Bombay High Court
Jsw Ispat Steel Ltd.,(Formerly ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 4 December, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 jg.wp.5771.15.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5771 OF 2015
JSW ISPAT STEEL LTD.
(formerly known as ISPAT INDUSTRIES LIMITED)
(Mining Department)
A company incorporated under the
Companies Act 1956 having its office at
Casablanca, Plot no. 45, Sector-11,
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai - 400 614. ... Petitioner
VERSUS
(1) The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary to Government
Industries, Energy and Labour
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032.
(2) The Director,
Geology and Mining
Nagpur, Maharashtra
(3) M/s. Adhunik Corporation Ltd.
A company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its
Registered Office at 14, N.S. Road,
Kolkatta
(4) Union of India
through Central Government Pleader,
having its Office at Aaykar Bhavan
New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400 020. ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M. Anilkumar, Advocate for petitioner
Shri M. K. Pathan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no. 1
Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari with Deoul Pathak and Arpita Joshi Pathak,
Advocate for respondent no. 3
Shri S. A. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent no. 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 02:46:10 :::
2 jg.wp.5771.15.odt
CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE AND
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 4-12-2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : R. K. Deshpande, J.)
Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the
learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated
29-8-2009 passed by the State Government granting prospecting licence
to the respondent no. 3 M/s. Adhunik Corporation Limited in respect
of area of 449.28 H/R situated at Mauze Gundjur Mohandi, Taluka
Etapalli, District Gadchiroli in the State of Maharashtra. The revision
preferred by the petitioner challenging the grant of prospecting licence
is dismissed by the Central Government as per the order dated
11-10-2011. The same is, therefore, also made subject matter of the
challenge in this petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties at
length and we find that about 112 parties were considered for grant
of prospecting licence in respect of the area in question. The
3 jg.wp.5771.15.odt
consideration is in terms of Section 11(3) of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 which is reproduced below.
11. Preferential right of certain persons. -
(1) ......
(2) ......
(3) The matters referred to in sub-section (2) are the
following : -
(a) any special knowledge of, or experience in,
reconnaissance operations, prospecting operations or mining
operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant ;
(b) the financial resources of the applicant;
(c) the nature and quality of the technical staff
employed or to be employed by the applicant;
(d) the investment which the applicant proposes to
make in the mines and in the industry based on the minerals;
(e) such other matter as may be prescribed.
From the order dated 29-8-2009 passed by the State Government, we
find that the applicant-wise details are taken into consideration. The
case of the petitioner is also taken into consideration in paragraph 3(a)
of the conclusion in the order and it is held that the petitioner is
4 jg.wp.5771.15.odt
competent to procure the mineral from other sources. Similar is the
conclusion adopted in respect of all the eligible applicants who were 14
in numbers. The case of the respondent no. 3 is considered in
paragraph 3(c). For the sake of convenience, we reproduce paragraph
3(a) and 3(c) of the conclusion in the order to have comparative
assessment of the consideration.
"3. In view of above the eligible applicants are analysed as
follows :-
(a) Applicants mentioned in Para 4(A) (except M/s Anik
Industries Ltd.) have been recommended/granted
mineral concessions by this state Govt. or by other
States. Thus their cases have been considered to the
extent possible on the basis of their merits. Further
these applicants are competent to procure the mineral
from other sources. Hence I do not recommend their
cases for grant of PL over the area under
consideration. As regards M/s Anik Industries Ltd.,
their case will be considered in due course of time.
(b) .......
(c) As regards M/s. Adhunik Corporation Ltd. Kolkata is
an emerging entrepreneur in the field of mining. They
are eligible in all respect as per Rules and Regulations.
5 jg.wp.5771.15.odt
Qualified technical staff is appointed. They will
execute PL in scientific manner and while doing so
modern techniques and equipments will be utilized.
