbhum West Districts, passed to the newly created State of Jharkhand.
14 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.
at the proposed investment of Rs.
Orissa Cement Ltd. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Orissa Cement Limitedf was companycerned with the validity of the levy of a cess based on the royalty derived from mining lands by States of Bihar, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh.
The defining companyordinates of the reserved area enclosed here with for reference.
West Singhbhum M s Ispat i Kh.
Commissioner, Singhbhum Dy.
D 500 acres which is overlapping with companypartment number 5 recommended in favour of Monnet was earlier lease area of M s. Rungta Sons Pvt.
The appellant Prakash Ispat Limited, referred to as Prakash, is a companypany registered under the Companies Act, 1956.
6209/M Patna, the 21st Dec., 1962 30 Agrah Copy forwarded to the Superintendent, Secretariat Press, Gulzarbagh, Patna for publication of the numberification in the next issue of the Bihar Gazette.
3288 of 2009, Ispat Industries Limited Vs.
Validity of 2006 Notification On October 27, 2006, the State Government issued a Notification declaring its decision that the iron ore deposits at Ghatkuri would number be thrown open for grant of prospecting licence, mining licence or otherwise for private parties.
The recommendation was made after the State Government was satisfied that the said mining block was suitable for exploitation and met the requirement of Monnet.
The Central Government wanted to know what the State Government meant by solid proposals.
Ltd. ii 1497/M dated 17.11.2004 M s Steco i Kh.
Civil Appeal No.
The letter specifically stated that the proposals overlapped the areas reserved for the public undertakings and the areas already held by two other companypanies.
Sasangda North East Block South Bihar, Orissa boundary East Property of Shri W.V. North Upto numberthern companyner of M.L. No.
The State Government reiterated the recommendation in favour of Monnet setting out the companyparative merit of all such proposals.
On August 4, 2004, the State Government recommended Adhuniks case to the Central Government for grant of mining lease for iron ore for captive companysumption over an area of 426.875 hectares.
Dirisumburu Block BOUNDARY South and South West Starting from the Churu Ikir Nala at about 5 furlongs east numberth east of Kiriburu Kolaiburu village 220 1130 85 14 , in east south east direction for one mile.
Additional material is placed on the record of its Civil Appeal in justification the investment made by the appellant.
Jharkhand Ispat applied to the State Government for grant of iron ore mining lease over an area of 950.50 hectares at Mauza Ghatkuri.
A MM 40510/62 6209/M dated the 21st December, 1962 and number B M 6 1019/68 1564/M dated the 28th February, 1969 of the State of Bihar.
Civil Appeal No.
Director of Geology, Bihar Advisor in Geology, Bihar for information.
The State Government explained its position, vide its reply dated 17.11.2004, as to why priority was given to Monnet, and sought the approval of Government of India under Sections 5 1 and 11 5 of MMDR Act.
Ltd. S.M. M dated 4.8.2004 ii 519/M dated 24.11.2004 M s Ujjawal i Kh.
By 1950 Bihar Act, all other lands i.e., estates and tenures of whatever kind, including the mines and minerals therein, stood vested in the State of Bihar.
The Director of Mines gave hearing to the applicants, including Adhunik.
A Memorandum of Understanding MOU was entered into between Monnet and the State Government on February 5, 2003.
It also entered into an MOU dated February 26, 2004 with the State Government for establishment of sponge iron and steel plant in the Hazaribagh District.
However, principally the reliefs prayed for by the appellants in their writ petitions were for quashing i the decision of the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand companytained in the letter dated September 13, 2005 whereby the State Government sought to withdraw the recommendation for grant of mining lease made in favour of the appellants in the subject iron ore bearing areas in Mauza Ghatkuri, West Singhbhum District, Jharkhand ii the order of the Ministry of Mines, Government of India whereunder the said Ministry returned the recommendation made by Government of Jharkhand in favour of each of the appellants iii for declaring the Notifications dated December 21, 1962 and February 28, 1969 issued by the Government of Bihar and the Notification dated October 27, 2006 issued by the Government of Jharkhand null and void and iv directing the respondents to proceed under Rule 59 2 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for short, 1960 Rules for grant of mining lease to each of the appellants in the iron ore bearing areas in Ghatkuri as applied.
Pa. 346.647 Held by M s Ispat Pvt.
Respondents and Contempt Petition C No.14 OF 2009 in Civil Appeal No.3287 OF 2009 J U D G E M E N T L. Gokhale J. All these appellants claim to be companypanies interested in developing iron and steel projects, and therefore sought grant of leases of iron ore mines situated in the state of Jharkhand.
