Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors [1990] INSC 298 (21 September 1990)
Rangnathan, S. Rangnathan, S. Fathima Beevi, M. (J)
CITATION: 1991 AIR 818 1990 SCR Supl. (2) 27 1992 SCC Supl. (1) 91 JT 1991 (5) 236 1990 SCALE (2)634
ACT:
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957--Sections 3(f), 5A, 10, 11, 17A & First and Second Schedules--'Minor Mineral'--Chrome ore--Grant of mining lease--Reservation in favour of Public Sector Undertak- ings--Whether obligatory--Consideration of applica- tions--Directions issued to Government--Appropriate statuto- ry amendments suggested.
HEAD NOTE:
In these matters, the petitioners viz., four companies in the private sector, two public sector corporations owned substantially by a State Government, and a private individu- al sought clarifications and directions in relation to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court on 30.4.87 and 6.10.87 on the Writ Petition. All these petitions arose out of applications for grant of right for the mining of chrome ore or chromite in the State of Orissa. Since chrome ore is one of the minerals specified in the first and second schedules to, and not a 'minor mineral' within the meaning of Section 3(f) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the right to grant the mining right in respect of this mineral is vested in the State Government subject to the control by Union of India, and as such they are respond- ents in these matters.
While disposing of the matters, this Court referred the entire controversy to the Secretary to Government of India in the Ministry of Mines, viz., Mr. Rao, for a detailed consideration of the claims made by the parties.
Before Mr. Rao, the two public sector undertakings also put forward their claims that the public sector units in the State were entitled to the grant of mining rights in the State to the exclusion of all private parties in as much as there was a reservation in their favour by an appropriate notification issued by the State Government. The other parties raised objection on the ground that the claims were made at a belated stage of the proceedings. On applications made by the Public Sector Undertakings, this Court directed that their claims would also be examined by Rao.
28 In his report dated 1.2.1988 Rao accepted the claim of reservation made by the two Public Sector Undertakings, viz., Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC) and Industrial Devel- opment Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (IDCOL). He also partially accepted the claims of the three private parties. viz., Indian Metals and Ferro-Alloys Limited (IMFA); Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited (FACOR); and Aikath and rejected the claims of the other two private parties viz., Orissa Cements Ltd. (OCL) and Orissa Industries Ltd. (ORIND). Though he accepted the claim of the two public sector undertakings, he recommended for them leases in respect of only the balance of the lands left, after fulfilling the claim of the others which he had accepted.
The present petitions biter alia sought directions on the report of Rao. It was contended that Rao was nothing more than a Commissioner appointed by this Court to examine the various parties and hence this Court should pass appro- priate orders on his report. Various contentions were ad- vanced by the petitioners as well as respondents as regards the legal character of the Rao Report and of giving effect to it either in toto or with modifications in certain re- spects. Reservation in favour of Public Sector Undertakings was challenged by the private parties. Plea of Promissory Estoppel was also raised on behalf of some of the petition- ers.
Disposing of the matters, this Court,
HELD: 1. The statute must lay down clearer guidelines and procedure. Having regard to the new avenues for vast industrial development in the country, a more workable procedure would be for the State Government to call for applications in respect of specified blocks by a particular date and deal with them together, other later entrants not being permitted in the field. Otherwise only confusion will result, as here. There was a time when the State Government looked to private enterprises for mineral development in its territory. Of late, however, competition has crept in. The State Government has its own public sector corporations and various enterpreneurs are interested in having mining leases for their purposes. It is, therefore, vital that there should be a better and detailed analysis, district-wise and area-wise and that a schedule for consideration of applica- tions in respect of define areas should be drawn up with a strict time frame so that the State is no longer constrained to deal with sporadic applications or make a routine grant of leases in order of priority of applications. These are aspects which call for careful consideration and appropriate amendments to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regu- lation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder. [72D-G] 29
2. Chromite ore is an important major mineral and the importance of its conservation and proper utilisation for our country's development cannot be gainsaid. The State Government rightly decided upon a policy of reservation in 1967 and this was kept up till 1974. In February 1974 the State Government was in favour of free issue of mining leases but gave up this policy in pursuance of the Central Government's letter of 15.5.74. Reservation was, therefore, clamped in 1977 again. Applications could still be consid- ered to see how far a relaxation was permissible having regard to the nature of the applicant's needs, the purpose for which the lease was asked for, the nature of the ore sought to be exploited, the relative needs of the State, the availability of a public undertaking to carry out the mining more efficiently and other relevant considerations. There is no material on record to substantiate the plea that the State Government has been acting arbitrarily or mala fide in its policy formulations in this regard. [82C-E] Venkataraman v. Union, [1979] 2 SCR 202, referred to.
3. Rao's decision, that the leases that have been grant- ed already in favour of IMFA, FACOR be confirmed, should be upheld. These should be treated as leases legitimately granted to them in exercise of the powers of relaxation under rule 59(2). It is true that the orders granting the leases do not elaborately record the reasons but they were passed in the context of this litigation and have to be considered in the light of the affidavits and counter affi- davits filed herein. Rao's decision regarding the grant of a lease to AIKATH (not yet implemented) should also be upheld.
