HWTHEIHG%ECOURT(H?KARNATAKAJ¥FBANGALORE_
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY or JULY 2009 ~_' 1.
PRESENT
TI-IE I-ION'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARALLI QHIEEJUSTTSE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTTCE v.d'.~S.éLEHAI--TIT..4j
WRIT PETITION N0. 6134}L2Ij;oaVV(G1~}1;'II1I§/LS) E
BETWEEN: ' 3 A 2
M/S JSW STEEL LIMITED H V
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE»; _ _ - '
AT JINDAL MANSION'5A,. DRIG. DE'SH'MAUK'H
MARS, MUMBAI-4.00 o2:j6,:_ 'V _ .
REP BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT 7'
KRISHNEGO--\_?VDA-. - 3 PETITIONER
(By SIVIT. S R ANT) RADE{A';'.Ad.§:6cRtE.}
» GO'IE1?€i_\fNIE«N'}' OF KARNATAKA
' B':T_~THEVSvECRETARY
MIi\fFSS SS:'.{AN'E TEXTILES
COMME.R~C_E..~AND INDUSTRIES
-- DEPAR'FMEN'l'
' I EANGA.L_oRE--0 1
2 " M./:S"'1f<ABINI MINERALS PVT LTD
'No;1'20, HOODI APPTS,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
-~-BANGALORE-52
3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF MINES
SHASTRI BI-IAWAN
NEW DELHI 110 001 RESPON~E--ENT_S A'
(By Sri BASAVARAJ KAREDDY, GA FOR R1 , GUHA.AS'SOCiIfA~TEST'
FOR R-2 ) _
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES__ 225 as 2;2:I7"OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDEA FRAYING To EQUVASjH...__Tz~IE
COMMUNICATION / RECOMMENDA'flON.DT.4.1«Q.U"Z, fi?AS,SED BY
THE R1, AND ANN--J. QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS, OF THE R1
WHEREBY IT HAS RECOMMENDED""'FHE CASE OF R2, FOR
GRANT OF MINING TO R3, ANNEXED AS ~.AN,N:K. DIRECT THE
R1, TO GRANT THE MINING ,LEA,SE; IN'-FTAVIOUR OF THE
PETITIONER IN TERMS OF THEMINING LEASE:-V -!'I¥'PLICA'l'IONS
OF THE PETITONER _P'ENDING "EEFORE__IT- IN " ACCORDANCE
WITH APPLICABLE LAWS,,,.RUI;ES:A-ND REGULATIONS.
THIS W'RIT._PEiI'iTION"C»OMiNG'UP FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLO__wINc.;-: --
"-oRnER
1. {'Deii{r'eTed by PD. Dinakaran, C.J.)
The._abov.e~Efifitiipetition is filed by the petitioner challenging
_cc-mmuni"ca_tion/ recommendation dated 04.10.2007 passed by
".;feSpor..ident "No.1 recommending for grant of mining lease to an
it of 127.48 hectares in Thimmappanagudi village, Sandur
Bellary District in favour respondent No.2, pursuant to
3 gvpersonn. /figx
2.2 The further contention of the petitioner is that,
recommending the grant of lease in favour of 2″” respc-‘ndent; V’ 1′
State Government has not followed the proecedurei
under Rule 26 of Mineral Concession
referred to as M.C. Rules, 1960). He’nce_faiI1ire the
Government to consider the same is arbitraryaand nnreavsonvable.
3. Heard learnedvcounselthepetijiioner and the
learned Government it
4. We havegiven” an%3f;ioi1_s”.:o11sideration to the submissions
made on behalfof theipetitioner’a_s”we1~1 as the respondents.
CQrfeeded1y_ theiiiimpugned proceedings dated 27.09.2007
reads. _as jhereunderzi ‘ ii ‘
0″ ~€é.;e.No£iee”.’un§ief Rule 26(1) of M.C.Ru1es, 1950 was
_ issued» to..__al1-the applicants to appear for hearing on
2-0″‘! Feiariiary, 2007 at 11.00 am. to make
‘ iipreisentation for sanction of mining lease in their
The hearing was held as scheduled and 33
..ap_p1icants who attended the hearing were heard in
!: /u :://i:/”Mt . – ‘
J/’V
Therefore, we do not agree with the contention of petitioner _
the procedure contemplated under Rule 26 of M.C_.. Vvva:s.not”
complied with.
