9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to lease grant decision by State of Orissa in Department of Steel and Mines over 6.90 acres in Mayurbhanj District, Priority of lease application between appellant No.1 and respondent No.4 under Rule 6(6-a)(i) of Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1990. Analysis: The judgment in question involves the legality of a decision by the State of Orissa in the Department of Steel and Mines to grant a lease over 6.90 acres in Mayurbhanj District to respondent No.4, which led to the rejection of appellant No.1's application. Appellant No.1 had applied for a quarry lease for decorative stones, while respondent No.4 applied for a similar lease over a larger area after acquiring a sick unit engaged in processing the same mineral. The main contention raised by the appellant was that their application should have precedence over respondent No.4 as it was filed earlier. The appellant argued that respondent No.4's acquisition of a non-functional unit did not grant it priority under Rule 6(6-a)(i) of the Rules. The appellant questioned the lack of reasons provided for prioritizing respondent No.4 over them. In response, it was argued that Rule 6(6-a)(i) prioritizes applicants who have already set up an industry for processing the relevant mineral. The State and respondent No.4 contended that the acquired unit was engaged in processing the mineral, justifying the priority given. They also highlighted that appellant No.1 did not establish eligibility under Rule 6(6-a)(ii) and was considered under a residual category. The judgment analyzed Rule 6 of the Rules, which outlines criteria for granting quarry leases and prioritizing applicants. It distinguishes between different categories of priority, with specific provisions for cases involving decorative stones and industrial minerals. The judgment emphasized the importance of the term "set up an industry" in determining priority under Rule 6(6-a)(i). The Court clarified that the crucial factor was whether the industry had been established, not necessarily operational, at the time of application consideration. It cited precedents to define "set up" as establishing a business ready to commence operations. The judgment highlighted that the priority assessment should be based on the factual position at the time of application consideration. Regarding the lack of reasons provided for prioritizing respondent No.4, the judgment differentiated between Rule 6(5-a) and Rule 6(6-a) requirements. While reasons must be recorded under Rule 6(5-a) for granting preference to later applicants, Rule 6(6-a) itself provides the reason for prioritizing those who have set up an industry. Ultimately, the Court found no grounds for interference with the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing the rationality of the priority decision under Rule 6(6-a)(i). The judgment concluded by making costs easy for the parties involved.
|
