Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd., vs Union Of India on 20 August, 2009

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd., vs Union Of India on 20 August, 2009

Equivalent citations: 2010 (1) AIR KANT HCR 867, 2010 A I H C 1674, AIR 2010 (NOC) (SUPP) 1008 (KAR.), (2010) 2 KANT LJ 487

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE.__

DATED THIS THE 20"' DAY OF AUGUST 2009

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. 9.0. DINAKARA:§;,A.c}aIE;éaJ'us?}fIC'EX  T

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JusTIcE-\1_V.G. 'SAi3HAHV;TT'   :1

wan PETITION N9__.___g473o of4T'2n:o9_(GM»»~m\Ii'~s)::
Between: A T T T 

Twenty First Cezwtuh-,w \4'Jir'e"R.Qc|s-.Ltd"*~.V  ' V
A Company incorpo..;jaE.ed'.Vunderthe' 'a  T
Companies Act,' T'19.561.haiiE:3g it; 
Office at #403, 12?" Maine'   
RMV Extn., Sa'CfaShivanag:a{ T  T'
Bengaiooru 560' 080 T  V '  «
Represented by its--..Chairman.'& 
Managing Director 'fined 'Gael';

  A' " ...Petitioner

  (.By<Sr,if"'E3__.L.i\£.Rao, Se-mar Advocate for

 " V$-ti}./inaya Keerthy, Adv.)

""?'aAnd--:V

4:  L§"r'.::Qr': af India

=Re--pAreser'1ted by its
:3jecretar"y'

 --..:~/iinisjtry of Mines

 DeEhi11C% 001.

T --«SV'h"a'$tr: Bhavan 

 



2. State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Commerce &
Industries, Vicihana Soudha,
Ambedkar Veedhi
Bengaiooru 560 001
3. Director
Department of Mines & Geology
Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road
Bengalooru 560 001.    V av   
 . ..'.Respondents

(by Sri Y.HariprasachzinchairgenA'SGa-for Sri Basavaraj Karredd;;',_GA f§.f:~r. R=-:.2»..&'R§3 ) This writ petition is filed under Artic,|eS"226~--iand 227 of the Constitution of Indiaaprayinﬁg to_}cIir4e'ct'_-..the "v:ces;:Jondents to consider the application§}o'f_thve*petitioner at"An'nex~C and grant mining iease in its;'fayVo..ur"-fo'if carryingy out'._min'ing activity over an extent of 36.42 Hec.taUr_e;'s in D'i"u«mtvi']'.£_i|ia'ge,";Sandur Taluk, Beilary District. """

This writ pietitiovnVcom'i.n"g'«...ti'p for preliminary hearing this day, the Co§Jrt deliver-ed' the fc'=||owing:-

V,J&oGMENT " ...:'(D.eIiii'er'ed by PD. Dinakaran, c.::.)' IV1.1. The'i.epetitioner, a company incorporated under the engaged in business of carrying mining activity A"4D'and«if-'manufacture of stainless steei, alloy steel and rolling through biast furnace route, having manufacturing District in respect of Iron ore and Yellow Oxide for a period of__2O years as per the sketch enclosed therewith.

1.3. Aggrieved by the undue delay and inaction * of the 1st resp0ndent--Central Government', invoking Articles 226 and 227 of theEco:j'strtutio.n"~ approached this Court to direct the"ivr_es.pondevnts to granting mining lease in its favour forg_c_a'rrVyingv onhrnining activity over an extent of 36.42 hectares in Tgutgrjiti villjag'e,._Sandur Taluk, Beilary District for mining Iron:.ore. aindv 'Ye'li.l_ovv"Diode:

2. Mr.E:.;asavaraj._-.VKva'reddy',"~«.'}_ea_rned Principal Government Advocate acceptsnotic'ei.iori-lib-eh'a.i_t"ol"2"" and 3"' respondents and Mr.Y.Haripra:ad, le'ar,nedw.v"Incha.rge Assistant Solicitor General acvceipts ynoticeioin behaif otﬂiéi respondent.

learned Senior Counsel appearing w.itrh_"lVir.Viin'ay_iﬁleerthy, learned Advocate for the petitioner, _i_1Mr.u'v._Basava~ra'j}_ Karreddy, learned Government Advocate ':._3'ppe~arinVgVfor 2"" and 3"' respondents as well as Mr. /'."'"?E S Y.Hariprasad, learned Incharge ASG for 15' respondent--Cen'tra~E.._ Government.

