Sri Sathyamoorthy S/O. Perumal vs The Secretary To The Government Of India on 11 June, 2009

[Cites 7, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Sathyamoorthy S/O. Perumal vs The Secretary To The Government Of India on 11 June, 2009

Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 (NOC) 238 (KAR.), 2009 (6) AIR KAR R 368 2010 AIHC (NOC) 379 (KAR.), 2010 AIHC (NOC) 379 (KAR.), 2010 AIHC (NOC) 379 (KAR.) 2009 (6) AIR KAR R 368, 2009 (6) AIR KAR R 368

Bench: P.D. Dinakaran

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 
DATED THIS THE i§%DAY OF JUNE, 2009
PRESENT A' T
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN,,,,cHIEE_.JUsTIC:E'"5.
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE,_}/.G. S€LB'HAHIT»' "   V  3
WRIT PETITION No.5022/2OGS._"('GN--MN;-S{PI'L) 
BETWEEN: '  '    
SR1 SATHYAMOORTHY -. V V
S/O. PERUMAL   
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,--,  '

R/AT No.4, NEAR vINAYAI§:A _TE.N'-PLE._   
KSRTC LAYOUT, SU-BRAMAINYAPU-RAPOST  

UTTRAHALLI MAIN ROAD 
BANGALORE-61 .... _ 

 PETITIONER

(léyasri RakeS'l'*TKf1a:'T§_na4, Senior Advocate
 ' fqr Sr"§_S.:r'. Chouta)

,    ' ' ..... .. 7

1 THE 'S.EcR,E'rARY'TO THE
GOVERNMENT 0,1F-INDIA
MINISTRY OFEMINES

I ~ DEPARTME-NT OF MINES

-- C WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN
'GONNAUGH1=T PLACE

 Y.'I,\V|'E*."'I.'\I'HD'_ELH"I 110 001

  "  'SECRETARY TO THE

.__ "'GO'I;/ERNMENT OF INDIA
, "MINISTRY OF STEELS
7.DEPARTMENT OF STEELS
" SHASTRI BHAVAN
CONNAUGHT PLACE
NEW DELHI I10 O01

 



T'~.V_SrE__Ljd3'*,raHotia, Advocate General aiong with Sri Basavaraj Kareddy,

   "°rThis W.P. is filed praying to direct the respondents not to issue

"any'"n1ining leases in respect of iron ore within the state of Karnataka, 3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST SHASTRI BHAVAN, CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI 110001 4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO I V GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA I COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, Dr. AMBEDKAR»VE_EDHI};V "

BANGALORE~56O O01. h .

5 THE SECRETARY TO _ GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA _ , FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT" D.ERAR;TMENT I _ M 5 BUILDING, DR AMBEDKA-RVVEEDHI BANGALORE--56O 001 . I 5 THE SECRETARY TQ1s.I.i- _ _ A "" "

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT .QF..M;INES AND-<3Eo'LoG*g' M s BUILDING,"Dr. AiMBEDKA..R VEEDHI BANGAI:,oRE~56o',_oo«1'3.V . ' ~ 7 THE SECRETARY To * "

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M s Bé;iILDING, Dr~..._AMBEDKAR VEEDHI V. ..... ..

8 HATHE "D:rRE(:T'o_'R OFMINES AND GEOLOGY CEOVE R'N:'-'!E's'>~lvT o.F..I=<ARNATAi<A M 5 BUILDING V Dr.A-MBEDRARVEEDHI g BANGAI:0R.E--56o 001 . I ~- RESPONDENTS T{'3yvSrI}'.ravinc£ Kumar, Assistant Soiicitor Genera! For R1-3, Government Advocate For R4--R8) utitii alf existing steel industries are issued captive méning Eeases. 2 '" "V: T» $3

-. WL1"

This writ petition having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on for pronouncement of judgment this day, Hon'bie the Chief Justice pronounced the following:

JUDGMENT % This Pubiic Interest Litigation is fileclV..V_V:'-by-..Vv Sri Sathyamoorthy, claiming to be a public interested in safeguarding the publioat exploitation of iron ore minerals in Kairna:'tai<a. '

2. The petitioner has sougl*itﬁf'or the followi'nga"ireliefs in the writ petition: V' i. to5 dig:-éc_t"V"t'he not to issue any rrnnwiiig |éia3ses"--.in=.resp'ectof iron ore within the State' "ot'--_.:VKa_rntata~!<a,~ until all existing steel "induystrie_s' are captive mining leases;

ii,;~ ., _to rese.r_ve certain areas exclusively for existing . 'steel incl ustries ;

