Gujarat High Court
State vs Nirmalaben on 13 December, 2011
Author: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/683/2011 23/ 23 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 683 of 2011
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6897 of 2010
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 684 of 2011
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6899 of 2010
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 685 of 2011
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6898 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Appellant(s)
Versus
NIRMALABEN
S MEHTA & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PK JANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 3.
MR KUNAN B NAIK for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
PS CHAMPANERI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MR.BHASKAR
BHATTACHARYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 13/12/2011
COMMON
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) We heard in all five Appeals being Letters Patent Appeal Nos.681 of 2011, 682 of 2011, 683 of 2011, 684 of 2011 and 685 of 2011 preferred by the appellant - State of Gujarat against a common judgment and order dated 22nd December 2010 passed by learned Single Judge in a batch of petitions wherein, the learned Single Judge dismissed all the petitions with costs of Rs.50,000=00 solely on the ground of suppression of material facts without going into the main issue in question.
We noticed that Letters Patent Appeal Nos.681 of 2011 and 682 of 2011 arise from the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos.6834 of 2010 and 6837 of 2010, dealing with the issue of computation of the amount of royalty of bauxite at ad-hoc rate of Rs.120=00 per metric tonne by the State Government and validity of the Resolution dated 4th February 2005 issued by the State Government as regards the permission for export/sale of Non-Plant Grade Bauxite. We also noticed that Letters Patent Appeal Nos.683 of 2011, 684 of 2011 and 685 of 2011 arise from the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos.6897 of 2010, 6898 of 2010 and 6899 of 2010, which deal with the issue of applicability of condition imposed by the State Government of establishment of captive plant to the lease granted to respondents under Section 27(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'the MMDR Act') and the validity of the Resolution dated 4th February 2005 issued by the Central Government.
As both the issues are distinct, we have thought fit to decide and dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos.681 of 2011 and 682 of 2011 by a common judgment and order and the Letters Patent Appeal Nos.683 of 2011, 684 of 2011 and 685 of 2011 by a separate judgment and order.
As common questions of fact and law are involved in the above three captioned Appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The Appeals referred to above have been preferred by the State Government (original petitioner) challenging the judgment and order dated 22nd December 2010 passed in a batch of petitions preferred by the State Government, in which, the learned Single Judge dismissed all the petitions with costs of Rs.50,000=00 to be paid to the individual respondents, solely on the ground of suppression of material facts without going into the main issue in question.
Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these Appeals can be summarised as under :-
The respondent No.1 is the lessee of bauxite under lease agreement entered into with the Government of Gujarat. Bauxite is a major mineral and as per the scheme of the MMDR Act, it is only the Central Government which is the sole repository of power for framing policies, rules etc. for major minerals. Under the export-import policy, as well as, under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, no restriction whatsoever is placed by the Central Government on export of bauxite which is freely exportable.
Lease agreement for mining of bauxite, a major mineral, were executed by the State of Gujarat in favour of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has been carrying on the activity of mining of bauxite in the leasehold area since then and have been paying royalty thereon at the rates prescribed by the Central Government from time to time.
On 26th February 1964, the Government of Gujarat issued a Notification for reservation of bauxite bearing areas for the public sector.
On 2nd August 1978, a Notification came to be issued by the State of Gujarat, whereby the lands specified in the Schedule thereto which were earlier reserved (vide Notification dated 26th February 1964) for exploitation of bauxite for the public sector were now made available for grant of mineral concession w.e.f. 2nd September 1978.
On the same day, a letter was addressed by the State of Gujarat to the Central Government seeking permission for de-reservation of the areas of bauxite in Jamnagar and Junagadh Districts, which were earlier reserved for exploitation in public sector. The said request was made by the appellant - State Government to the Central Government on the ground that subsequent to the aforesaid reservation, the State Government had received many applications for mineral concession, which were rejected on the ground of reservation for exploitation of Bauxite in the public sector and that the Government desires to release the said areas to Industrial Units for captive consumption. The State Government, therefore, sought permission for "introducing conditions for industries which needed Bauxite for captive use".
On 16th January 1980, the Central Government vide its letter of the said date addressed to the appellant State of Gujarat, granted permission for de-reservation of the area of Bauxite in Jamnagar and Junagadh Districts and also conveyed its no objection if the clauses as referred to in the letter of the State Government dated 02.08.1978 are included under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 "for the de-reserved areas". However, the respondent no.1 was not affected by the said grant of permission under Rule 27(3) since the respondent no.1's leasehold area did not form part of the reserved or de-reserved areas.