4. The iearned Government Advoi:ateA_ app;eairin_g:'fc3.~r respondents--2 and 3 submits that the petitioner ini'i'act».has' grievance against the State Governnzente asHnothinoj"_isVx'pe"ndi'Vng before them as they have already re.co'a'nfr.:ended thebasei of the petitioner to the Government of lease in respect of the impug,ne;c;§ proceedings dated 4"' October;'2o'Q«.7 Advocate also submits that.ivth--e the 15' respondent-

Central Govevrvnrneinti ' '

5. The..learniéedilricharéj-e 'llisst. Solicitor General appearing for .C'entr"a! aGio'ver'n.ment 'seeks 60 days time to pass appropriate orders iVn_the-- _fnatte'r'..

--V 6. suvbpstaéintiate the case of the petitioner, our attention .: .fvvasuia:lsotinvited by 3Vlr.D.L.N.Rac3, learned Senior Counsel, to our V.'if=..:ea.r|ji.er=:order dated 11"' June 2009 made in Writ Petition %"""i.__ViNo;5U'22/2009 (Sathyamoorthy vs. The Secretary to the E 1 I aw .

8.2. The proceedings dated 4"' October 2007 of the State Government recommending the appiication of the petition~e_r-..t_o~._V the Government of India reads thus:

"GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAi§f\ N0.CI.37:MMM.2005 Karnata i-(Va Govern'me'nt Secvretariyatz ._\/'iiz.asa Sodha, V i i3angaEor'e;&iT,~ Dated': O4."1r3i20(i:"7 From, V 2 2 The Secretary to Government ii 2 (Mines, SS1 & Textiles) ..

Commerce 8: Industries. Dep'artment,_:i BANGALORE 560 "

To, The Secretary to Gove'rn"m_ent__o'f.IndEa Ministry of Minesi ' 4' »--

Shastry Bhavanr. V _ NEW Delhi 110 00'-:.y_ ' Su_b':.._Con's.id_eration of application filed by 3 V ' N,/si;?i'wentyFErst Century Wire Rods Ltd., . b'y-_.H:is Chairman Mr.Vinod Goyet for grant . of Mining iease over an area of 36.42 Hectares in Tumté village, Sandur Taiuk, Beiiary District for Iron Ore and Yeiiow Oxide. >¢<>i<>¢<>i<>¢< am directed to state that in Notification "ii'",No._CI.l6:MMM.2003 dated15.03.2003 an area of 36.42 hectares in Tumté village, Sandur Taiuk, Beiiary District for ,Iron Ore and Yeiiow Oxide was notified for information of mining interested pubiic that the same was avaiiable grant of mining lease under Ruie S9 (1) of MCRS 1960g,....._E<ii» _ ' _ V 3 response to this Notification, 24 appiications were received 0 for the said area.

Aii the appiications were examin'ed'~i.n a_cco_r.daiice with Section 11 of MM(D&R) Act, 1957 and Ri,.iie]35--_of.MC.RS5w._ 1960 and all the applicants have been g'i«ven._opportisni't',z.of "

being heard under Ruie 26(1:)_ of MCR-S 19to..on' ' 20.02.2007.

