Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Orissa High Court

M/S. Tata Steel Mining Ltd. & Another vs State Of Odisha & Others ........ ... on 20 September, 2021

Bench: C.R. Dash, Savitri Ratho

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            W.P.(C) No.23847 of 2021



     M/s. Tata Steel Mining Ltd. & another ........                  Petitioners
                                                    Dr. Abhisek Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
                                                    Mr. Sarada Prasanna Sarangi, Adv.

                                      -Versus-


     State of Odisha & others                ........             Opposite Parties
                                                             Mr. Ashok Parija,
                                                             Advocate General
                                                             Mr. P.K. Parhi, ASG
                                                              (For O.P. No.2)

                                      CORAM:

                                      JUSTICE C.R. DASH
                                      JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO


                                             ORDER

20.09.2021 Order No.

04.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard Dr. Abhisek Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Parija, learned Advocate General for the State.

3. Relying on the interim order passed on 09.07.2021 in the case of M/s. Ghanashyam Mishra and sons Pvt. Ltd. & another vs. State of Odisha & others W.P.(C) No.19616 of 2021, Mr. Ashok Parija, learned Advocate General, taking us through paragraph-15 of the order containing an interim concession by Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior Advocate there, submits that irrespective of dispatch or not, the party has been directed to pay the State Government the royalty and it is further submitted by Mr. Ashok Parija, learned Advocate General that, the case of M/s. Tata Steel Mining Ltd. W.P.(C) No.23847 of 2021 is no way different from the case of M/s. Ghanashyam Mishra and sons Pvt. Ltd. & another.

4. Dr. Abhisek Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, on the other hand, submits that, the case of M/s. Ghanashyam Mishra and sons Pvt. Ltd. & another vs. State of Odisha & others, W.P.(C) No.19616 of 2021 is no way similar to the case of M/s. Tata Steel Mining Ltd. (present case).

5. The interim concession made by Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior Advocate in another case does not bind the parties in the present case.

6. Secondly, vires of Section-12(A) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 has been challenged in the present writ petition, which is not a challenge in the case of M/s. Ghanashyam Mishra and sons Pvt. Ltd. & another.

7. Thirdly, the harp on all the documents including the agreement etc. is on production and not dispatch in the present case.

8. Mr. Ashok Parija, learned Advocate General oppugns the contentions of Dr. Ashisek Singhvi with vehemence and submits that, within three days of executing the agreement with the State Government, the petitioners, in the present case, have invoked force majeures. If the date of agreement and date of invoking the force majeures are taken into consideration, the action of the petitioners is unfathomable, as it has agreed to produce 80% of Ore and supply 80% of Ore and within three days, in quick succession force majeure was invoked. It is also submitted by Mr. Parija that in the scheme of the Act and Rules, production always includes dispatch to enable the State Government to get its royalty and the market to get Ore.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, on the interim application, we suggest Dr. Abhisek Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate to agree to deposit Rs.200 crores at least without prejudice to his claim and contentions in the main case, so that the interest of the State can be best served and such deposit shall be made on the basis of assurance that in case, the petitioners, i.e., M/s. Tata Steel Mining Ltd. gets successful in the litigation, the amount shall be refunded with appropriate interest.

10. Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate wants some time to take instruction from his client regarding his consent to deposit Rs.200 crores.

11. Regard being had to such facts and submissions, this matter be listed on 27.09.2021 for hearing of the interim application by the regular Bench.

12. In the meantime, parties may file rejoinder, if they so desire, but it is made clear that, the matter shall not be heard on merit and it shall be heard on the interim application only.

13. Before parting with the order, let us make it clear that, when the matter was last listed on 24.08.2021, the regular Bench was not functioning and the matter was taken up by a link Bench and the interim order was passed on that day, keeping the notice dated 04.08.2021 in abeyance while adjourning the matter to be listed before the regular Bench for hearing of the interim application. It was never an order passed on merit but an order to prevent prejudice to the petitioners.

14. In view of the objection by the learned Advocate General, the necessity has now arisen for hearing of the interim application by the regular Bench on merit.

15. Interim Order passed earlier shall continue till the next date.

16. Urgent certified copy of this Order be granted as per rules.

...............................

(C.R. Dash) JUDGE ...............................

(Savitri Ratho) JUDGE Subha 5 6