In these three cases, the records disclose sufficiently the reasons on the basis of which the leases have been decided upon and are adequate to justify the mining leases actually granted. ]89B-D]
4. The claims of OCL and ORIND have been rejected sum- marily by Rao without an advertence to the various consider- ation urged by them. This part of Rao's decision has to be set aside as being too cryptic and unsustainable. Pursuant to this conclusion, it is directed that these claims be considered afresh by the Central Government. It would be more expedient if the claims of OCL and ORIND are restored, for detailed consideration in all their several aspects, before the State Government, as the State Government has had no opportunity to consider the various aspects pointed out and as this course will also provide an opportunity to the claimants to approach the Central Government again, if dissatisfied with the State Government's decision to consid- er whether, despite the reservation, some relaxation can be made also in 30 Favour of these two companies- The State Government has to take into account various factors and aspects before grant- ing a mining lease to an individual concern carving out an exception to its reservation policy. It has done this in respect of IMFA and FACOR for certain special reasons re- corded by it. Whether it would do so also in favour of OCL and ORIND is for the State to consider. It would be noticed that the applications of these two companies have not been considered in this light earlier- The applications of OCL and ORIND are restored for the consideration of the State Government. [94B-G]
5. The State Government has rejected ORIND's applica- tion, inter alia, on the ground that, in view of the penden- cy of the Writ Petition before this Court, it could not at that stage pass any order on the application. It would, therefore, be open to ORIND to ask the State Government to reconsider the application in the light of the present order. There is no necessity for insisting on such a formal request and therefore, the State Government is directed to consider ORIND's application afresh in the light of this judgment. [95A-B]
6. So far as OMC and IDCOL are concerned, Rao has recomamended that the areas left after the grants to IMFA and FACOR, be given on lease to OMC. There were huge areas of mineral bearing lands which have been reserved for the public sector. Its interests do not clash or come into conflict with those of private applicants which can only claim a right to the extent the State Government is willing to relax the rule of reservation. This Court does not think OMC or IDCOL have any voice in requiring that the State Government should keep certain extent of land reserved and should not grant any mining lease at all in favour of any private party. The interests of these corporations are safe in the hands of the State Government and the allocation of mining leases to these organisations is a matter of discre- tion with the State Government strictly speaking, therefore, no question of any application by them for mining lease need arise at all. But, when made, their applications are consid- ered by the State Government and, on revision by the Central Government as a matter of form. To this extent, they have a statutory remedy. [95C-El
7. When the State Government agreed to lease out the areas to MFA and FACOR it was pointed out that this could not be given effect to without the Central Government's approval.
This Court thereupon directed that the State Government should seek such approval. The direction to the Central Government is only that its approval should be given within the particular time limit set out therein- It cannot be 31 construed, reasonably, as a direction compelling the Central Government to grant approval whether it agreed with the State Government's decision or not. Thus the grant of mining leases to IMFA and FACOR are to be treated as having been made in exercise of the power of relaxation under Rule 59(2). Though there is no specific recording of reasons by the State Government or Central Government inasmuch as these leases came to be granted by way of compromise, it is a fair inference that the compromise proposals were prompted by the, at least partial, acceptance of the claim put forward by these parties. Since the grant of leases to these parties can be attributed to the relaxation of the reservation rule in particular cases, the finding of Rao that these leases may be confirmed deserves acceptance. [90C-F]
8.1 AIKATH is admittedly an individual who discovered chromite ore in the State. He had secured a lease as early as in 1952 though that lease was annulled by the State when it took over. Again, as against a lease of 640 acres which he had once obtained and started operating upon, the State Government has finally approved of a lease in respect of only 140 acres. AIKATH had been actually working some mines from 1.5.53. His original grant had been approved before the areas was reserved on 3.7.62. If the State Government con- siders these to be weighty considerations and entered into a compromise with him for a lease of 140 acres and this has also been recorded by the High Court, these are no grounds to interfere with that decision of the State Government. [89D-F]
8.2 Though the State Government and AIKATH had entered into a compromise as early as 4.12.1984, no lease has yet been granted in his favour perhaps as the Central Government has had no occasion to consider the matter earlier. However, no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter and asking the State Government to seek the formal approval of the Central Government therefore. The decision of Rao itself can be taken as containing the approval of the Cen- tral Government in this regard and is thus upheld. The State Government is' directed to execute, at as early a date as possible, a mining lease in Favour of AIKATH in respect of the 140 acres agreed to be leased to him under the compro- mise dated 4.12.1984. [90G-H; 91A]
9. Although Rao has approved the grants made in favour of IMFA and FACOR by the State Government (which, he re- marks, were perhaps based on the observations made by this Court), he has clearly reached his conclusions on these independently. In fact, he has set out a basis for justify- ing the grants of IMFA and FACOR. It is also clear that 32 there were no Court orders that could have influenced his decisions on the claims of the other parties. [87F-G]
10.1 In the context of the scheme of the Act and the importance of a lease being granted to one or more of the better qualified candidates where there are a number of them, it would not be correct to say that, as the State Government's order of 29.10.1973 has been set aside, ORIND's application should be restored for reconsideration on the basis of the situation that prevailed as on 29.10.1973 and that, therefore, it has to be straightaway granted as there was no other application pending on that date before the State Government. In matters ,like this, subsequent applica- tions cannot be ignored and a rule of thumb applied. [74C-E]
10.2 Though S. 11 tries to enunciate a simple general principle of "first come, first served", in practice, prior- ity of an application in point of time does not conclude the issue. In this case itself, for instance, during the period ORIND's application of 1971 has been under consideration before various authorities and in the writ petition filed in the High Court, several other competitors have come into the picture. The statutory provision is not clear as to which of the applications in respect of any particular area, are to be considered together. If ORIND's application of 1971 were to be considered only on the basis of the persons who had made applications at that time or a short time before or after, one result would follow; if, on the other hand, all the applications pending for disposal at the time ORIND's application is to be granted or rejected are to be consid- ered, the result would be totally different. Since the interest of the nation require that no lease for mining rights should be granted without all applicants therefore at any point of time being considered and the best among them chosen or the area distributed among such of them as are most efficient and capable, the latter is the only reasona- ble and practical procedure. That is why this Court, in its order dated 30.4.87, laid down that all applications pending for consideration as on 30.4.87 should be considered by Rao.
[71G-H; 72A-B] Ferro Alloys Corporation of India v. Union, ILR 1977 Delhi 189 and Mysore Cements Ltd. v. Union, AIR 1972 Mysore 149, distinguished.
11.1 Previously, rule 58 did not enable the State Gov- ernment to reserve any area in the State for exploitation in the public sector. The existence and validity of such a power of reservation was upheld by this Court. Rule 58 has been amended in 1980 to confer such a power on the State Government. It is also not in dispute that a notification of reservation was made on 3.8.77. The State Government, OMC and IDCOL are, 33 therefore, right in contending that, ex facie, the areas in question are not available for grant to any person other than the State Government or a public sector corporation unless the availability for grant is renotified in accord- ance with law (rule 59(1)(e) or the Central Government decides to relax the provisions of rule 59(1). [79D-F] Amritlal Nathubhai Shah and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. [1977] 1 SCR 372, relied on.