Based on the above 'hearing'____a"r"..d_ after examinatioin of other provisions of M&M("D.&R) Act, 19537 and MCR"1'9'60, the State Government has decided V to"-.._r'eco~mmend the appiication of M/s.Twenty First.e_Cen-tt;ry' W_ire.v'P.od:-. Ltd., by its Chairman Mr.Vinod G0yel._f_or~grant of 'M'inin'g; lease over an area of 36.42 hectaresgin Turriti_ v'i.ll'a.ge,' Saridur Taiuk, Beilary District for Iron 0re'_and 't'eiio'w_O><ide._...~ The applicant». does. n'oftv,ho--Ed_~ar;,y"mining lease in Karnataka. i"iEu'~..]IV)"l'i}",'}QSE13."tf)vV'if'l'.'feS'C iiis.11 crores and proposed, use "Qfv:fQi'e "is" foi'~_c'aptive"Li'se and pellatisation Diant. ' * ' The applied area».faiis---.._in"revenue land. The other relevant records reqtiired "under Rules and acts wiil be obtained after g"et_ting.approvai of Government of India. 'r.,T:i'l6,.."fOllOWFng docur'nents are enciosed for sanction of Mining leasein' favour of the applicant:--

(it) .'VfEin*i'ng iease application;

. (ii) 'ff Sketch showing the area recommended;

"-._(iii)_>' _ ..¥'Affidavit in respect of Income Tax z ciearance;

(iv)___ * Affidavit in respect of Mining iease held in State or Country.

The proforma and checklist required for sanction of _.__'":Mining iease as per Section 5(1) of MM (D&R) Act, 1957 are ' * enclosed.

15.4. Iron constitutes 4-5% of earth's crust, but is not evenly distributed. Iron ore reserves are largely distributed in Australia, Brazil, India, Russia and Ukraine.._V*-

Indian Iron ore is rich in Fe and has moderate silica,V..'"-"* alumina and phosphorus. India ranks fifth in terrns off iron ore reserves and is a leading producer and.*experter"~».

of iron ore in the world after Australia, t3'ra.::il"'and Countries and contributes to around 7.'5V"/ci._of'(worid_Air0n . "

ore production. Some iron ores "in India are tl.'ie"t:est,_VV naturally occurring grades in the World.» With".207' million tones of iron ore production in .ZG08."g'*iron_ ore tops. the metallic mineral production" the'b._counvtr'y: f ' A V _ 15.5. In the'.meant:'nie,.countries lil<e."Japan and China have been" irnporting_ iron"'ore"'from' India and value adding/converting-_'~V itﬁto .end--hlgh priced steel products iand«.also-- eXpi_orting__ito_all other countries, to the benefit of V"their_ society." v..._".."a.'3'enerally, countries have adoprgdto. the idea: of conserving raw materials and other the purpos'e'"of domestic industry and only valueadded, item have been exported, ensuring economic "grgowthh grassroot level. All the economically developed. countries have become developed by pursuing j this route, excepting Australia who have very large ""g'rn.ineral "resources and retain very small population. "«.b'China""has adopted a different strategy now, of importing iron (+60% Fe) contributed to 60 MT per year of " -additional steel inventory there, which is more than India's annual production. This, in turn correspondingly 13 steel industries, no concrete steps have been taken 0' in that regard. Nothing concrete has been done«"'by.f . it the State of Karnataka to control the grom('ing'e... money power of the mining industry aiid"'Ste:el""V 0 industries have not been granted anyj. iron_'orew.'-.. mining lease in the State.

15.8.1. Karnataka has totai'~e«.iron ore resourceshofil 9.03 billion tons out of total 23. l§illio'r;--»_.tons, "wh.ich_.i§s 38.28% of total Indian ore-1 re.so.ui'Cesy."'«.yin spite of higher resources in the State. tota?l._iiVii'ofr:yia_if7d steel making capacity iifthe 062.5 million tons, which is the:_4tota'l'lr:*o'ian iron and steel production _capacity of-is;a}a.... *Tij:e of very low steel production' is thatallthesevwproducers who have set up industry in the State"'*do' not have any iron ore mines._ in spitecof the"':assurance by the State Gomfe-irnmient andw.provisions of MMDR Act and hiationali finiineral Policy and the Karnataka State These companies have already made' an investment of over Rs.25,000/- crore in the""stat_é'a:nd have generated direct and indirect

- '-.employment to atleast 25000 people. 0 15.8.3. All other mineral-rich states viz., Orissa, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh which signed maximum 0 0' "number of MOUS, have clear policy to give iron ore mining 00 lease only to the existing iron and steel producers or the 14 proposed steel plants, who make substantial investmen.t<., in the state in iron and steel plant before » is recommendation.