V_ gfifatnt Captive Mining Leases to Steel it _.~2Vla"n,-utacturing industries in the State of ' ~.vv'''i{_<aVrnatal<a in proportion to their respective vﬂlicensecl capacity on preferential basis; iv. not to renew any existing mining lease unless necessary investment is made by the lease towards value addition;

19 prospecting licences or mining leases. As per proviso to Section 5(1), no reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence --o"r--v..m.i_ning lease shall be granted except with the previous ap':p*rovai':.eof Centrai Government; Section 5(2) thereof .thai, l"i0«u' mining lease shall be granted by the State7'.Goverrime.nt is satisfied that-

(a) there is eviden_ce tvo"'sho'wit'i2.aAt the'a're'a for which the lease is apuplied prospected earlier or the existence».offming.ral.é.'conten.ts therein has been esta'bjijishedi--.Aothe'rw'ise:V means of ' Vv(i3l)'i'thVere iés'fii;i"nin'i~ng- plan"'o"u'Vly approved by the Central Go'vernmfent State Government, in respect of mines as may be speciﬁed the Central Government, for the of'vv----m«i«nerals deposits in the area » co-n_cerned;._V°» Sectiongiici' of Act provides for the grant of three types of iicenses, viz, "

I Reconnaissance permits;

" _ =.(ii) Prospecting license; and

(iii) Mining lease.

9.4. An application for grant of any of the aforesaid it "licenses shouid be made to the concerned State Government along with the necessary fee. Section 11 of the Act empowers 21 "Section 2: Declaration as to the expediency of Union control.- It is hereby declared that it is;'"-- expedient in the public interest that the Union should A take under its control the regulation of mines an_d'''the.,'_~ ;. é development of minerals to the extent herein_after. lirovided." 'l 9.4.3. That apart, as per Sectiohrae'-of'itheh"i$dAiVi~DR person shall undertake any reconnaissance,*..p'i:os'anectin'g or' mining operations in any area, exce;;itV._:'t:nde.r and'i'n accordance with the terms and or as the case may be, of mining', ieias-_-e, l\ct and the ruies made thereunder, thatno permit, licence or lease shall{be_gra'nted_f90th'e:rwise_ than in accordance with the MMDR Act and the thereunder, which reads as under:

' Section "4."«.P"rospecting or mining operations to be .¢_:ntler"licence*a'r lease.- (1) No person shall undertake ariy reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area,' except under and in accordance with the terms anal conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may he, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder.' Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease granted before the ff/"';""""'~~.,r 'us' 38

10.3. Rule 35 of the MC Rules provides for preferential right of certain persons and the same reads as hereunger';"-:"§"..'V"-..

"35. Preferential rights of certain persons..~V,'4_jl?.fhe-re . two or more persons have' Mmapplied .g reconnaissance permit or a prospzectiijg Vlicence' mining lease in respect of the.4_same".iand, the Government shall, for the purposeof subi--sec'tion section 11, consider besides theijmatters mentioned in clauses (a) to (d)' o:f':g*-sub~sectien»._(3)_ of section 11, the end use of the mineral'bylvtheivapplicant. "

V it "'""{emphasis supplied} 10.4. deals with the availability of the area for _relA--Ag'lran«t_::to>§3e:'"'-notified and the same reads as hereunder:

'_ "Ruie.5g iﬁvailaijiiityv of area for re-grant to be nowtified.2~.A(1.4) No area --

fa previously held or which is being 'held "spider a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence or a mining lease; or it b) _which has been reserved by the government ' or any local authority for any purpose other than mining; or it (c) in respect of which the order granting a permit or licence or lease has been revoked under sub--rule(1) of rule 734 or sub--rule(1) 40 section 11, no notification under clause (ii) shall be required to be issued.

(2) The Central Government may, for reasons it".

recorded in writing, relax the provisions of'~5i.ib.-.-ri:le4.A (1) in any special case."

t' 10.5. Rule 63A of the RulesV,l'l"'tilihicVh plreﬁcribeslvfgthe time limit for the disposal oftijirhge by" the State Government for grant of prospecting licence and mining' 'gwreadés Rule 63-A: dispose of the applicaition" 'reconnaissance permit, prospecting llicenceiﬂorr.mining lease in the following period : -

_ (a),,if?eco.nnaisse.nce Permit -- within six months from "V-.:hev"c.laté."iofreceipt of the application for reconnaissance ll' 'pehn.r:, .4A.

(b,',__i5rospecting licence -~ within nine months from the 'V date of receipt of the application for prospecting licence .' ]under Rule 1 0.