On 27th February 1992, a circular came to be issued by the State Government permitting sale/export of Non-Plant Grade Bauxite.
During the period from 10th April 2003 to 4th March 2005, Notifications came to be issued by the Central Government providing for the guidelines for computation of royalty on the basis of the State-wise Mineral Value to be notified by the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) which would constitute the benchmark for the purpose of calculation of royalty.
During the period from November 2004 to February 2008, the IBM issued Circulars notifying the State-wise Mineral Value and on the basis whereof, the appellant no.3 i.e. Geologist, Jamnagar directed the lessees to make payment of royalty on bauxite ultimately exported, under the category of entry 'others' as provided in the circulars of the IBM.
On 17th November 2007, the State Government for the first time issued a prescribed format of application for seeking permission for sale/export of bauxite.
On 28th November 2007, a permission was sought by the respondent no.1 from the State Government for sale of Non-Plant Grade Bauxite for a quantum of 1 lac metric tonne.
The State Government granted permission on 15th February 2008 for sale/export of NPG Bauxite subject to the conditions mentioned therein, including the condition that the respondent No.1 shall now pay royalty on NPG Bauxite @ Rs.120=00 per metric tonne.
It is expedient to note that this order of demand of royalty at the rate of Rs.120=00 per metric tonne was challenged by the respondent no.1 before the Central Government, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi by way of Revision Applications under Section 30 of the MMDR Act. The said Revision Application were allowed by the Central Government vide orders dated 4th November 2009 setting aside the orders of the State Government dated 15th February 2008. The orders in Revision Application dated 4th November 2009 were challenged by the State Government by way of Special Civil Application Nos.6834 of 2010 and 6837 of 2010 which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide common order dated 22nd December 2010 and against which order, Letters Patent Appeal Nos.681 and 682 of 2011 have been preferred by the State Government. According to the State Government, the said permission for sale/export of NPG Bauxite was granted for a period of 4 months as per the prevailing policy of the State Government.
On 18th February 2008, the respondent No.1 paid royalty @ Rs.120=00 per metric tonne "under protest"
pursuant to the order dated 15th February 2008 of the State Government. On the same day, respondent no.1 applied to the State Government for seeking further permission for sale/export of further quantity of NPG Bauxite.
On 21st April 2008, the State of Gujarat replied under the Right to Information Act, clarifying that the Government Resolution dated 4th February 2005 of the State Government was issued without permission of the Central Government.
The applications of respondent dated 18th February 2008 seeking permission for sale/export of bauxite came to be rejected by the State Government on 19th June 2008, on the ground of non-adherence of the condition of captive consumption as per the "policy"
of the State Government.
It is expedient to note that the orders dated 19th June 2008 were challenged by the respondent No.1 by way of Revision Application preferred before the Central Government which were allowed vide orders dated 27th August 2009, 4th November 2009 and 11th November 2009 of the Central Government and against which orders, the State Government preferred writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.6897, 6898 and 6899 of 2010, which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide common order dated 22nd December 2010 against which, the present Letters Patent Appeal Nos.683 to 685 of 2011 have been preferred by the appellant - State Government.
On 31st July 2008, the petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.4934 of 2008 and allied matters filed by various lessees challenging the orders dated 15th February 2008 and 19th June 2008 and the competence of the State Government to charge royalty on ad-hoc basis at Rs.120=00 per metric tonne and its power to impose any condition for disposal/removal of bauxite including the restriction as regards taking prior permission before the sale of bauxite were disposed of by this Hon'ble Court on the ground of existence of alternative remedy.
On 27th August 2009, the Central Government, Ministry of Mines, set-aside the order dated 19th June 2008 of the State Government with consequential relief in a Revision Application filed by one N.S.Mehta by holding that;
"(a) as far as the instant case is concerned, it is not a case of fresh grant of mining lease but one of renewal.
(b) no conditions of setting up of captive plant of Bauxite was mentioned while granting mining lease.
(c) no restriction was put on export and mining of Bauxite in mining lease.
(d) applicant is exporting Bauxite for more than a decade.