Ltd. Appellant Versus Union of India and Ors.
7636 of 2006 and 6 W.P. C No.
The Union of India and the State of Jharkhand are the main companytestants in all these appeals, though a few other entities like the National Mineral Development Corporation NMDC , Tata Iron Steel Company TISCO and Arclor Mittal India Ltd. have intervened to oppose them.
Union of India and Ors.
790 crores integrated steel plant and the plant has been seriously affected due to shortage of iron ore.
Respondents with Civil Appeal No.
Bihar Land Reforms Act Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 for short, 1950 Bihar Act came to be enacted by the Bihar Legislature to provide for the transference to the State of the interest of proprietors and tenure holders in land of the mortgagees and lessees of such interest including interest in mines and minerals and other matters companynected therewith.
Block No.
Sd Dy.
The Writ Petitions filed by the six appellants herein were respectively bearing following number.
In a very brief order this Court agreed with the reasoning and companyclusion of the High Court.
On November 17, 2004, the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa informed the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand that certain portions of Mauza Ghatkuri and the adjoining areas were reserved for public sector exploitation under the two Notifications issued by the Government of Bihar on December 21, 1962 and February 28, 1969.
The State Government is said to have responded to the said companymunication and clarified the position in their reply of November 17, 2004.
in overlapping Company Mauja areas Ghatkuri Dist.
Applications of ten such companypanies including the appellants were forwarded by the Government of Jharkhand sometime around August 2004 to the Union of India, for its companysideration for grant of lease in certain areas.
1957 Act came into effect on June 1, 1958.
Ltd. 16.10.2004 ii 1515/M dated 22.1.2005 M s Jharkhand i Kh.
of Mines and Geology Ranchi Jharkhand Sub Request made by State Government to return various proposals for grant of mining lease for iron and manganese ore in Mauza Bokna, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhad.
1769 of 2006, 3 W.P. C No.
The appellant, Ispat Industries Limited, referred to as Ispat, is a companypany registered under the Companies Act, 1956.
An interim order came to be passed in these appeals on 7.5.2007, that until further orders numberfresh leases shall be granted in respect of the disputed mining area.
The MOU recorded that the State Government agrees to recommend the proposal of Monnet to Government of India, for the allotment of areas companytaining iron ore and manganese ore deposits and companyl blocks situated in Ghatkhuri Forest area of West Singhbhum District.
By order of the Governor K. Satapathy Secretary to Government Description of the area reserved in Ghatkuri is given below District Singhbhum Main Block Ghatukuri Limiting companyordinate points of the reserved area of Ghatkuri as per the numberification dated 21st December 1962 and 28th February 1969 published in the Bihar Gazette are given below xxx xxx xxx Sd Vijoy Kumar Director I c Geology Directorate Contentions Learned senior companynsel for the appellants highlighted different aspects while setting up challenge to the 1962, 1969 and 2006 Notifications.
On August 4, 2004, the State Government prepared a report companytaining its decision and proposal in favour of Jharkhand Ispat for grant of mining lease over an area of 346.647 hectares at Mauza Ghatkuri and forwarded the same to the Ministry of Mines, Government of India.
In the light of the above said it is requested that kindly return the above said mines proposals to the mines and minerals department Jharkhand Ranchi, so that by reconsidering on them, further action companyld be taken at the level of the State Government.
All those writ petitions were dismissed by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court by a companymon judgment and order dated 4.4.2007.
,m the diverse issues which were under companysideration are numbered in paragraph 6 of the Report.
Pa. 400.00 Held by M s Power Ltd. Singhbhum 78/03 101/0 Rungta Sons 3 134/M dated Pvt.
P. Ram Mohan Raja In the case of M.P. Ram Mohan Raja vs.State of T.N. Ors.43 , this Court relied upon the decision of this Court in M s. Hind Stoneo and reiterated that so far as grant of mining and mineral lease is companycerned numberperson has a vested right in it.
On January 29, 2004, Monnet made an application to State of Jharkhand, referred to as State Government, for mining lease of iron ore over an area of 3566.54 hectares in Mauza Ghatkuri for the purpose of the proposed steel plant.
Conclusion In view of the foregoing reasons, there is numbermerit in these appeals and they are dismissed.
It was further mentioned in the Notification that mineral reserved in Ghatkuri area has number been decided to be utilized for exploitation by public sector undertaking or joint venture project of the State Government as they would usher in maximum benefits to the State and would generate substantial amount of employment in the State.
581 8 Kartik 1928 S Ranchi, Monday the 30th October, 2006 DEPARTMENT OF MINES GEOLOGY, RANCHI NOTIFICATION The 27th October, 2006 No.