Kotiah Naidu v. State of A.P., AIR 1959 AP 185 and Amritlal Nathubhai Shah v. Union, AIR 1973 Gujarat 117, referred to.
11.2 In the present matters, except for two or three instances. where leases have been granted by the State Government on its own, the State Government has generally and consistently adhered to its stand that the chromite bearing lands are reserved for exploitation in the public sector. The rules permit the Central Government to relax the rigid requirements of reservation in individual cases after recording special reasons. Such exceptional and isolated instances of lease are not sufficient to sustain the plea of the parties that the policy of reservation is merely being raised as a formal defence and has never been seriously implemented by the State Government. [81G-H; 82A-B]
11.3 The conclusion that the areas in question before this Court were all duly reserved for public sector exploi- tation does not, however, mean that private parties cannot be granted any lease at all in respect of these areas for, as pointed out earlier, it is open to the Central Government to relax the reservation for recorded reasons. Nor does this mean that the public sector undertakings should get the leases asked for by them. This is so for two reasons. In the first place, the reservation is of a general nature and does not directly confer any rights on the Public Sector Under- takings. This reservation is of two types. Under s. 17A(1), inserted in 1986, the Central Government may after consult- ing the State Government just reserve any area--not covered by a Private Lease or a Mining Lease-with a view to conserv- ing any mineral. Apparently, the idea of such reservations is that the minerals in this area will not be exploited at all, neither by private parties nor in the public sector.
The second type of reservation was provided for in rule 58 and such reservation could have been made by the State Government (without any necessity for approval by the Cen- tral Government) and was intended to reserve areas for exploitation, broadly speaking, in the public sector. The notification itself might specify the Government Corporation or Company that was to exploit the areas or may be just general, on the 34 lines of the rule itself. Whether such areas are to be leased out to OMC or IDCOL or some other public sector corporation or a Government Company or are to be exploited by the government itself is for the Government to determine de hors the statute and the rules. There is nothing in either of them which gives a right to OMC or IDCOL to insist that the leases should be given only to them and to no one else in the public sector. There are no competitive applica- tions from organisations in the public sector controlled either by the State Government or the Central Government, but even if there were, it would be open to the State Gov- ernment to decide how far the lands or any portion of them should be exploited by each of such Corporations or by the Central Government or State Government., Both the Corpora- tions are admittedly instrumentalities of the State Govern- ment and the decision of the State Government is binding on them. If the State Government decides not to grant a lease in respect of the reserved area to an instrumentality of the State Government, that instrumentality has no right to insist that a Mining Lease should be granted to it. It is open to the State Government to exercise at any time, a choice of the State or any one of the instrumentalities specified in the rule. It is true that if, eventually, the State Government decides to grant a lease to one or other of them in respect of such land, the instrumentality whose application is rejected may be aggrieved by the choice of another for the lease. The question whether OMC or IDCOL can object to the grant to any of the private parties on the ground that a reservation has been made in favour of the public sector, has to be answered in the negative in view of the statutory provisions. For the State Government could always denotify the reservation and make the areas available for grant to private parties. Or, short of actually deserv- ing a notified area, persuade the Central government to relax the restrictions of rule 59(1) in any particular case.
It is, therefore, open to the State Government to grant private leases even in respect of areas covered by a notifi- cation of the State Government and this cannot be challenged by any instrumentality in the public sector. [82F-H; 83A-H; 84A-C]
12. In these matters, no grounds have been made out which could support a plea of promissory estoppel. The grant of a lease to ORIND had to be approved by the Central Gov- ernment. The Central Government never approved of it. The mere fact that the State Government, at one stage, recom- mended the grant cannot stand in the way of their disposing of the application of ORIND in the light of the Central Government's directives. [78E-F] Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, [1958] 2 SCR 366; M/s 35 Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., [1979] 2 SCR 641; Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. M/s Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd., [1983] 3 SCC 379;
Surya Narain Yadav & Or,5. v. Bihar State Electricity Board
Godfrey Philips India Ltd., [1985] Suppl. 3 SCR 123 and Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ors., [1990] JT I SC 363, referred to.
[This Court directed that it would be open to all the parties to place their claims, or further claims, as the case may be, in regard to the areas applied for by them on or before 30.4.1987, hacked by supporting reasons, before the State Government in the form of representations within four weeks from the date of this order; that the State Government would dispose of these applications within the statutory period failing which the parties will have their remedy under the statute by way of revision to the Central Government; that in arriving at its decisions, it will be open to the State Government to take into account the dis- cussions and findings of the Rao Report in the light of this judgment; that the State Government should also keep in mind that no leases to any of the parties (other than OMC and IDCOL) could be granted unless either the areas so proposed to be leased out are deserved and thrown open to appellants from the public or unless the Central Government, after considering the recommendations of the State Government, for reasons to be recorded in writing considers a relaxation in favour of any of the parties necessary and justified. [96B- E] & CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Miscellaneous Peti- tion Nos. 16435-37 of 1987.
IN Writ Petition No. 14116 of 1984.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
WITH Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 5163/88 with 8574 of 1989 read with I.A. No. 1/89.
K. Parsaran, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, G. Ramaswamy, V.C. Maha- jan, Harish N. Salve, Rajan Mahapatra, Ms. Lira Goswami, S. Sukumaran, C. Mukhopadhyay, A. Subba Rao, A.D.N. Rao, P.K. Mehta, Ms. Mona Mehta, Girish Chandra, S.C. Patel, T. Sriku- mar, p. 36 Parmeshwaran, Bishamber Lal Khanna and M.C. Bhandare for the appearing parties.