(e) guidelines issued by State Government vide G.R. dated 04.02.2005 as only an administrative in nature.
(f) the approval of Central Government given vide letter No.4(2)/78-VI dated 16.01.1980 in pursuance to State Government communication dated 02.08.1978 is not applicable in respect of the area already under lease and to which neither reservation nor dereservation would be applicable."
In view of the above circumstances and taking all aspects into consideration we come to conclusion that in the instant case while rejecting the applicants renewal application State Government has not followed the due process of law under Rule 27(3) under Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2008 of the State Government with the consequences thereof.
It is expedient to note that the said order dated 27th August 2009 of the Central Government was challenged by the State Government by way of Special Civil Application No.6897 of 2010 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide common order dated 22nd December 2010 and against which, Letters Patent Appeal No.683 of 2011 has been preferred by the appellant State Government.
In the other two Revision Applications filed by the respondent No.1 challenging the order dated 19th June 2008 of the Government of Gujarat rejecting the application for sale/export of NPG Bauxite, the Central Government whilst setting aside the order dated 19th June 2008 of the appellant - State Government held that, "...subsequently while renewal of mining lease was done by the State Government, some undertakings were taken regarding setting up of captive plants of bauxite. While imposing certain new conditions, no approval of Central Government under MC Rule 27(3) was sought. Guidelines issued by the State Government vide GR dated 4th February 2005 are only administrative in nature. The approval of the Central Government dated 16th January 1980 in pursuance to the State Government communication dated 2nd August 1978 is not applicable in respect of the areas already under lease and to which neither reservation nor de-reservation would be applicable. The State Government can impose special conditions for mining lease with the approval of the Central Government as per the provisions of Rule 27(3) of the MC Rules. Any action taken without following this procedure is contrary to the decisions, directions and policies of the Central Government under MMDR Act and also EXIM Policy.
In view of the above circumstances and taking all aspects into consideration, we are of the view that in the instant case while rejecting the applicant's application dated 18th February 2008 for seeking permission for export and sale of bauxite, the State Government had not followed the procedure laid down under MMDR Act, 1957 and MCR, 1960. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 19th June 2003 passed by the State Government of Gujarat. Revision Application is allowed. Order accordingly."
On 19th November 2009, a new policy was declared by the State of Gujarat reserving right to sell bauxite only for GMDC. This was by way of channelization of the said mineral. The same has been issued without the permission of the Central Government and is ineffective as being contrary to the provisions of Section 17A of the MMDR Act and is a direct counter-blast to the Central Government order dated 4th November 2009 passed in exercise of revisional powers conferred under Sec.30 of the MMDR Act.
The respondent no.1 addressed request letters on 11th/14th December 2009 to the State Government seeking due compliance of the orders of the Tribunal.
On 19th May 2010, in a writ petition being No.3429 of 2010 filed in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by respondent No.1 seeking compliance of the orders dated 27th August 2009 and 4th November 2009 of the Central Government passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, notice was issued by the Delhi High Court upon the appellants herein and the same was made returnable on 7th June 2010.
On 11th June 2010, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed orders observing that unless and until the order dated 4th November 2009 is set-aside or modified, the State Government, its officers, servants and agents are restrained from preventing the clearance of bauxite of the petitioner subject to the petitioner making payment of royalty at the rate prescribed by the Central Government in the Schedule-II of the MMDR Act.
On 14th June 2010, petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.6897, 6898 and 6899 of 2010 were came to be filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat and others before this Hon'ble Court challenging the orders dated 27th August 2009, 4th November 2009 and 11th November 2009 of the Central Government passed in Revision Application preferred by respondent No.1 against the orders dated 19th June 2008 of the Government of Gujarat of rejection of application seeking permission for sale/export of NPG Bauxite.
On 23rd July 2010, a notice came to be issued by this Hon'ble Court making it returnable on 2nd August 2010. The respondents waived service of notice and a statement was made by respondent no.1 and others that they shall not proceed further before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court during the pendency of the said petition.