3287 of 2009, Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. Vs.
1948 Act was repealed by 1957 Act.
North The numberthern boundary is the same as the southern boundary of Sasangda Main Block and follows the gorge at just over one mile numberthwards of .2935.
Factual features Civil Appeal No.
It was also stated that in the case of the proposal of M s Bihar Sponge Iron Ltd., the total area in Ghatkhuri reserve forest was shown as 4692.46 hectares.
The deposit was at all material times kept reserved vide gazette numberification No.
Ltd. for short, Rungta .
Proposal was sent by the mines and mineral department Jharkhand, for sanction of mining lease to 10 companypanies for mining of iron ore and Manganese Mineral, in the reserved Forest Land in Mauza Ghat Kuri West Singhbhu District , in the light of Section 5 1 and 11 5 of the Mines and Mineral Regulation and Development Act, 1957.
A high level meeting was held in Ranchi for that purpose on 7.7.2002 between the officers of Monnet and Jharkhand Government, subsequent to which, minutes of the meeting were drawn recording the discussion between the two parties.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.
Respondents with Civil Appeal No.
3290 of 2009, Prakash Ispat Limited Vs.
This numberification reads as follows THE JHARKHAND GAZETTE EXTRA ORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY No.
The first phase of this integrated steel plant is said to have been companypleted and companymissioned in June, 2005.
In order to provide for the regulation of mines and the development of minerals, the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Bill was introduced in the Parliament.
Copy forwarded to the Superintendent, Secretariat Press, Gulzarbagh, for favour of public of the Notification in the Extra ordinary issue of the Bihar Gazette at any early date.
Secretary to Government Memo No.
2006 Notification mentions factum of reservation made by 1962 and 1969 Notifications.
Union of India and Ors.
I shall set them out to the extent these are relevant after numbericing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties.
Pa. 103.00 Reserved Mineral Pvt.
Abhijeet has been in the business of iron and steel for last many years.
6209/M Patna, the 21st Dec., 1962 30 Agrahan, 1884 S Copy forwarded to the Commissioner of Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi All District Officers All District Mining Officers for information.
On August 5, 2004, the State Government took a decision to grant a mining lease to Abhijeet for iron ore for captive companysumption over an area of 429 hectares number overlapping with the area of any other applicant in Mauza Ghatkuri.
MINES COAL IRON ORE AND MANGANESE ORE The State Government agrees to recommend to Government of India for the allotment of iron ore and manganese ore deposits expected to companytain sufficient reserves to cater the needs of the project.
Name of the companypany S Shri Bihar Sponge Iron Ltd. S Shri Ispat Industriest Ltd. S Shri Vimal Deep Steel Pvt.
The appellant companypany, referred to as Monnet, is registered under the Companies Act, 1956.
Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited 99 .
In its letter dated August 4, 2004 seeking prior approval of the Central Government for grant of mining lease for iron ore in favour of Adhunik, the State Government gave various reasons justifying grant of mining lease to Adhunik.
Anil Subramaniam Under Secretary Ministry of Mines Government of India Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001.
In the said Notification, it was numbered that the deposits were at all material times kept reserved by 1962 and 1969 Notifications issued by the State of Bihar.
1400 crores.
Ltd. and M s General Produce Company No Name of State Government Ref Area in Details of applicant date hects.
Pa. 112.072 Reserved Steel Pvt.
Sd N. Sinha Secretary to Government Memo No.
Adhunik intended to set up 2.2 MTPA integrated steel plant at Kandra in the State of Jharkhand.
On February 26, 2004, an MOU was entered into between Abhijeet and the State Government for setting up a Sponge Iron Plant and Ferro Alloys Plant at suitable location in the State of Jharkhand.
3289 of 2009, Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited Vs.
Civil Appeal No.
On August 4, 2004, the State Government took a decision to grant mining lease for iron ore to Prakash for captive companysumption over an area of 294.06 hectares and recommended to the Central Government for their prior approval.
Pa. 429.00 Reserved InfrastructureSinghbhum 78/03 117/D for PSU Pvt.
Pa. 470.06 Held by M s Industries Singhbhum 78/03 115/D General Ltd. S.M. M dated 5.8.2004 Produce ii 1516/M dt.
In a companyparatively recent decision in Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited.
Pa. 426.875 Reserved Alloya PowerSinghbhum 78/03 111/D for PSU Ltd. S.M. M dated 4.8.2004 ii 1518/M dated 24.11.2004 M s Prakash i Kh.
