Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd vs Odisha Mineral Corporation Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 11467 Ori

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                    W.P. (C) No. 9358 of 2021

            Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd.        ...                         Petitioner
            New Delhi                        . Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate
                                               Mr. Gopal Jain, Senior Advocate

                                         -versus-
            Odisha Mineral Corporation Ltd
            And others                     ....                     Opposite Parties
                                                               Mr.P.K.Parhi, ASGI
                                                                       (O.P. No.3)
                                                              Mr. Ashok Parija, AG
                                                                   (O.P.Nos.1 & 2)



                       CORAM:
                       JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
                       JUSTICE S. K. PANIGRAHI

                                       ORDER (Oral)

09.11.2021 Order No.

05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard arguments at some length on behalf of the petitioner.

3. The petitioners, inter alia, have laid challenge to the constitutional validity of provisions of Rule-45 of the MCR 2016 as amended by Notification No.G.S.R.674(E) and G.S.R. 675(E) dated 20.09.2019.

4. The reply dated 30.08.2021 filed on behalf of the Government of India/Opposite Party No.3, by Senior Mining Geologist is totally inadequate as no basis/foundation is provided for defending the Rule from being declared ultra vires Section 13 of MMDR Act, 1957. That apart, what is being stated in Para-25-26 of preliminary objections to the effect that ASP is employed in case of auction of mineral blocks only appears to be contrary to what is specifically provided by the wordings of the amended Rule 45(1) of the MCR 2016. The rationale for introducing the conversion factor and its 6.4 % quotient in determination of the average sale price for Metallurgical Grade Bauxite has not been clearly spelt out.

5. At this stage, Mr. P.K.Parhi, ASGI prays for an opportunity to file a better affidavit of an official of the rank of Secretary.

6. In view of the nature of the lis involved, we accept the prayer of the counsel for the opposite party No.3.

7. Let an additional affidavit be filed before the next date with advance copy to the counsel for the parties.

8. The parties are also requested to submit their written submission along with judgments relied upon.

9. List this matter on 14th December, 2021.

(Jaswant Singh) Judge

(S. K. Panigrahi) Judge LB