Acting on that report, on the very next day, August 17, 1995, the Central Government authorised the renewal of TISCOs lease over the reduced area of 406 hectares which, according to the Central Government, would meet TISCOs captive requirements and requested the State Government to issue orders for the same.
By its impugned order dated April 4, 1995 the High Court of Orissa struck down the renewal of TISCOs lease granted by the Central Government through its decisions dated June 3, 1993 and October 5, 1993.
SLP Nos.10838/95, 11391/95 and 11392/95 seek to challenge the order dated April 4, 1995 of the Orissa High Court and SLP Nos.22710/95, 23131/95 and 23132/95 seek to challenge the Central Governments decision dated August 17, 1995, made pursuant to the High Courts order dated April 4, 1995.
1 SCC 91, and directed the Central Government to hear the application for renewal of the lease, keeping in view the report submitted by the Rao Committee and the decision of this Court in the aforesaid case.
1992 submitted by the Director of Mines Geology, Orissa Recommended to the Central government that the entire lease of TISCO be renewed for a period of 10 years under Section 8 3 of the Act.
After the judgment of the High Court was delivered on April 4, 1995, a Committee was companystituted by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, under the Chairmanship of one Shri S.D. Sharma for rehearing and reconsidering the issue in regard to the renewal of mining lease to TISCO.
These appeals seek to challenge 1 the companymon judgment and order of the Orissa High Court dated April 4, 1995, arising out of OJC No.7729 of 1993 and allied matters and 2 the decision of the Central Government dated August 17, 1995 made pursuant to the said judgment of the High Court.
It set aside the orders dated June 3, 1993 and October 5, 1993, inter alia on the ground that the Central Government had number kept in view the recommendation made by the Rao Committee which was accepted by this Court in the case of Indian Metals Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 818, 1992 Supp.
However, before the formal lease companyld be executed, the Union Minister of State for Steel Mines, acting on a companyplaint filed by Shri G.C. Munda, Member of Parliament, directed that the matter be kept in abeyance.
On June 3, 1993, the Central Government authorised the renewal of the lease over the entire area of 1261.476 hectares.
On September 27, 1993, the said Union Minister wrote a letter to the Chief Minister of Orissa stating that the lease area of TISCO should be reduced by half and the balance should be distributed in an equitable manner taking into companysideration the need of genuine companysumers for captive companysumption.
While TISCOs writ petition was pending, ICCL and JSL filed writ petitions, being OJC No.5422/94 and OJC No.7054/94, challenging the renewal of TISCOs lease by the Central Government, both the order dated June 3, 1993 which had authorised the renewal of the entire lease area of 1261 hectares and the order dated October 5, 1993 which subsequently reduced the authorisation to 651 hectares were challenged.
Under the provisions of the Mineral Conservation Development Rules, 1988, framed under Section 18 of the Act, the Indian Bureau of Mines is also required to furnish relevant information to the Central Government.
Since the lease was to expire on January 12, 1973 TISCO sought its renewal which was duly granted under Section 8 2 in respect of 1261.476 hectares for a period of 20 years i.e. till January 11, 1993, subject to the companydition that lt would set up a beneficiation plant.
On October 22, 1952, it was granted a mining lease over an area of 1813 hectares for chromite for a period of 20 years.
By its order dated August 17, 1995, the Central Government while endorsing the finding of the Committee recommended to the State Government that TISCOs lease be renewed for 20 years over a reduced area of 406 hectares.
Meanwhile, FACOR, Ispat Alloys, JSL and Jindal Ferro Alloys Ltd. applied for mining leases of the area held by TISCO, but the State Government refused to entertain them as being premature under Rules 59 and 60 of the Mineral Concession Rules framed under the Act hereinafter called the Rules .
It applied to the Raja of Sukinda for a prospecting licence and was granted the same in 1952.
Subsequently, under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952, on the rights of the Raja having vested in the State Government, the latter recognised the lease of TISCO for a period of 20 years with effect from January 12, 1953.
On October 3, 1991, more than a year prior to the date of expiry of the lease, TISCO applied for a second renewal under Section 8 3 of the Act for a further period of 20 years, On November 28, 1992, the State Government, acting on the basis of a favourable report dated March 31.
The Committee submitted a report dated August 16, 1995, recommending renewal of the lease for a reduced area to TISCO.
On October 19, 1993, TISCO filed a writ petition in the High Court, being OJC No.7729/93, under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated October 5, 1993, inter alia on the ground that the scheme of equitable distribution on mining leases on the basis of need of an industry is extrancous to the companycept of mineral development, which alone is relevant under Section 8 3 .
On October 5, 1993, the Central Government superseded its earlier approval dated June 3, 1993, and renewed TISCOs lease over a reduced area of 651 hectares.
The principal respondents are the Union of India, the State of Orissa, M s. Indian Charge Chrome Limited, hereinafter called ICCL , Indian Metal Ferro Alloys Limited hereinafter called IMFA , M s. Jindal Strips Limited, hereinafter called JSL , Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited hereinafter called FACOR and Ispat Alloys Limited.
Ahmadi, CJI Special leave granted.
The appellants in these appeals are the Tata Iron and Steel Company, Limited, hereinafter called TISCO and the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Limited hereinafter called IDCOL .
It claims that it was the first to discover Chrome ore in the Sukinda Valley, Orissa, in the year 1949.
The reasons for the reduction were also provided.
of the Act.
The factual matrix of the case is as follows The appellant, TISCO, is a limited companypany, one of whose primary objects has been to carry on business as a mining industry.
On April 27, 1993, the Indian Bureau of Mines, after analysing the mining plan submitted by TISCO, recommended to the Central Government that TISCOS lease be renewed in its entirety.
In the case of TISCO, after taking into account all the technical grounds and objections put forth by the learned companynsel for TISCO, the Committee came to the companyclusion that its lease should be granted renewal for a period of 20 years over a companytiguous area of 461 hectares.
Thereafter, it directed the Central Government to reconsider TISCOs application for renewal of the lease in accordance with law the Central Government was also directed to give a personal hearing to, and companysider the applications of, the other parties before the Court.
The High Court of Orissa after hearing lengthy arguments of companynsel appearing for different interests including the Central and the State Governments companycluded in paragraph 57 of its judgment that two companyrses were open to it, namely, i to accept the submission of the companynsel for the State Government that all the writ petitions should be dismissed and the parties may be asked to exhaust the alternative remedy of permitting the State Government to take a decision as authorised by the Central Government and if any party is aggrieved it may move the Central Government under the Act and the Rules, or ii the Court may dispose of the writ petitions giving certain specific directions in the shape of guidelines to the Governments as well as other authorities under the Act to companysider in the light thereof if there is any necessity to renew the lease for the whole or part of the area companyered under the lease.
While the first four special leave petitions have been filed by TISCO, the last two have been filed by IDCOL.