Applicant is promoted by Adhunik Group which has
established diversified industries like production of
High Grade Steel, Cement, Power, Mining activities in
many States of India. They do have experience of
mining activities and a best team of qualified technical
experts is available. The Group turn over was Rs.
3000.00 crores and Net worth was Rs. 1225.00 crores
as on 31.03.2009.
Applicant has signed MoU with State to set-up
Steel, Cement Plants along with C.P.P. Positive steps
have been taken to set-up the project by 2011-12. The
prospecting will also be completed within two years.
It is seen from above that their planned
objective to commission the plant within 2 years
corroborates simultaneous completion of PL. This will
lead to captive use of mineral and economic growth of
the area.
The Group is actively contributing to
Community / local area development in the field of
construction of roads, health services, water supply,
education, etc. They will also take care of
Environment. This will lead to socio-economic growth
6 jg.wp.5771.15.odt
of local area.
Thus taking into consideration all factors
mentioned above, I am satisfied that applicant Co. is
most eligible applicant to be recommend for grant PL
over the area applied by them."
The ultimate order of the State Government for grant of prospecting
licence is in favour of the respondent no. 3.
4. The Central Government in revision filed by the petitioner
considered the controversy in paragraph 5 which is reproduced below.
5. The case was taken up for hearing on
27.01.2011. The parties present were heard. The
State Govt. in the impugned order has mentioned that
all applicants have been given opportunity of hearing
before passing a speaking order dated 29.8.2009. As
per the inter-se merits supplied by the State Govt.
along with impugned order, the petitioner company is
engaged in manufacture of steel and it is part of Ispat
Group, have appointed qualified technical personnel
and has signed MOU with the State Govt. for
expansion and has drawn up its comprehensive plan to
be taken up during 2007-2012 with an investment of
Rs. 2000 crores. State Govt. also mentioned in the
7 jg.wp.5771.15.odt
impugned order that the impleaded party i.e. M/s
Adhunik Corporation Ltd., have employed qualified
technical staff. The impleaded party is promoted by
Adhunik Group with Rs. 3000 crores turnover and
networth Rs. 1225 crores as on 31.3.2009. The
impleaded party has signed MOU with State to set-up
steel, cement plants with the objective to commission
the plant within 2 years which corroborates
simultaneously completion of PL. This will lead to
captive use of mineral and economic growth of the
area. These facts brought out by the State
Government that the impleaded party is better placed
in comparison to the petitioner as per provisions of
Sections 11(3) of the MMDR which empowers the
State Government to examine the merits of applicants
based on mining experience, financial resources,
quality of staff employed and investment proposed etc.
Therefore, the State Govt. is justified in passing the
impugned order.
Ultimately, the revision is dismissed. The object of reproducing
considerations by the authorities is to find out whether the criteria
prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the said Act has been
followed and applied. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not
point out any material irregularity in taking such decision or any
8 jg.wp.5771.15.odt
deviation in the criteria laid down in sub-section (3) of Section 11 of
the said Act. We are not sitting in a appeal over the decision of the
authorities in question, more particularly, in respect of the satisfaction
recorded.
5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has a steel plant in the State of Maharashtra, whereas the
respondent no. 3 is not running any steel plant in the State of
Maharashtra. This aspect has also been taken into consideration and
therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order impugned.
6. So far as the reliefs claimed and the amended prayer
clauses are concerned, those pertain to the manner in which operations
of prospecting licence are carried out by the respondent no. 3. Whether
there has been compliance of the conditions of licence or not are the
questions required to be decided by the State Government which is the
competent authority, while deciding the question as to whether the
mining lease is to be granted in respect of the area in question in favour
of the respondent no. 3. We cannot pre-empt such issue in this petition.
The petitioner is at liberty to make representation in that respect to the
competent authority which shall be decided in accordance with law,
9 jg.wp.5771.15.odt
including any objection regarding the locus of the petitioner to raise any
objection. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any such decision, he shall be
at liberty to adopt appropriate remedy available in law.
The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