S.C. Roy, Advocate General and A.K. Panda for the State of Orissa.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. THE "DRAMATIS PERSONAE" All these matters are in the nature of off shoots of a basic controversy raised in W.P. No. 14116/84 which was "disposed of" by the orders of this Court dated 30.4.87 and 6.10.87. The parties are now seeking certain clarifications and directions in relation to the orders passed by this Court in the above writ petition. There have been several subsequent developments having an impact on the issue origi- nally brought to this Court in the Writ Petition (W.P.) and, at present, the matter has become very complicated and involves the interests of a large number of parties. To give a cogent narration of the necessary facts, it is best to start with an enumeration of the various parties with whom we are concerned in the matters which are being disposed of by this judgment.
The writ petition as well as the connected matters arise out of applications for grant of rights for the mining of chrome ore or Chromite in the State of Orissa. Chrome ore is one of the minerals specified in the First and Second Sched- ules to, and not a "minor mineral" within the meaning of s. 3(f) of, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The right to grant mining rights in respect of this mineral is vested in the State Government, subject, as we shall see later, on control by the Union of India. The State of Orissa (S.G.) and the Union of India (C.G.) are, therefore, the primary respondents in this litigation. On the other side are ranged a number o[ applicants for the mining rights we have referred to above. These are:
(1) Indian Metals and Ferro-Alloys Limited (IMFA);
(2) Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited (FACOR);
(3) Orissa Cements Limited (OCL);
(4) Orissa Industries Limited (ORIND);
37 (5) Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC);
(6) Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd.
(IDCOL); and (7) Shri Mantosh Aikath.
Of the above, the first four are companies in the private sector, the next two are public sector corporations owned substantially by the State of Orissa and the last, a private individual.
THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY
The principal question for decision before us is as to whether all or any of the various parties referred to above are entitled to obtain leases for the mining of chrome ore (hereinafter referred to as MLs) and, if so, to what extent.
In particular, we are concerned with an area consisting of five blocks referred to in para 8 of the W.P. to which reference will be made later. The controversy primarily turns round applications made in respect of these blocks by IMFA, FACOR, AIKAT and OCL. ORIND also lays claim to mining rights in respect of a portion of these blocks. It has filed a special leave petition which is separately numbered as S.L.P. No. 8574 of 1989 and is directed against an order dated 7.4.89 passed by the Orissa Government rejecting an application made by the company on 5th July, 1971. FACOR has also preferred S.L.P. No. 5163 of 1988 from an order of the High Court of Orissa dated 11.11.1987 dismissing a writ petition filed against an order of rejection by the S.G. of an application made by it on 18.7.1977 for grant of a ML which was confirmed by the C.G.
As already mentioned, this Court 'disposed' of W.P. No. 14116/ 1984 by its order of 30.4.87. We shall have to con- sider this and several other orders passed by this Court in the course of the hearing more closely but a brief reference may be made here to the resultant effect thereof. When this Court found that there were a large number of applications for MLs over varying extents of land in the areas in ques- tion, this Court decided that the respective merits of the applications' could not be gone into by this Court but that they should be considered by a responsible officer of the C.G. Accordingly, by the orders above referred to, this Court referred the entire controversy to the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Mines (Shri B.K. Rao, "Rao", for short) for a detailed consideration of the claims of the various parties. When the matter went to Rao, OMC and IDCOL also 38 put forward claims that the public sector units in the State of Orissa were entitled to the grant of mining rights in the State to the exclusion of all private parties inasmuch as there was a reservation in their favour by an appropriate notification issued by the State Government. The other parties objected to the intervention of the OMC and IDCOL at, what they alleged was, a belated stage of the proceed- ings. However, on applications made by OMC and IDCOL, this Court directed that the claims of these two public sector undertakings would also be examined by Rao. Eventually Rao, after considering the claims of all parties, reduced his conclusions in the form of a report dated 1st February, 1988. in his report, Rao accepted the claim of reservation made on behalf of the OMC and the IDCOL. Nevertheless it appears that, bearing in mind certain interim orders passed by this Court in the various applications made to it during the pendency of the writ petitions, Rao came to the conclu- sion that only three of the parties other than the two public sector undertakings should be granted leases to the extent mentioned by him. Broadly speaking, Rao accepted partially the claims of IMFA, FACOR and AIKATH. He rejected the claims made by ORIND and OCL. He accepted the claim of the public sector undertakings but he recommended for them leases in respect of only the balance of the lands left, after fulfilling the claims of the others which he had accepted.
Applications have now been filed before us which, inter alia, seek directions on Rao's report. There has been a good deal of contest before us as to the precise legal character of the report submitted by Rao. One suggestion is that Rao was nothing more than a commissioner appointed by the Court to examine the claims of the various parties and to submit a detailed report thereon. It is submitted that this report having been received we should pass such orders thereon as we may consider appropriate. A second approach suggested is that the Rao report should be taken to be the decision of the Central Government, which it is now for the State Gov- ernment to implement, leaving it open to any aggrieved party to take such appropriate proceedings as may be available to them in law for successfully challenging the findings reached by Rao. A third line of argument which has been addressed before us, particularly by the State of Orissa, the OMC and the IDCOL, is that Dr. Rao's report suffers from a fundamental defect in that he has completely ignored the reservation made by the State Government in favour of the public sector. According to them, Rao was not right in suggesting the grant of leases to any of the other parties and should have simply left it to the State to exploit the mines in public sector, including inter alia, the OMC and IDCOL. A fourth 39 stance taken up by the State Government may also be men- tioned here, The learned Advocate General for the State made a statement before us that, without prejudice to a conten- tion that the Rao report suffered from the fundamental defect referred to above, the State Government was prepared to abide by the findings of Rao provided this Court decides to accept the same in toto without any modifications. He clarified that this is not because they think the Rao report is' correct. On the other hand they have got several objec- tions to the validity and correctness of Dr. Rao's report.
However, having regard to the interim orders passed by this Court and having regard to the fact that what Rao has done is virtually to implement various orders passed by this Court during the pendency of the writ petition, the State Government, without prejudice to its contentions in relation to the Rao report, is prepared to abide by it. However, the learned Advocate General said, the State Government wish to make it clear that if, for some reason, this Court does not accept the Rao Report in toto, then the State Government would like to put forward their contentions against the report of Dr. Rao. In that event the State Government should be given the liberty to attack Dr. Rao's report and urge all contentions that are open to it in respect of the grant of mining leases relating to chrome ore in the State of Orissa.