15.8.4. Although mineral weall'hiiivest:_with-; V' Governments, yet the subject of regula«tion_A_Aof'imin*es"and, [A mineral development is covered.by.___entry"54'"ef the'l)'.-*7_i"o,n_ List under Seventh Schedule of the_Co.nstitution 'er.'indi;;. By virtue of this, the Parli'amentjh--as:exclusive pow.er,,to make laws with respeci«--..tc re.gulatio"n.._'~r)f">mines and mineral development. But State Governments is theineed of thehou'r;,,.h:'yi»._V. . .. 15.9. "WP.-lie:rahtifyingg._the 'value addition criteria adopted by c=ertaii1i;_,nmir»ei'al?¥richindiaén States, utmost priority lease shall be given to those co--rnpa4ni'es: up steel plants to the benefit of th..esocie'tty at.Vla,rg'e, ' __§iS.;i.O. Pwdent pre-qualifications followed by i"allocationitof"mining leases, within a reasonable time, to tl?ose.steel'co~mpanies who have invested and operating, i'couid_Vybe"th_e___appropriate route to trigger higher growth rate»._in steel'j'..--sector, thereby ensuring value addition, employment generation, infrastructure development -- a ruequvisite to become a developed and balanced ,.f5,Uci3tiir'- "

ﬁg' 16 the statute, we are of the considered opinion that the Central Government should themselves come forwarrJ"'to » it exercise their power for clearing the applications fo'r__:the:-.1 Vb"

approval contemplated under Section 5_, ofthe Alli/ibk and Section 2 of the FC Act within a reagsonebgiefjvtimei lirnity which should not, in our considered opini'on,"he more_~_th'an '~ six months from the date of receiptof the'application such approval.

19.2. Mere want provision "~--a_'s._."on_ date for passing orders in respect of the Central Government conte_rripiated"unVo'e:ij 5- the MMDR Act and Section wouldbhirhotbe an excuse for the Central Governm,en*tff.'-to." 37.-3'l37€V"Vf!'7d€'ﬁnlf€ time for passing qrdersV"on"hthetagoplicaitionhh forssuch approval and to cause undue inV:'the'«m"a.tter. as it would defeat the very policy of the Centre!_:1Government and the State Government"»__in _ the_ 4Vrn_a"tte'r' of industrialization and econofnic tdevelopment. Of course, it was contended on ~Vbehalt":oﬁ_A---thevvl.respondents that it may not be proper for this»Court'«.to«._interfere with the policy decision of the iC~?ove_rnrnent._V B.U.f""W€ are unable to appreciate the said contention,."b.ecause in the instant public interest 'V iitigation,V"' the petitioner is neither making any allegation against the policy decision nor challenging the same, but '.all,tha't the petitioner seeks is, only to give effect to the policy" decision of the State which is admittedly = implemented by the State.