5.2 That apart, the reasoning impugned..vprok7’eedings
reads as hereunder: ‘
“9. It is desirable to ‘areas to
applicants whoéliaye already.V¥esta1§li_she-d«their plants
in the State” :Znv_es.tii1gihugepjlarnclunts. The Ore
requirement. for””pr”od11ct4iorivroftonne steel is about
1.6 tonVno–s.of’i~ro’n;o3:e’7. V l l I
5.3 It also to__notice that the Government has
followed the criteria me–nt’ioVned””—-i_n’ Section 11(3) of M.M.D.R Act,
1957 for gzjanting rnininglease as per which the following matters
‘bathe biauisiskfor of mining lease:
(a)~..Any special” lV<p'r:.o'i.vledge of, or experience in reconnaissance
operations,_p.rospecting operations or mining operations, as
" '–the ca'seV_rnay be, posse ssed by the applicant;
«..(b):vi_T'eh_e"iinancial resources of the applicant;
M
(c) The nature and quality of the technical staff employedp–or> to
be employed by the applicant;
(d) The investment which the applicant proposes to=makei’e ”
mines and in the industry based on the mine.=’rals§'”
(e) Such other matters as may be prescri.bed_A_.l *
5.4.1 The Government while considering the Iner1ts_ of
respondent has observed as ;_’ T’
14. M/s. Kabini Mineral :CoVmpanyi”does.p.”not hold any
Pvt. Ltd., _ [mining l.ease.._in’Karnataka. They
3 . “prc’rpose’_ xto” invest Rs.262.50
.V “‘They__a1so propose to set
._ ‘ ‘ up-f_’::; ” ‘Stee?g/ Sponge Iron plant
——– _ iig, ‘-near Hospet’. Proposed use of ore
“‘ ” ‘is-._for captive consumption, for
export and also for local supply.
5:41 the other l’i’and..tl1e merits of petitioner reads as
hereundt’-;r:, l
17. M/s”.»J.S.W.”p:StAeels The Company does not hold any
Ltd;–., mining lease in Karnataka. They
‘ propose to invest Rs.10 crores.
Proposed use of ore is for
indigenous consumption and
captive use. Iron ore will be
supplied to their Steel Plant at
Toranagallu, Hospet Taluk,
Bellary District.
5.5 The above comparitive merits of petitioner _
respondent herein reveals that while the 2nd respondent”~herein_:it
proposed to invest Rs.262.5O lakhs, the pet.ition’e_r.:
invest Rs. 10 crores and further pi”o_posed’* = use 1the..:o_re for
indigenous consumption and captiveiiiise pandii to
supply the ore to its existing $’te_el ._’ri.i{.5W.ever, fact
that petitioner is prepared to also has set
up a Steel Plant at :Fo:?airiga1l’;, District was
not taken note of bythe Government. On
the other ‘arbitrarily recommended the
grant of mining lease to End re.spondent herein.
v_ Even though we’are__not in a position to support the reasons
that ‘rimpugnedvi’proceedings CELIIIC to be passed with material
irregzilarity’ oblique – motive in granting lease just
before the Chief Minister laid down office, we are
.:ipe’o4nvinCed’that the order of State Government in preferring the 2nd
“V ‘-.p_iire_spontien’ti as against the petitioner for granting mining lease is
and unreasonable and contrary to the matters that are
I0
infrastructure and overall development of the lifestyle
of the public at large of the locality and region.
22.2. The major concern in mining sector is they-“v.
undue and protracted delay in clearing approval frorri,
various Ministries and departments, viz. Mines .;.
Geology, Pollution Control Board, Environment-._arid’e. L”
Forest, Revenue and Survey, Indian.Bu::*.eau
etc. and in processing and granting m.,inineg it 1ea’se.”‘V”‘t
Such delay, not only causes hardshipltoithe appli2;an’ts
who invest huge amount, butlaffjeets ectonomiclgrovutli
of the nation. Therefore, it is ap_pr’opriate for th_eV_State
Government and the Ce_n’tral .Gover’nz_rieVnt.,pto evolve a
single wvindoxv ‘ V sys’tem« .vs_rit.hi_i1 their respective
jurisdiction «. to -not’:i_iy,l’ur_e'<:e,i's.re, scrutinize, process,
approve to take 'aplpriopriate decision in granting
mini:-jig' lease without undue and protracted delay".
7.1 1' ~. Wave e{re;",':he,¥e£ore, unable to agree with the decision of the
Government preferring the 2nd respondent as against the
ll_:p'eti'ti.orier__'in sew of decision taken by us in W.A.No.5026/2008
and in W.P.No.5022/2009 (GM~MM–S~P1L).