The above stance understandably, is not acceptable to OCL and ORIND or, indeed, even to OMC and IDCOL who have got nothing at the hands of Rao. IMFA and FACOR are substantial- ly satisfied with the report given by Dr. Rao (except for certain minor contentions which they are prepared to give up for the present, with liberty to make representations to the State Government) but they also wish to make it clear that, in case the Rao report is not to be accepted by this Court, they would also like to put forward all their contentions so that their case may not go by default. In that event, in particular, they would like to attack the reservation plea urged by the S.G., OMC and IDCOL both as belated as well as on merits. AIKATH's submission is that he is a small opera- tor who discovered the mines and that Rao's recommendation for the grant of a ML in his favour in respect of a small extent of land should not be disturbed by us. We have only broadly set out here the attitudes of the various parties to the Rao report and shall discuss their contentions later in detail. In the light of these various contentions, we have to determine the legal character of the Rao report and decide whether the findings of Rao are to be given effect to in toro or are to be modified and, if so, in what respects.
Before dealing with these questions and even setting out the details of the claims of the various parties and the material they placed 40 before Rao to substantiate their claims, it will be useful to survey the relevant statutory provisions relating to the grant of mineral concessions of the nature we are concerned with here. This we shall at once proceed to do.
THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS (a) Constitution: Article 297 of the Constitution of India unequivocally declares that 'all lands, minerals and other things of value underlying the ocean ..... shall vest in the Union and be held for the purposes of the Union'. Arti- cle 298 defines the extent of the executive power of the Union and of each State thus:
"298. Power to carry on trade, etc.--The executive power of the Union and of each State shall extend to the carrying on of any trade or business and to the acquisition, holding and disposal of property and the making of contracts for any purpose:
Provided that-- (a) the said executive power of the Union shall, in so far as such trade or business or such purpose is not one with respect to which Parliament may make laws, be subject in each State to legislation by the State; and (b) the said executive power of each State shall, in so far as such trade or business or such purpose is not one with respect to which the State Legislature may make laws, be subject to legislation by Parliament." The Union and the States have both been vested with powers to legislate in respect of mining rights under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The respective rights of the Union and the States in this regard are contained in the following entries in the said Schedule:
List 1, Entry 54 Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest.
41 List H, Entry 23 Regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and develop- ment under the control of the Union.
(b) Act: In exercise of the above powers, the Union legisla- ture has enacted the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Act has been substantially amended and several drastic changes introduced in 1986 with a view, inter alia, to prevent unscientific mining, remove bottle-necks and promote speedy development of mineral based industries. We are concerned only with the provisions relating to the grant of mining leases and we may proceed to consider the same.
S. 2 of the Act contains the declaration referred to in Entry 54 referred to above. It reads:
"2. Declaration as to expediency of Union control--It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent hereinafter provided." With this declaration, the Act proceeds to circumscribe the extent to which the regulation of mining rights in the States should be subject to the control of the Union. We may now proceed to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act in relation to minerals like "chrome ore", which may be described, for convenience, as "major minerals".
S. 4 of the Act provides as follows:- "No person shall undertake any prospecting or mining opera- tion in any area except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or as the case may be, a mining lease granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder.
(2) No prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder." Sections 10 and 11 outline the procedure for obtaining a prospecting 42 licence (PL) or a mining lease (ML). They read thus:
"10. Application for prospecting licences or mining leases:
(1) An application for a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of any land in which the minerals vest in the Government shall be made to the State Government con- cerned in the prescribed form and shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee.
(2) Where an application is received under sub-section 1 there shall be sent to applicant an acknowledgement of its form.
(3) On receipt of an application under this section, the State Government may, having regard to the provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder, grant or refuse to grant the licence or lease."
11. Preferential right of certain person: (1)Where a pros- pecting licence has been granted in respect of any land, the licensee shall have a preferential right for obtaining the mining lease in respect of the said land over any other per- son:
XXX XXX XXX (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), where two or more persons have applied for a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of the same land, the applicant whose application was received earlier shall have a prefer- ential right for the grant of the licence or lease as the case may be over an applicant whose application was received later:
Provided that where any such applications are received on the same day, the State Government, after taking into consideration the matters specified in subsection (3), may grant the prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit.
(3) The matters referred to in sub-section (2) are the following:
43 (a) any special knowledge of, on experience in, 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) such other matters as may be prescribed.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) but subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the State Government may for any special reasons to be recorded and with the previous approval of the Central Government. grant a prospecting licence or a mining lease to an applicant whose application was received later in preference to an applicant whose application was received earlier." We may next to refer to S. 17A which has been inserted in the Act by the 1986 amendment. It reads thus:
S. 17-A: Reservation of area for purposes of conservation --(1) The Central Government, with a view to conserving any mineral and after consultation with the State Government may reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease and, where it proposes to do so, it shall, by notification in the Official Gazette. specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such area will be reserved.
(2) The State Government may, with the approval of the Central Government, reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease, for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through a Government compa- ny or corporation owned or controlled by it or by the Cen- tral Government and where it proposes to do so, it shall by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such areas will be reserved.
(3) Where in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) the State Government undertakes prospecting 44 or mining operations in any area in which the minerals vest in a private person, it shall be liable to pay prospecting fee, royalty, surface rent or dead rent, as the case may be, from time to time at the same rate at which it would have been payable under this Act if such prospecting or mining operations had been undertaken by a private person under prospecting licence or mining lease.
S. 19 of the Act declares that any prospecting licence or mining lease granted, renewed or acquired in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder shall be void and of no effect. S. 30 confers revisional powers on the C.G. It reads:
"The Central Government may, of its own motion or on appli- cation made within the prescribed time by an aggrieved party, revise any order made by the State Government or other authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by or under this Act." These are the provisions of the Act relevant for our pur- poses.