(:.'V)"'M:ining lease -- within 12 months from the date of , _re§:eipt of the application for mining lease under rule 22:

V Provided that the aforesaid periods shall be applicable only if the application for reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, is complete in all respects:

Provided further that the disposal by the state--.__ Government in the case of minerals listed in the Schedule to the Act shall mean either recommenda;ti'o--n_g'to_ _.__ it the Central Government for grant of the ll concession or refusal to grant the mineral co-ncession Vb;/_' the State Government under rule '.5' foryre.connaissa4n'ce..t_H,__ f Permit, rule 12 for ,0ro5Pecting licencelaiid rule for it mining lease, and in all other'cas--es, disposal shall either intimation regarding gra'nt_xiof_ preci'seuAiarea,vVg or refusal to grant the min:e.ral co.iicession"u.nder rule 5 for reconnaissance permit, ruiég_1'2g for'? prospecting licence and rule 26 for mining leaAS6'.-5. ' Provided also that}}in'_VcasJe the Statev'"Gov'ernment is not able to diisposeggvof. .th'éf:.,tAa}3l?iica'tion for grant of reconnaiss'a,oce"l5 permit, prospectiiig' licence or mining lease within the'b'e:*iojdiasspeciried above, the reasons for the delay' «shall be ggiverrin' "writing. "

11.1.;~it _ is cle-ar"'1frorn the report of the High Level Comrririttee Government of India that it is necessary to distilngoirslhi' the concepts of value addition and Vlvjcavptive Am__inin~g the context of Issues raised before the '~¢io'm_Vmii:tee."-iii/alue Addition requirement is imposed by the K4it$Vta'te"lGovei'nments when they want the concession holder to eansuiireggtéhat the industrial unit that uses the mineral from the :VtaIl'oc~ated mine is set up within the boundaries of the state in G which the mine is located; there is no such location specificity in captive mining and only a supply linkage between the mine and 57 considered opinion, be more than six months from the date of receipt of the appiication for such approvai. 19.2. Mere want of provision as on in respect of the approvai ofi"MtVhé"._Centrai,:_"i€3Qve'rnment___ contempiated under Section 5 Sec-t.ion"2..of the FC Act, wouid not be an excuse. forthe1Can-traiyéovernment to take indeﬁnite time fox-..,_passi'n"g'V'ordVe'rsA.on'AthVé appiication for such approvai and to cause the matter, as it wouid defeat IGovernment and the State of industrialization and economic"dév'eiopm'ent. couufsé',V'v:it was contended on behalf of the not be proper for this Court to interfere _vwith"the' poii.cyV_decision of the Government. But we are "V'unabi-e'u'to;_~appreciate'the said contention, because in the instant iiiitigation, the petitioner is neither making any aiiegation the poiicy decision nor chaiienging the same, ail t~hai: the petitioner seeks is, only to give effect to the po_iicvi"d_ecision of the State which is admittediy impiemented by gxi . .

58 19.3. The Apex Court, in SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI (KUMARI) V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH SCC 212] heid that:

"27. Unlike a private party: whose by reason and inﬂuenced by perscfnal contractual matters may result inhadverse cohsequences'r to it alone without affectinhg'--the..ypublic 'interest, 'such act of the State or a_ public bodyeven 'thisV_fiel_d would adversely affect the ;:_pi;'.blic.'xinterest.Vevery holder of a public office by virtue.r.of--'wliich actsV__on behalf of the State or_public:b'oo'y:isvultitnateiy acco_untable to the people vests. As such, all powers .vests-,-d in.jg'hirh-- are meant to be exercised for vvproh:o:tin'g"--.tf?e»public interest. This is equally actions even in the field of contract. Thus, every public office is a trustee whose" to the people of the country a;nd,t_therefore;' every act of the holder of a public 'office, irrespective of the label classifying that act, in_t.'tisc'ha.rge of public duty meant ultimately for _ the diversiﬁcation of State activity in a h»..ih'elfa~re:i'State requiring the State to discharge its wide H ranging V functions even through its several it Jnstrumentalities, which requires entering into contracts * .,.also, it would be unreal and not pragmatic, apart from being unjustified to exclude contractual matters from the sphere of State actions required to be non--arbitrary and justified on the touchstone of Article 14. "

,--\_ 61 "102. The concept of "due process of law" has played a Tvnajor role in the development of administrative law. It ensures fairness in plihlic administration. The administrative authoritie.s:'w7i:o"vv.4 are entrusted with the task of deciding li_s3'betv.?e*en . the parties or adjudicating upon the the individuals are duty-bound togconwplv with rules of natural justice, which are fn1ailtifaceted.AVV :i'h.e{7f.' absence of bias in the o'e.cisionV-'maicing process and"

compliance with audi alterahmghhpartem are' *l'1r:'.9.'O of these facets. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a nascent addition to the rules ot:'hl'naVtui'al justice. It goes beyond 'statuto'ry*rights?hy as another device for root of the principle " '3'--ieg'iti;fna*te":Ag. expectation is the constitutio_nai--IQprinjcipleh' of rule of law, which requireslh 'regularity,-itpredictability and certainty in with the public--J. Raz, The Authoritycgghhof [(1979) Chapter 11]. The "legal vCp_t:_~rta,.nty,z "isV_V_VV'alsoV' a basic principle of European "co'm5munity. European law is based upon the concept of it "vertraue_n.sschutz (the honouring of a trust or conﬁdence).

