1113 Human: am. Jusncm 9 _
Betwaeu:
IN THE HIGH court? or Kanuxrrazia,
AT BANGALORE
Dated this the ?*h day of August. 2003: ,; ::
swarm:
Wu': geaiggn E2
THE SANDUR MANGANESE 5;.
mom ORES LIMTED , '
NO.21'?, SADASHIVANAGAR
BELIARY
REP. mi ms 4c«:}:¢sPANY _SECRE}'l'ARY .
sum. MD. &BDUL=--s.AL2*;'EM' . PETITIONER
""" " 1 Counsel
V V V 'i*To:*..Sri. Adv]
$'l'ATE oh' KARNATA'i{A.
_"1'i*:EP__B"i' _1'1's SEC§?.ET¥?ARY
"DEPA"R'I'*?-EENI' op' MINES
» V * --» SSI..8s*TEX'FILES, DEPARTMENT
' 0? cgmmeggs AND INBUSTRIES
. Ij\;E S BUILDEZNG
' __BANGALGf*;E~56O om
' _:o'
'1?HE"c;o§aM1ss1oNER OF'
muss AND GEOLOGY
'~ 'A 'T 'mzrr or» MINES AND GEOLOGY
= KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
..ggcc:R§~ME_:§D$ THE"'GRAN'r OF' MINING LEASE TO RESPONDENTS
RAND 5- AND
4 ‘SOUR? m’DE THE FOLLOWING:~
3 UNION OF INDIA
RE? BY ITS SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF com. AND M§NES
DEPARTMEN1′ OF’ MSNES
SHASTRI BHAVAN
NEW DELHI
4 {VHS KALYAN! STEELS LIMITED E .. E
HOSPET ROAI3, GINIGERA-583 223
KOPPAL TALUK AND DIS’£”RIC-‘If ‘ A
BY ITS MANAGING
5 EMS JINDAL VIJAYAQIAGAR sTEE:,s”1,TD ‘ ”
R0 TGRANAGALLU, SM§DLFR TA;–.-ma V
E-ELLARY DIS1’R3CT,KARNATAQ*{B E ‘E
REP BY ITS MANAGING E1RE§:rroR ‘– .;.;.REsRoNnENTs
[By_. B.Vc€§1~ap}g>§, A(§A1fo;’R;1″a 2;
C:;?€>’l;sze5.s3Iiil££»:nth,_ CGSC far R-3;
‘Sr_i~’L’ ifs} KS»,~.-1;i’c_>r”€V3o1tnsck ibr
sm. R finm*Rdha;”Ad§§., R-4 & 5]
‘m§s wRr:~R.5»;;Eg;19z1¢R:,:ts.’VVRILED UN9ER ARTICLES 225 AND
227 OF THE ‘coNsmim0:§”oEV..1ND1A PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMMUNICATI__ON_ m_’r”E1:>»– V6g»E12~2oo4 ISSUED BY THE FTRST
REsmp:EEm’ ” vgpa AFINEXURE-P, IN so FAR AS 1′?
._ HAVING BEEN HEARE AND RESERVED,
comm; o;~:.r«fQRTRRoNouNcEME:~rr OF’ ORDERS, ‘I’I~!§S DAY, THE
[bf . “(It i’:e’iii therein that the proceedings leading to
5
proceedings of the State Government leading to
communication dated 6.12.2004 [copy at AImexLire§P.:’to4
this writ petition} had been questioned.
5. In a separate order of
No.21608 of 2005 has been auosyed it is,
[a] recommendation ‘ veeoondent —
M/3. Jindal who was not
an dated
as the State
have considered the earlier
filed by this respondent
granting mining lease in terms of
»A the dated 15.3.2003.
tin} mendation, particularly, the manner of
V ” Viooneideration of the applications, manner of hearing
the piecemeal recommendations made in favour