(c) Rules: Turning now to the rules framed under the Act which also have a material bearing on the present issues, they are contained in Chapter IV of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 which deals with the grant of mining leases in respect of land the minerals in which vest the Government.
Rule 22 outlines the procedure in respect of applications for MLs. It requires the application to be made in a pre- scribed form and accompanied by a fee of Rs.500 and certain documents and particulars. Rules 24 and 26' prescribe the procedure for disposal of such applications. Sub-rules (1) and (3) of rule 24 are relevant for our present purposes and are extracted below:
"24. Disposal of application for mining lease:-(1) An appli- cation for the grant of a mining lease shall be disposed within twelve months from the date of its receipt.
XXX XXX XXX (3) If any application is not disposed of within the period specified in sub-rule (1), it shall be deemed to have been refused.
XXX XXX XXX 45 Under rule 26, the S.G. may, after giving an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse to grant or renew a mining lease over the whole or part of the area applied for.
Rule 31 prescribes that where an order for grant of a lease is made, a lease deed has to be executed within a period of six months of the order or such further period as the S.G. may allow in this behalf. Failure to do this, if attributable to any default on the part of the appellant, could entail the revocation of the lease. The lease shall commence from the date of the lease deed.
We next turn to rule 54 which deals with applications for revision to the C.G. It reads, in so far as is relevant for our purposes:
"54. Application for revision:-(1) Any person aggrieved by any order made by the State Government or other authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Act or these rules may, within three months of the date of communication of the order to him, apply to the Central Government in triplicate in Form N, for revision of the order. The appli- cation should be accompanied by a treasury receipt showing that a fee or' Rs.500 has been paid into a Government treas- ury or in any branch of the State Bank of India doing the treasury business to the credit of Central Government under the head of account '128-Mines and Minerals-Mines Depart- ment-Minerals Concession Fees and Royalty':
Provided that any such application may be entertained after the said period of three months, if the applicant satisfies the Central Government that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within time.
xxx xxx xxx (4) On receipt of the application and the copies thereof, the Central Government shall send a copy of the application to each of the parties impleaded under sub-rule (2), speci- fying a date on or before' which he may make his representa- tions, if any, against the revision application.
Explanation:-For the purposes of this rule, where a State 46 Government has failed to dispose of an application for the grant of renewal of a prospecting licence or a mining lease within the period specified in respect thereof in these rules, the State Government shall be deemed to have made an order refusing the grant or renewal of such licence or lease on the date on which such period expires.
Rule 55 provides that the C.G., after getting the comments of the S.G. and other parties on the application and after giving each of them an opportunity to put forward their comments on the stand taken by the others, "may confirm, modify or set aside the order (of the S.G.) or pass such other order in relation thereto" as it "may deem just and proper". Three more rules need to be set out which deal with the topic of reservation. Rules 58, 59 and 60, before 1980, were in the following terms:
"58. Availability of areas for regrant to be notified--(1) No area which was previously held or which is being held under prospecting licence or a mining lease so the case may be or in respect of which the order granting licence or lease has been revoked under sub-rule (1) of the rule 15 or sub-rule (1) of rule 31, shall be available for grant un- less- (a) an entry to the effect is made in the register referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 21 or sub-rule (2) of rule 40, as the case may be, in ink; and (b) the date from which the area shall be available for grant is notified in the Official Gazette at least thirty days in advance.
(2) The Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax the provision of sub-rule (1) in any special case.
59. Availability of certain areas for grant to be notified--In the case of any land which is otherwise avail- able for the grant of a prospecting licencor a mining lease but in respect of which the State Government has refused to grant a prospecting licence or a mining lease on the ground that the land should be reserved for any purpose, the State Government, shall, as soon as such land becomes again avail- able for the grant of prospecting licence or mining lease, grant the licence or lease after following the procedure laid down in rule 58.
47
60. Premature applications--Applications for the grant of a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of the areas in which-- (a) no notification has been issued under rule58 or rule59;
or (b) if any such notification has been issued the period specified in the notification has not expired. Shall be deemed to be premature and shall not be entertained and the fee, if any, paid in respect of any such application shall be refunded." G.S.R. 146 dated 16th January, 1980 substantially amended these rules. After this amendment, Rule 58 reads:
"58. Reservation of areas for exploitation in the public sector, etc.: The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, reserve any area for exploitation by the Government, a Corporation established by any Central, State or Provincial Act or a Government company within the meaning of Section 6 17 of the Companies Act, 1956 ( 1 of 1956)".
Rule 59 is relevant only in part. It reads:
"59. Availability of area for regrant to be notified: (1) No area-- XXX XXX XXX (e) which has been [reserved by the State Government] Sub- stituted for the words "reserved by the Government" by G.S.R. 86(E) w.e.f. 10.2.87 under Rule 58, [or u/s 17A) These words were inserted by G.S.R. 146(E) dated 16.1.80 w.e.f. 2.2.80 shall be available for grant unless-- (i) an entry to the effect that the area is available for grant is made in the register referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 or sub-rule (2) of Rule 40 as the case may be, in ink; and (ii) the availability of the area for grant is notified in the Official Gazette and specifying a date (being a date not 48 earlier than thirty days from the date of the publication of such notification in the Official Gazette) from which such area shall be available for grant:
XXX XXX XXX (2) The Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing relax the provisions of sub-rule (1) in any special case.
Rule 60 deals with "premature applications". It reads:
60. Premature applications: Applications for the grant of a prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of areas whose availability for grant is required to be notified under Rule 59 shall if,- (a) no notification has been issued under that rule: or (b) where any such notification has been issued, the period specified in the notification has not expired, shall be deemed to be premature and shall not be entertained, and the application fee thereon, if any paid, shall be refunded.
The above are the relevant rules governing application for, and grant of, leases, revision petitions and reservation of areas in the light of which the issues in the present case have to be considered. We shall now proceed to give the details of the various applications for MLs preferred by the parties before us.