"-"jibis"fo'r.,_tliese reasons that the existence of a legitimate A »..expectatig:snl may even in the absence of a right of private law, justi'fy its recognition in public law.

A' 153. In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th z':'dn.), the V' "-doctri'ne of legitimate expectation has been described in the following words:

"A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The 63 consequences and one of such consequences is that the authority ought not to act to defeat the 'legitimate expectation' without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so. In a case of 'legitimate expectation' if the authority proposes to defeat a p«e'i'so"n.'Sg 'legitimate expectation' it should afford ..~~him.__ can "

opportunity to make representations in the matter. 'In -ti7--is"7.g ~ connection reference may be made to the discussions on"

'legitimate expectation'at p.151 ofel/oi. 1(--Z)'of*i:la!sbur'y3 Laws of England, 4th Edn. (re-is's'ue)'.'We"«may.also .refe'r X to a decision of the House of i;.ord:_3"in Council" of :Ciyiir:;_r Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service. it has: been ' held in the said decision that an aggrievec-V;Jers,on was entitled to judicial review if he 'could show that a'-decision of the public authority affected 'him of 'same' beneﬁt or advantage which in the pas-t------h.ev--hadA been permitted to enjoy and which he'legitimately expected to be permitted to continue to enjoy either until he "was given reasons for withdrawal and the opportunity to 'comment on such reasons. -- ' be:_in1dicat_e.:'(' heremthat the doctrine of 'legi'tim:5fg eirpectaitiorii' imposes in essence a duty on aautizority-to act fairly by taking into consideration.'aiienreievant factors relating to such 'legitimatev.e;tpectaIE'ien'. Within the conspectus of fair bbdgealing in casenof 'legitimate expectation', the reasonable "obpo"rtun.lties to 'make representation by the parties likely to_bve:'afi'ec'ted by any change of consistent past policy, have not been shown any compelling A =~r_easonsf--' taken into consideration by the Central V Government to make a departure from the existing " * rpolinoey of allotment with reference to seniority in V' '»-registration by introducing a new guideline."

{emphasis supplied} 19.6. The Apex Court in TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1996)9 SCC 709, 65

21. Therefore, we are convinced that the petitioner is bonafide in approaching this Court: with the above pubﬁcginterest iitigation iaying his hands on the very Nationai 2006 and 2008 as weil as the Karnataka Miguel'-at: Ppiiicyly. i2o;3s,c which itself provide for promotingiilalnd'«ericour.agi«ng_V'scieri.tifi:_ mining methods by employinggyadvanced.V_minin'g_i'equ'ip'm.ent'and machineries with skilied and non,-.V:'s*ir_ilied. rha_npio"we"rjand'V activeiy encouraging value additiori' which ha"nd'¥Vin--hand with the growth' of the mineraic_sec'tor::_as"'iaVt:l':sta'Vnd~aione industrial activity and to who propose to establish aiddlition making it clear that mining a__ needs to be encouraged as it provides iarge tscaie empllo-yirient; new mineral based industries should; be set up tomatch the available raw materiai resources; existing industries shouid set up facilities to bring the avanab%i,eiiaw Epateriais up to the required specifications by _proce's--ses.__"lii<e' beneficiation, pelletisation and sintering; and industries will generate more empioyment and spawn iau~xil'iary industries.

22.1. We are, therefore, satisfied that (i) the proposed end use of the minerals by the appiicant; and (ii) the captive consumption and value addition of minerals, should be the prime Hjlndex: Yes/No 68

(v) the Central Government to dispose of the-_ applications for the approval of mining |easeV:asﬂg:"'V, contemplated under Section 5 of the and/or Section 2 of the FC Act, it may be, within the reavsotnable '-.tirr1el_,:_"

exceeding six months fror\-,,1,lhé.'.'_d§te of applications for such a--p.prov'a.|,'so that,:v.it'i1«ere would not be any strai'ni'Von:';the investments that' may" " ixmade by the industrialists as that may be extended bywthhe State:é."orc:"A"state~owned Corpora'tio'}:3.c.l1'¢r. t-hei_l\i'ationa|'i--se'd«~Banks in this regaitd.

24. of with the above said observations}. ~ Sci /-

Chief .7 125'-igice Sd/-

Judge //ﬂ ' Web host : Yefs/No suma/Msk/nk/snb/ia/Inn

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court