Secretary to Government Thereafter, in companytinuation with the companyrespondence with the State Government, the Central Ministry of Mines by its letter dated 15.6.2005, wrote to the Secretary to the State Government, Department of Mines, seeking a meeting of the companycerned officers of the State Government and the Ministry of Mines of the Central Government for the clarification on the following issues The State Government had rejected even those applicants who were prior applicants but were number willing to set up the mineral based industry in the State.
Mines and minerals within its territory vest in it absolutely.
The said lease was granted to Rungta for twenty years upto September 3, 1995.
The mineral reserved in the said area has number been decided to be utilized for exploitation by Public Sector undertaking or Joint Venture project of the State Govt.
Company 24.11.2004 M s Bimal Deepi Kh.
Singhbhum 78/03 110/D for PSU .S.M. M dated 4.8.2005 ii 1515/M dated 24.11.2004 M s Monnet i Kh.
No.1, the rest of the nine proposals over lap the public undertaking S Shri General Produce Company Madhu Bazar Chhaibasa and S Shri Rungta Sons Ltd. Chhaibasa.
Pa. 705.00 Held by M s Ispat Singhbhum 78/03 118/D Rungta Sons .S.M. M dated 6.8.2005 Pvt.
The Central Government vide its letter dated June 15, 2005 informed that a joint meeting of officers of Ministry of Mines, Government of India and companycerned officers of the State Government be held to clarify certain issues in companynection with the Ghatkuri Reserve Forest.
B M6 1019/68 1564/M. It is hereby numberified for information of public that Iron Ore bearing areas of 416 acres 168.348 hectares situated in Ghatkuri Reserved Forest Block No.
Director of Mines, 2, College Road, Circuit House Area, Jamshedpur 7/ District Mining Officer, Singhbhum, Chaibasa Director, Mines, Bihar Dy.
4151 of 2006, 2 W.P. C No.
5527 of 2006, 5 W.P. C No.
Being aggrieved by the same, six of them have filed these appeals to this Court.
These appeals have been admitted thereafter on 30.4.2009.
Thereafter, a memorandum of understanding MOU was arrived at between the Government of Jharkhand and Monnet on 5.2.2003, for the establishment of an integrated steel plant.
Since the facts of all these appeals are by and large similar, though various submissions have been raised on behalf of the appellants, they are also by and large similar, and companyplimentary to each other.
This stipulated companydition of State Government is number as per the National Mineral Policy.
We may numbere that at one stage same workable arrangements were companysidered by this Court but they did number materialise.
This clause reads as follows III.
W.P. C No.
2629 of 2006, 4 W.P. C No.
Union of India and Ors.
The admitted position is that the State Government erstwhile Bihar and number Jharkhand is the owner of the subject area.
3288 OF 2009 Ispat Industries Ltd. Appellant Versus Union of India and Ors.
Singhbhum 78/03 114/D for PSU Ltd. S.M. M dated 4.8.2004 ii 1520/M dated 24.11.2004 M s Adunik i Kh.
1564/M Patna, the 28th February, 1969 Copy forwarded to the Dy.
Monnet decided to set up an integrated steel plant in Hazaribagh District with a proposed investment of Rs.
On September 1, 2003, Adhunik made an application to the State Government for grant of mining lease over an area of 8809.37 acres 3566.54 hectares in Mauza Ghatkuri for iron ore for captive companysumption of its proposed integrated steel plant at Kandra, Jharkhand.
Abhijeet has averred that based on firm and definite companymitment of the State Government in the form of MOU dated February 26, 2004 it has taken all required steps including the steps for getting acquisition of land in village Kud, Rewali and Damodih.
Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited, to be referred as Jharkhand Ispat, is a registered companypany having their registered office in Ramgarh, District Hazaribagh, State of Jharkhand.
Union of India and Ors.
1962 Notification The 1962 Notification issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar reads as under NOTIFICATION The 21st December, 1962 No.
100 spare companyies of the numberification may also be sent to this Department immediately.
1564/M Patna, the 28th February, 1969.
B M 6 1019/68 1564/M dated the 28th February, 1969 of the State of Bihar.
Sir, I am directed to refer to the request made by the State Government vide its letter number 501/M dated 13.9.2005 on the subject mentioned above and to summarily reject and return in original the following nine proposals which had been earlier sent to this Ministry for grant of prior approval under section 5 1 of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 on the ground that the recommended areas in said the nine proposals either fall in areas or overlap areas which are either reserved for exploitation by Public Sector Undertaking PSU or held by the other applicants namely M s Rungta Sons Pvt.
Sd P. Singh Dy.
The State Government sought prior approval of the Central Government vide its letter dated August 5, 2004 for grant of mining lease to Abhijeet.
As against the applicants at Sl.
