9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1075 - SC - Indian LawsDenial of mining lease of iron ore reserves - Contempt of Court - Held that - There is a judgment, inter parties, which has become final. Even when the Civil Appeal was being heard, certain other parties claiming their interest in these very lands had moved intervention applications which were dismissed. At that time also it was mentioned that there are 195 applicants. However, notwithstanding the same, this Court issued firm directions to the State Government to recommend the case of the petitioners for mining lease in both the areas. In view of such categorical and unambiguous directions given in the judgment which has attained finality, merely because another judgment has been delivered by this Court in Sandur Manganese case, cannot be a ground to undo the directions contained in the judgment 2012 (3) TMI 418 - SUPREME COURT . In so far as law laid down in Sandur Manganese (2010 (9) TMI 1058 - Supreme Court Of India) is concerned, that may be applied and followed by the State Government in respect of other applications which are still pending. However, that cannot be pressed into service qua the petitioner whose rights have been crystallised by the judgment rendered in its favour. It cannot be re-opened, that too at the stage of implementation of the said judgment. Respondents/ Contemners are in contempt of orders dated 14.3.2012 passed by this Court in not complying with the directions in respect of Keora area. However, we are giving one final opportunity to them to purge the contempt by transmitting requisite recommendations to the Central Government. It would be for the Central Government to consider the said recommendations on its own merits and in accordance with law. In case the recommendation is sent within one month from the date of copy of receipt of this order, we propose not to take any further action and the respondents/ contemners shall stand discharged from this Contempt Petition. - Decided in favour of Appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of mining lease to Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (BPSL) in Thakurani and Keora areas. 2. Contempt Petition filed by BPSL for non-compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment. 3. State of Orissa's application expressing difficulties in implementing the judgment. 4. Writ petitions filed by Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL), Jindal Steel and Power Limited, and Shri Mahavir Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. seeking similar relief as BPSL. Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of Mining Lease to BPSL: The Supreme Court reviewed the case of BPSL, which had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the State Government for the grant of iron ore mines in Thakurani and Keora areas for its steel plant. The High Court had dismissed BPSL's writ petition, but the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the State Government to recommend BPSL's case to the Central Government for the grant of adequate iron ore reserves. The Review Petition filed by the State was rejected, making the Supreme Court's judgment final. 2. Contempt Petition by BPSL: BPSL filed a Contempt Petition (CCP No. 374 of 2012) due to non-implementation of the Supreme Court's judgment concerning the Keora area. The State Government had complied partially by granting Thakurani Block A but did not implement the order regarding Keora. The State cited various difficulties, including overlapping applications and the legal position changed by the Sandur Manganese case, which required simultaneous consideration of all applications under Section 11(4) of the MMDR Act. 3. State of Orissa's Application (I.A. No. 14 of 2013): The State of Orissa filed an application highlighting subsequent developments and legal proceedings that made it difficult to implement the Supreme Court's judgment. The State mentioned overlapping applications, pending cases, and the requirement for simultaneous consideration of applications as per the Sandur Manganese case. The State sought directions regarding the implementation of the judgment in relation to the Keora area. 4. Writ Petitions by Other Companies: - Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL): BSL filed a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 60 of 2013) seeking the same benefits as BPSL, claiming it was similarly situated due to a family settlement and a subsequent MOU with the State Government. - Jindal Steel and Power Limited: Jindal Steel filed a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 194 of 2013) asserting its entitlement to a mining lease based on an MOU with the State Government and its pending applications. Jindal Steel argued that its case was on a better footing than BPSL. - Shri Mahavir Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.: This company filed a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 837 of 2013) claiming similar relief as BPSL, stating that its application for a mining lease had been pending for over ten years due to the status quo order in BPSL's case. Supreme Court's Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the State Government was in contempt for not complying with the directions regarding the Keora area. The Court emphasized that the judgment in favor of BPSL had attained finality and must be implemented. The State Government was given one final opportunity to purge the contempt by making the necessary recommendations to the Central Government within one month. Failure to do so would result in further contempt proceedings. The Court dismissed the intervention applications by Tata and Larsen & Toubro as non-maintainable. Regarding the writ petitions filed by BSL, Jindal Steel, and Shri Mahavir Ferro Alloys, the Court dismissed them on the grounds that they could not directly approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners were given liberty to approach the High Court or any other appropriate forum to seek relief. In conclusion, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier judgment in favor of BPSL and directed the State Government to comply with the order. The writ petitions by other companies were dismissed with the option to seek redressal in other forums.
|
