JUDGMENT
Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. The Petition filed by Larsen & Toubro Limited (L & T Ltd.) assails the Order dated 10.7.2003 of the Revisional Authority/Central Government under Section 30 of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, directing the State of Orissa (Respondents 2 to 4) to consider the application for the notified area filed by L & T Ltd., along with all the other prospective lessees. Admittedly, the Applicant, Neepaz Metaliks Limited (Neepaz for short) is not one of those applicants.
2. Neepaz has preferred the two applications seeking impleadment in the pending Writ Petition; and, clarification/modification of the Orders dated 25.8.2003 and 8.7.2004 by which the impugned revisional decision has been stayed.
3. Briefly stated, the salient facts are that approximately 1000 hectares were allocated to L & T Ltd. in Orissa, whose submission is that due to breaches of covenants and commitments on the part of State of Orissa, L & T Ltd. could not perform their obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding executed between them. Without entering on the question of which party is to be legally blamed for these events, the fact remains that the area in question is lying fallow and unutilized, and cannot be mined.
4. This Petition has been filed in August, 2003. What had transpired was that the Revisional Authority had directed that the claim of L & T Ltd. should be adjudicated by the Government of Orissa along with the 196 other applicants. The Revisional Authority directed that the State Government would consider and decide all claims together. That Order has been stayed on 25.8.2003 in these proceedings.
5. The contention of Neepaz is that it had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 1.10.2003. In performance of its obligations under the M.O.U., it has already set up a steel plant in Orissa, having invested several crores of rupees; hundreds of persons have been given employment. One of the clauses in its M.O.U. reads thus:-
Keeping in view substantial value addition within the State, the State Government also agrees to assign appropriate priority in the matter of recommending their application for iron ore mines under the MMDR Act and the MC Rules for mineral concession to meet their requirement subject to adequate progress in implementation of project as envisaged in Para-3 of this MOU and a portion of the requirement to be met through the OMC.
6. Learned counsel appearing for State of Orissa submits that it has no objection to the either of the applications being allowed. It is contended that the State Government cannot process the application of Neepaz in deference to the interim Orders passed in these proceedings, lest it be contended that it has committed Contempt of Court.
7. In matters relating to the grant of mining leases a salutary and accepted principle is that efforts should be made to lease/allot areas that are contiguous to the concerned plant. It is not in dispute that the 220 hectares that have been applied for by Neepaz fall within the 1000 hectares initially earmarked or allocated to L & T Ltd. for prospecting purposes.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner strenuously opposes the impleadment of Neepaz or modification of the stay Orders. He contends that Order I Rule 10 of the CPC does not contemplate the impleadment of such a party; it would also be contrary to the legal principle of dominus litis. He has relied on Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, , but this decision explicitly relates to proceedings in a suit. He has also relied on HBL Limited v. Union of India and Ors., 2001 VII AD (DELHI) 1060, in which a Single Judge of this Court had analyzed Order I Rule 10 of the CPC specifically with regard to a suit and had thereafter extrapolated these views to the Writ Petition pending before him. It is trite that the provisions of CPC do not strictly apply to the writ proceedings but the principles contained therein are persuasive and relevant and must be kept in view. Civil suits are restricted to a determination of the rights of the parties before the Court. Writ proceedings have a much wider dimension since the State or the Authority or the Body against which the Orders are directed, must be seen as having failed in performing a public function. Almost in every conceivable case where the State enters in a contract, especially those which have a commercial content, another citizen or party would be directly or indirectly affected. What has to be seen in writ proceeding is whether the rights of the applicants/interveners are more likely than not to be directly affected by the outcome. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has soundly contended that it is really the interim Order which is adversely touching the applicant. This is also the stand taken by the learned counsel for the State of Orissa.
9. The legally pragmatic solution, therefore, would be to direct the State Government to process and decide the Neepaz application for the grant of a mining lease without any apprehension that such an action would violate the interim Orders of this Court. This solution is, however, not acceptable to the learned counsel for the Petitioner. If that is so, then there appears to be no alternative other than impleading Neepaz in these proceedings.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also drawn attention to the fact that this is not the only tract of land in respect of which the applicant has filed its claims. It is his contention that so far as the seven other parcels of land mentioned by the applicant are concerned, the Petitioner would have no objection if the Neepaz application being disposed of by the State.
11. The impugned Order directed the State Government (Respondents 3 and 4) to process the applications of the 196 persons who had expressed an interest in a mining lease. That can no longer be carried on with. The course which commends itself is to clarify that the interim Orders passed by this Court will not in any wise obstruct or impede the Government of Orissa to decide the applications filed by Neepaz before it. This is also for the reason that the applicant is not within the 196 persons who are covered by the Orders passed by the Central Government in Revision, which are the subject matter of this Writ Petition. The State Government has already clarified its stand before this Court that, but for the Interim Orders, the applicant’s application would have been dealt with on merits.
12. In these circumstances, the applications are not allowed but the State Government is directed to process/decide and dispose of on merits the applications filed before it by Neepaz.
13. The applications stand disposed of accordingly.
WP (C) No.5317/2003
14. Renotify this matter for 27th April, 2006.