ML APPLICATIONS OF THE PARTIES Though it was the IMFA which came to this Court with a writ petition, there were a number of other applications for grant of MLs pending before the State Government. The broad details of these applications are set out below:
1. IMFA (a) Previous Histor),: IMFA made five applications for grant of mining lease in respect of five blocks of land as per the following details (which are hereinafter referred to as items 1 to 5 respectively):
49 Area Date of Area Village & District No. Applica- applied for tion
1. 1.7.1981 634.359 Ghotarangia and other villages 8.7.1981 hects. (Dhankanal Distt.)
2. 23.6.1981 142.000 Ostapal Village, SukhindaTehsil hects. (Cuttack Distt. )
3. 6.7.1981 108.860 Kamarada and padar villages hects. (Cuttack Distt. )
4. 9.9.1981 37.008 Ostapal and Gurjang villages, Sukhinda 10.9.1981 hects. Tehsil (Cuttack Distt.)
5. 24.11. 1981 147.693 Ostapal and Gurjang villages, Sukhinda hects. Tehsil (Cuttack Distt. )
The S.G. did not dispose of these applications within the prescribed period of twelve months. They were, there- fore, deemed to have been rejected under rule 24(3). IMFA applied to the C.G. for the revision of these deemed rejec- tion orders of the S.G. The C.G. set aside the deemed rejec- tion orders and directed the S.G. to dispose of the matter on merits within a period of 200 days. However, the S.G. did not take any action on the applications of the IMFA within the period of 200 days. IMFA made a representation to the Central Government but the Central Government gave no relief on the ground that it had become functus officio and had no jurisdiction to issue further directions to the State Gov- ernment. Thereupon IMFA filed Writ Petition No.14116 of 1984 in this Court. IMFA alleged, that while its applications were kept pending, the S.G. had granted leases in favour of FACOR and thus discriminated against IMFA. It prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the S.G. to grant leases to IMFA also.
(b) Subsequent developments: This Court, on 27.9.84 passed an order (extracted later) directing the S.G. to consider IMFA's applications by 23.10.84 and restraining it from granting MLS to any one else in the meanwhile. FACOR moved for a recall of this order. The Court passed an inter- im order on 18.10.84 holding over the implementation of the earlier order in regard to grant of lease to IMFA and call- ing for the records. However, it appears, on 21.11.84, the S.G. had agreed to grant a ML in favour of AIKATH in respect of 140 acres out of 147.69 hectares covered by item No. 5 above. On 26.12.84, the S.G. filed a counter affidavit pointing out: (a) that there was a reservation of the 50 areas for the public sector and (b) that except item 1, the areas covered by the other applications overlapped areas covered by earlier applications of OMC IDCOL and others.
Nevertheless, it was stated, on due consideration in the light of the observations of this Court, the S.G. had tenta- tively decided to grant a ML to IMFA in respect of 634.359 hectares in item 1. On 27.11.84, IMFA stated that it was not interested in item 1 which, according to it contained only low grade ore and was not commercially viable unless IMFA was given, at the same time, areas bearing high quality ore which could be blended with the low grade ore. It stated that it was willing to accept M.L. in respect of items 2, 3 and either item 4 or half of item 5. On 2.1.85. the S.G.
passed formal orders rejecting IMFA's application in respect of items 2 to 5 of the list. This was on the ground, so far as item 2 was concerned, that the area fell within the reserved areas, that there were prior applications of OMC & FACOR in respect of the areas and that the S.G. had already agreed to lease out item 1 to IMFA. On 15.2.85, the S.G. informed IMFA that, on reconsideration it had recommended grant of MLs to it in respect of 139.37 hectares (out of 142 hectares of item 2) and the entire area of item 3. On 18.2.85, the S.G. submitted in court that it had already agreed to grant 140 acres in item 5 to AIKATH and the rest to FACOR as per compromises in the writ proceedings pending in the Orissa High Court. The compromise with AIKATH had been placed before. and accepted by the Orissa High Court on 4.12.84 but the final terms and conditions were proposed on 18.2.85 and, accepted on 19.2.85. In respect of FACOR also, the compromise agreeing to lease to it 596 acres (out of which 180 acres were covered by item 5 of IMFA's applica- tion) had been filed in the Orissa High Court only on 18.2.85. The validity of these allotments was challenged by IMFA before this Court. Without going into the merits or' this controversy, this Court on 28.2.85. passed an order directing the S.G. to grant a lease to IMFA in respect of item 3 in full and 26.62 hectares in item 4. (This order was objected to by FACOR and on 8.5.85 the Court passed an order directing the grant of a lease to FACOR over 180 acres in item 5). IMFA says that it has not been given physical possession of the areas granted to it except to an extent of a small area of 2 hectares. The net result is that out of the five items applied for by IMFA:
(i) item 1 has been given but surrendered,
(ii) the S.G. is agreeable to give 139.37 acres out of 142 acres of item 2;
(iii) this Court has directed the grant to IMFA of item 3;
(iv) in item 4, this Court has directed the grant to IMFA of 26.62 out of 37.008 hectares of item 4: and
(v) In item 5, the S.G. has agreed to lease our 140 acres to AIKATH and 180 acres to FACOR.
51
2. FACOR (a)Earlier History: FACOR'S applications for mining leases for chrome ore were made on various dates between 1974 and 1978. Relevant particulars in respect of the said applications are set out in the following table:
Sl. Village Extent Date of Date of final Particulars No. appli- final order of of the pro- cation disposal of ceedings in revision app- High Court
1. Ostapal 142,000 8.7.74 29/76-12.3.76 OJC 67 of 79 Distt. hects. 315/78- 3.7.78 12.1.79 Cuttack or 359 acres
2. Chingudi- 749.32 8.7.74 21/76-21.4.76 OJC 66 of 79 pal Distt. hects. 278/78-30.5.78 12.1.79
3. Samole 248.447 6.8.74 182/77-29.8.77 OJC 72 of 79 Distt. hects. 15.1.79 Dhankanal (618 acres)
4. Bangur 40.47 22.6.77 432/78-17.8.78 OJC 1309 of Distt. hects. 80 21.1.80 Keonjhar (100 acres)
5. Ostapal & 312.42 7.6.78 528/79-21.9.79 OJC 2036 of Gurjang hects. 579/80-26.9.80 31.8.81 Distt.
Cuttack
6. Kamarda 108 6.10.78 17/80- 1.1.80 OJC 1028 of Distt. hects. 513/82-29.10.82 11.5.83 All the six applications made by FACOR were rejected by the S.G. Against the revision orders of the C.G. affirming the orders of the S.G.. FACOR filed writ petitions in the High Court of Orissa and these writ petitions are pending dispos- al there [except the one re: item 4 which was dismissed by the High Court on 11.11.87 and is the subject matter of S.L.P. (C) 5163 of 1988 before us. In this sense, the appli- cations of FACOR were alive and awaiting disposal when IMFA filed W. P. 14 116 of 1984 in this Court.