'""'\ x 17 19.3. The Apex Court, in SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI (KUMARI) V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [(1991)1 SCCR» 212] held that:

"27. Unlike a private party whose acts uninformed by reason and influenced by personal predilections in contractual mattersfjx ' may result in adverse consequen'ces"to &_itEalo;neV " _ without affecting the public inte.rest;..any 'such act of the State or a public body even in this" . field would adversely affect -the public' interest} .v Every holder of a public office by virtue "of which he acts on behalfof' the Si'ate"or public body is ultimately. _ar:countable--.to the people in whom.cthefsovereighty vests. As such, all powers "soXvestedi.in himviare meant to be exercised for public good and"p_'mmoting the public interest. _.T.'?.iSV"."S 'equally7tru'e_"of all actions even in the field of'~~.c_o.ntrac=t. Thus, every ho.ldent>of a 'public office' is-5*' trustee whose 'highest';--duty--.is'wto 'thejpeople of the country aj_nd, therefor-e,"*evei:y'act of the holder of a public-»_office; «irrespective of the label eiassifying thatact, is in discharge of public dui*y"t..n1«:=anvt 'ultimately for public good. With. the"~diversiﬁca.tion of State activity in a, Welfare '5'tat_e"'*--.requiring the State to discharge -its gwide *..rangi'ng functions even jethrough its "several instrumentalities, which ~ '~'requires enter.'ng___into contracts also, it would be A uni?e.al"t'and not pragmatic, apart from being 2 unjus.tifietl. to exclude contractual matters from 'tbe"«sphere of State actions required to be non» ._ "c.arbitr'ary'~a'nd justified on the touchstone of 'V 'Artlcle'~1I.«;i{"

Again, the Apex Court, in FOOD ".'co_R§Poi~3ATIoN or: INDIA v. KAMADHENU CATTLE V FE5D"INDUSTRIES reported in [(1993): scc 71] has " ~ , it ~.. «Aobserved as hereunder:

"7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non» arbitrariness is a significant facet. There_--is*~--.. no unfettered discretion in puVblic"la,w:;,A T public authority possesses powers only ' _ to use them for public good.._ "This _' .

imposes the duty to act fairly, and tofh adopt a procedure which "is 'fail-play. in .. action'. Due observanrc,e"i» of this obligation as a part ''-.._of_» good administration raises a~"reasc-nable or "

legitimate expecta.tir'm in eve"ry_*..cii"izen to be treated fairly _a in 'hi;:;intera»ction with the State andﬂits instrumental'ities, with this element forming '«ai'--nece;'~,:_.ary component b .s of 'the " " decisionwvmaking process in an _'.Stat'c.-__ actions; V To, satisfy this requifrement .of=nson--arbii'ra'riness in a State"a.ci'io:1, it is; therefore,.,§necessary toi'consider and give'-due "weight to the reasonabliegor legitimate. expectations of .

the persons ~!ik.eiy_t0__b'e_ affected by the decision or,else-- tha_t"u"nfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or, excess? of power apart from ,}affecting the bona fides of the decision in given case; The decision so made would exposed to challenge on the " ground, of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not Cor.*lﬁ2"$Ttely'-"eliminate discretion in the "exercise_- of power, as it is unrealistic, but provldesfor control of its exercise by judicial review.

8. The mere reasonable or legitimate 'expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, "may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation 20 with audi aiteram partem are two of these facets. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a nascent addition to the rules of natural justice. It goes beyond statutory rights by serving as anoth:~:~r*~.--._ device for rendering justice. Vl£|t"the root it of the principle of legitimate ' _ expectation is the constitutionai- _ ' .g g principle of rule of law,; which'~--requires.~CL , ' ' regularity, predictability" and certainty in ., Government's dealings with 'the public?---i J. Raz, The Authority of Law "1-9?'9)_» Chapter 11]. The "legal cer'ta_inty'TWis "a_i;:o '6.' basic"

principle of European Vyr;ommu;7ityJuﬁuropean law is based upon?' the.' gconcept " of vertrauensschutz ( the honouring ofa V trust. or confidence),_'It.__is for these .reasons that "the existencefor' 'legitimate' expec'tati0.n.« may even in .the ahs_e--nc'e of a .righ__t of V private law, justify its recognition"inf-pub.lici« law. ' ws .ofi5ngland (4th Edn_.),' the doctnine.of=l_egitirnate expectation has begerildescribed .in."the following words:

" 'T_A w.pers'un may have a legitimate expectation of being treated 'lira certain way by an _ administrative authority even " thoggugh he has no legal right in f"--«.Vpr.i1iate law to receive such '--treatment. The expectation may ' _a,é%ise either from a representation or promise made by the ~~ authority, including an implied representation, or from consistent past practice. "

104. A formal statement on the doctrine of legitimate expectation can he found in the judgment of the House of Lords in Council of 22 to 'legitimate expectation' of following consistent past practice in the matter of allotment, even though they may not have any legal right in private law to receive such treatment, The_~"~-- existence of 'legitimate expectation'; may have a number of ',diffe_tenj.t ' consequences and one of such consequences is thatgthe authority ought not to act to "d.efeat"- the._ 'legitimate expectation' without some overriding reason of pub__lic-..po*.'icy to ~ justify its o'oingV..so. in a._ case__ of 'legitimate expectation"? the. autiiority proposes to defeat Fa' persoyh/.s" --. 'legitimate expeCtation"i ._ it 'shoulo'----

afford him ._an §opportunity=«..'v'to make representa;tion.s in t.*.'7e"ma'tter;---- In...this conhectionﬂreference" may" be made to the discussfons"'-ff" it on. V 'legitima te expeCta'tio.Qf at p'.*151 'cf Voi.} 1(1) of Hais-bu:ry's E335/1'S"Of' "England," '4th Edn. (re~issue;}....V_We 'm_ay.,__a.l.sO refer to a "decision o~f"~the_ House of Lords in Ccluiicil of V Civil "---S_er'Jice Unions v. Minister, for.Civil' Service. It has been held "i.r3 the said' decision that an a~ggrieved._person was entitled to judicial revieW"'if he could show that a decision of the public authority _ "--a_ffeC'teal him of some benefit or "advantage which in the past he had been permitted to enjoy and which he V_ legitimately expected to be permitted to continue to enjoy either until he a v.g_w'as given reasons for withdrawal and the opportunity to comment on such reasons.

16. It may be indicated here that the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' imposes in essence a 23 duty on public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such 'legitimate expectation'.

Within the conspectus of fair dealing in case of 'legitimate expectation', the ._ reasonable opportunities to mal<e_.~--~. representation by the parties.<lil<ely_to-_' be affected by any change__ of 1 consistent past policy, come"gin.7.__We have not been shown: any compelling reasons" _ taken "into.

consideration by the Central ' Government to make a departure' ~ from the e.>:isting¢.A""'p'olicy'"<._ of allotment with reference'»._ "to seniority in 'registration _ introducinganeyzr guideline.-"=. ' "

'lierfrphaisis 2 1 9] if Ti:éf.,4pe',?'§,ycogirejn m 5l5ti":Ro~ AND STEEL co. Lrb-.. V. ' u~roiv..c4oF_"rnib-.14: "reported in (1995)9 SCC 709, approving. th'eivie.v"v----of the Committee appointed by the Central 'G_ove.rr;~mei7t pursuant to the directions to

-V V. '_ the high Court of Or.'ss_a_,_gconsisting of senior officers from 5 V Vtheilinistry of"M_ines, the Indian Bureau of Mines and the of India, that the National Mineral Po;'icy'wi'havir'ig;--: tabled before both the Houses of _ Pariia'men__t,' isia guiding factor in the decision-making process" of? the Government and, both in the National "..fMinera,l Policy as well as the Industrial Policy of the State 'e._of_VGi*issa, captive mining has been recognized as a fundamental guideline in determining the criteria for if "granting mining lease, held that the Committee made an 24 estimate of the captive mining requirement of each of the parties appearing before it, after coming tojtiree ._ . it conclusion that captive mining is a fundamentavlf-, guideline to be kept in mind while....renewin"g"*£tje lease.