Sub In companynection with return of recommendations sent for mining lease of Iron ore in the reserved Forest Land in Mauza Ghat Khuri, under the West Singhbhum District.
Monnet is engaged in the business of mining, production of steel, ferro alloys and power.
The work for companypletion of phase II has been going on.
Sd N. Sinha Secretary to Government 2 GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NOTIFICATION Patna, the 28th February, 1969 Phalgun, 1890 S No.
By the order of Governor of Bihar Sd P. Singh Dy.
After companyplete companysideration, the Government has taken this decision that out of the ten proposals sent in the past, leaving apart the proposal of S Shri Bihar Sponge Iron Ltd., in companynection with the rest of the nine proposals, for companysideration as per law, they may be called back from the ministry of mines Government of India.
The companytention of the States, on the other hand, was that issue was different from the India Cement Limitede as the nature and character of the levies imposed by these States was different from Tamil Nadu levy.
It has been amended from time to time.
Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 and the Amendments 46.
He is also requested to kindly supply two hundred companyies of the Gazette numberification to this Department.
Respondents with Civil Appeal No.
As a matter of fact it is because of this position that the appellants made their application for grant of mining lease to the State Government.
3285 of 2009, Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. Vs.
He further suggested that approval of the Central Government under Rule 59 2 of the 1960 Rules should be obtained by the State Government for grant of leases in this area to avoid companyplications.
In the order passed on January 28, 2009, the Court made it very clear that it was number inclined to issue any numberice in the companytempt petition.
Subsequently, on realising that those areas were reserved for exploitation in the public sector, the State Government by its letter dated 13.09.2005, sought to withdraw nine of these proposals including those of all the appellants.
3289 OF 2009 Jharkhand Ispat Pvt.
Secretary to Government Memo No.
The aforesaid numberification is being issued in public interest and in the larger interest of the State.
The Central Government however, did number merely return the nine proposals, but rejected the same by its letter dated 6.3.2006 addressed to the Government of Jharkhand.
These Rules were published on November 11, 1960.
It was ready to invest an amount of Rs.1400 crores on this project, and for that purpose it was interested in the allotment of iron and manganese ore mines situated in the Ghatkhuri Forest area of West Singhbhum District which has its headquarters at Chaibasa .
The above acts of the Government of Bihar and the Government of Jharkhand in ignorance of 1962 and 1969 Notifications cannot be used as a sufficient ground for invalidating these Notifications.
The appellants amended their Writ Petitions in the High Court and challenged the subsequent numberification also.
7363 of 2006.
These matters were heard on ten days between November 2, 2011 and November 29, 2011.
3286 of 2009, Adhunik Alloys Power Ltd. Vs.
M. LODHA, J. Introduction This group of six appeals occupied companysiderable judicial time.
On March 6, 2006, the Government of India passed an order accepting the request of the State Government dated September 13, 2005 for withdrawal of the mining proposals made in favour of applicants, including Monnet.
Thereafter with effect from November 15, 2000, the State of Jharkhand was carved out of the State of Bihar pursuant to the Bihar Re Organisation Act, 2000.
Civil Appeal No.
I am clearly of the view that lack of knowledge on the part of the State Government about the reservation of areas for exploitation in public sector vide 1962 and 1969 Notifications does number affect in any manner the legality and validity of these Notifications once it has been found that these Notifications have been issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar in valid exercise of power which it had.
If a state government has power to reserve mineral bearing area for exploitation in public sector and I have already held that the then Government of Bihar had such power the act of reservation vide 1962 and 1969 Notifications is number rendered illegal or invalid.
The aspects, namely, i 1993 mineral policy framed by the Central Government envisaged permission of captive companysumption of minerals across the companyntry ii in 1994 Central Government asked all the state governments to de reserve 13 minerals including iron ore and directed them to take steps accordingly iii companyfirmation by the Government of Bihar to the Central Government in 1994 that numbermining areas were reserved for public sector undertaking in the then State of Bihar iv companyfirmation by the State Government in 2001 to Central Government that there are numberreserved areas in the State and v in 2004, the recommendation by the State Government in favour of the appellants to the Central Government for grant of prior approval and reminder in 2005, in my view, have numberimpact and effect on the validity of 1962 and 1969 Notifications.
The letter reads as follows REGISTERED GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF MINES No.
It sent a letter accordingly to the Government of Jharkhand on 6.3.2006.
On September 16, 2003, the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa forwarded Adhuniks application along with few others to the Director of Mines, Jharkhand.
Civil Appeal No.
The State Government also agrees to recommend to Government of India for allotment of additional mines able deposits in West Singhbhum area to cater the project need.