52 (b) Subsequent developments: As we shall mention later. FACOR had obtained leases over 486 acres at Barua in Keonjhar district and 280 acres at Kathpal over Dhankanal district in 1971-72. The above applications were rejected and the writ petitions filed against the rejections were pending in the Orissa High Court when the writ petition was filed. It has been stated that the S.G. had entered into a compromise with FACOR on 18.2.85 agreeing to grant a mining lease in its favour in respect of 596 acres out of 772 acres applied under item no. 5 above on condition that FACOR gave up its claim in respect of the balance of the area of 702 acres as well as the claim made in the other five applica- tions. It may be added that on 18.5.85 this Court passed an interim order directing that FACOR be given a lease in respect of 180 acres out of the 596 acres covered by the compromise dated 18.2.85. A lease was accordingly executed by the S.G. in favour of FACOR on 16.8.85 after obtaining the approval of the C.G. to the lease under s. 5(2) of the Act (before its amendment in 1986) as well as to the relaxa- tion under rule 59(1) of the Rules. The net result, there- fore. is that, though FACOR made six applications, it had agreed to give up all of them in lieu of a ML for 596 acres out of item 5 out of which a lease in respect of 180 acres has already been obtained and is being exploited by FACOR.
3. MANTOSH AIKATH (a) Previous History: This gentleman had obtained a lease from the Raja Sri Pitamber Bhupati Harichandan Mohapa- tra, the proprietor of Sukhinda Estate on 17.10.52 (regis- tered on 28.10.52) for a period of 20 years in respect of 640 acres situated in village Gurjang in Cuttack District.
On 12.1.53 the State Government (in whom the estate of the former Zamindar had come to vest w.e.f. 27.11.52 under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act) issued a notice terminating the lease. Mr. AIKATH made representations against the termination. It is said that, ultimately, a compromise was reached between him and the S.G. whereunder it was agreed that a lease in respect of half of the area covered by the original lease deed on the southern side could be retained by him. Thereupon, it is said, he filed a formal application on 25.5.54 for a mining lease in respect of 320 acres. But this was rejected on the ground that the S.G. preferred to exploit the area in public sector. A revision petition to the C.G. was rejected on 9.2.72. Mr. AIKATH filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa impleading the C.G. and the S.G. as parties. The Orissa High Court on 18.4.1984 set aside the order of the C.G. and directed the C.G. to dispose of Mr. 53 AIKATH'S application afresh. The C.G., in turn, set aside the order of the S.G. on 3.8.78 and directed the S.G. to decide the application of the party afresh, after taking into account the plea of the party that the area could not be reserved for exploitation in the public sector. However, no orders were passed by the S.G. The petitioner, therefore.
again filed a revision application before the C.G. which passed orders on 12.12.79 directing the State Government to pass a speaking order and dispose of the application on merits. The S.G. by an order dated 17.1.80, rejected the application. Mr. AIKATH filed a writ petition in the High Court and this was pending when W.P. 14116/84 was filed here by IMFA.
(b) Subsequent Development: On 21.11.84, AIKATH and 'the S.G. entered into a compromise under which the former was to be granted a lease in respect of 140 acres situated on the eastern side of the 320 acres referred to earlier. This compromise was accepted by the High Court of Orissa on 4.12.84. Thereafter the S.G. offered a lease of 140 acres on certain terms and conditions and these were accepted by AIKATH on 19.2.85. This was reported by the S.G. to this Court but no orders were passed by this Court, and no ML has been executed, in favour of AIKATH. It may be mentioned that one of the areas applied for by IMFA on 24.11.81 covered the area which. according to AIKATH, had been in his possession all along.
4. ORISSA INDUSTRIES LIMITED (ORIND) (a) Previous History.' ORIND made an application for mining lease on 5.7.71. It applied for mining leases over an area of 1129.25 hectares in the villages of Telangi, Patna.
Ostapal, and Gurjang in District Cuttack. This application was rejected by the S.G. on 23.10.73 on the ground that the area was reserved for exploitation in the public sector. It is stated that subsequently on a representation made by ORIND on 15.12.73, the S.G. recommended to the C.G. that a lease in favour of ORIND may be granted in respect of 749.82 out of 1129.25 hectares applied for. However. this recommen- dation was withdrawn (as will be discussed later). The C.G., by an order dated 23.2.77, directed the S.G. to pass a speaking order on the application but the S.G. did not comply with this direction. The company, therefore, filed writ petition. O.J.C. 1585/198 1 in the High Court of Oris- sa. This writ petition was pending when W.P. 14116/84 was filed here.
It may be here mentioned that one of the contentions of ORIND 54 before us is that it had also applied on 5.7.71 lot a lease of mining rights in respect of 446.38 hectares in village Sukrangi in Distt. Cuttack. That had been rejected but a revision petition had been filed before the C.G. against the said rejection. The S.G.. it is said. while Lending its comments on 26.2.74 to the C.G. on the ORIND's revision petition. had reiterated that their revision petition may be rejected as S.G. had already decided to grant ORIND a lease of 749.82 out of the area of 1129.25 hectares applied for by it.
(b) Subsequent developments: It is stated that the S.G. has subsequently withdrawn its recommendations for the area of hectares. The S.G. rejected ORIND's application for 1129.25 hectares by an order dated 7.4.89. The contents of the order are discussed later It concludes:
In view of the above facts a