20. In that view of the matter, we donot see'e'any__ error or illegality on the part""~ot"*i.the petiti'o.der hair:

approaching this court for seekinggAappro_0ri'ate direction both Central and State "~--tt:-.Vy',btiocess the applications in accordance wlthegthe taken by them, as the petitionerisVentitledftoggse-elgtiisuch relief based on legitimateeexpectatidnfi _ "

21. "i"hei--*efo~re;}_:vve" are the petitioner is bonafideiiivinrr..ap_prohching»ﬂthis with the above public interest his hands on the very National l\lii'nerail iéoiicyj'2o'0a"a}§a 2008 as well as the Karnataka Mineral P.oiicy,'*. 2008, which itself provide for g_promo3tingbA'angd encouraging scientific mining methods by employing fadvanced mining equipment and machineries ..43'nd"_:..non--skilled manpower and actively encou~_r'aging--".v*alu«eVaddition which should go hand--in~hand withbthe growth of the mineral sector as a standalone "i'ndustrié:lV activity and to give priority to the applicants, '..fwhoib"propose\ to establish industries based on value it e._ad_dition making it clear that mining as a stand-alone industry needs to be encouraged as it provides large scale it employment; new mineral based industries should be set /;-v%'.:%\l\\ 26 reasonable time, not exceeding six months from the date of receipt of applications for such approval, so that, there would not be any financial strain on the investments that may be made by the industrialists as well as financial aid that may be extended by the State or state--owned Corporation or the Nationalised Banks in this regar,d,'band 5 H ' (V) the Central Government to dispose Loft, the applications for the approval' of ' _ mining lease as contemplated._under Section 5 of the MM'.:)R"~i..Act and/or. Section 2 of the FC Actﬁas' the case may be,' within the reasonable. time, not". exceeding six months from date of receipt of ap'pli,ca_ti'o¥ns Q vvfoia L' such' approval, so that, therei---would.,notabe; any ﬁnancial stralri..o_n'=.the invest'me'nts"

that may/.,be.._ma.:;le b}/the indiistrialists as well aLj-=r'inan.ciai, aid th.at"ma.=--y=' be extended_ byifthe .S.ta't'e or" state-owned Corporation or"*the i'latioiiali'sed Banks in this re-ge%m=.:.;'§,_ _ 'V * %

9. Foiijoyuirlzg thenhdehcision dated 11"' June 2009 rendered in Wri"tV_Petit,i.on !\iAoh,5O,22/22009, this Court, uncfer similar facts and 2»,Lcircum§:a't;c,es,"7i'n..__ Petition No.9261~63/2009 & 9264- hﬁse/2009 By oivdervﬂated st" Juiy 2009, directed the State and ,Ce'ntraVi«C~1overn'ment to expeditiously process, scrutinize and through single window the applications, approve and to 27 take appropriate decision in granting mining lease without undue and protracted delay.

10. In the instant case, it is not in it respondents-2 and 3 by proceedings date'd'--43' have recommended to the 15' respondent:-ipcientlralitCovern«m"e;n't.,lAV;'l"

for grant of mining lease in favour oi'-tVhe_petit'loner.uovfer"~-an'"area of 36.42 hectares in Tumti viliage, Sa-n-dur~.Ta~!uk, Bei'iary-{§)istrict and the learned ASG appearing"for--the_Ceiiritratlviigciovegrnment fairly concedes that there isan ._unciué'o*n:'vi»t_heV3part'uof the Central Government further orders as contemplatedvluricier'Sect'i'on MMDR Act. Though the learned ASG app'e--aririgrforA'the«::."-Central Government seeks 60 days. ne"ces.sa_ry action and to pass appropriate further ord.ers»_ini't«hat.__regard, however, for the reason which I-'";_weighe"d--this Writ Petition No.5022/2009 and Writ i"P_etition N$sp92s1;é3/2oo9 & 9264-66/2009 and as we are ti:-apt the case of the petitioner is stronger than those V"'.l."r.eferr.ed'~:to"above, that is, in the order made in Writ Petition i"'*VV..1i\io.so22/2009 and Writ Petition Nos.9261-63/2009 & 9264- WWW.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court