On 22nd December 2010, the writ petitions of the State Government being Special Civil Application No.6834 of 2010 and allied matters, challenging the orders of the Central Government passed under Section 30 of the MMDR Act (whereby the Revision Applications of the respondent were allowed), were rejected by this Hon'ble Court on merits by holding that if the State of Gujarat itself had asked for guidance by letter dated 26th November 2007 and if that guidance is made available in the form of order of the revisional authority dated 4th November 2009, the Court is not able to conceive any reason for not implementing that order. Further, costs of Rs.50,000=00 was imposed on the appellant-State Government on the ground of suppression of material facts since the appellant-State Government had not disclosed in the said petitions about the factum of the writ petitions having been filed in the Delhi High Court by the respondent.
We have heard learned Government Pleader Mr.P.K.Jani appearing for the appellant - State of Gujarat. We have also heard learned senior counsel Mr.Mihir Joshi appearing with learned advocate Mr.S.N.Thakkar for respondent no.1.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the materials on record, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed all the writ-petitions solely on the ground of suppression of fact.
It is undisputed that the writ-petitions were preferred in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by the respective lessees redressing the grievance that though the Government of Gujarat has not thought fit to challenge the orders dated 27th August 2004 and 4th November 2009 respectively passed by the revisional authority i.e. the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 30 of the MMDR Act and despite being enjoined by the aforesaid orders not to enhance the rate of royalty, the Government of Gujarat raised yet another demand on 31st March 2010.
It appears that when the writ-petition was taken-up for further hearing by the Delhi High Court, time was prayed for by the counsel appearing for the State Government and, subsequently, the State Government brought to the notice of the Delhi High Court that they have challenged the order dated 4th November 2009 passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, before the High Court of Delhi and the matter would be listed for hearing on 14th June 2010. We have also noticed that the Delhi High Court, on 11th June 2010, passed an order that unless and until the order dated 4th November 2009 is set-aside or modified, respondent no.2 and their respective officers, servants and agents are restrained from preventing the clearance of bauxite of the lessees subject to the lessees making payment of royalty at the rate prescribed in the Second Schedule to the MMDR Act.
This is suggestive of the fact that the Delhi High Court, prima facie, was of the view that unless and until necessary orders are passed by the High Court of Gujarat setting aside or modifying the order dated 4th November 2009, the lessees shall not be restrained or prevented from the clearance of bauxite.
It appears that learned Single Judge took the view that this aspect of the litigation before the Delhi High Court ought to have been brought to the notice of the Court and the appellant herein i.e. the State of Gujarat deliberately suppressed the same.
It is true that a party who suppresses a material fact would get disentitle from seeking any relief from the Court, more particularly, discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, a suppression of fact must be of such a nature that had it not been suppressed, it would have an effect on the merits of the case.
As noted earlier, the Delhi High Court clarified to the extent that now since the order of the revisional authority has been challenged by the State of Gujarat before the High Court of Gujarat, till the High Court of Gujarat set-asides or modifies the order passed by the revisional authority i.e. the Central Government, the lessees shall not be restrained or prevented from the clearance of bauxite subject to making payment of royalty at the rate prescribed in the Second Schedule of the MMDR Act.
This is suggestive of the fact that ultimately it was for the High Court of Gujarat to take an appropriate decision as to whether the order passed by the revisional authority deserves to be confirmed or quashed or modified. Therefore, the fact that a litigation had been filed before the Delhi High Court was not such a fact, the suppression of which could have affected the final disposal of the writ petition on merits.
We are of the view that learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of suppression of facts and also ought not to have imposed costs of Rs.50,000=00 upon the State of Gujarat, more particularly, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case. To that extent, we are convinced that the judgment and order of learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
At this stage, we may quote a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s.S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v/s. State of Bihar and others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 2421. The Supreme Court dealt with the issue of suppression of material fact by a litigant. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held as under :-
"As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the Court, whatever view the Court may have taken."
In paragraph 14 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court held as under :-
"Assuming that the explanation given by the appellant that the suit had been filed by one of the Directors of the Company without the knowledge of the Director who almost simultaneously approached the High Court under Article 226 is unbelievable, the question still remains whether the filing of the suit can be said to be a fact material to the disposal of the writ petition on merits. We think not. The existence of an adequate or suitable alternative remedy available to a litigant is merely a factor which a Court entertaining an application under Article 226 will consider for exercising the discretion to issue a writ under Article 226. But the existence of such remedy does not impinge upon the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with the matter itself if it is in a position to do so on the basis of the affidavits filed. If however a party has already availed of the alternative remedy while invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226, it would not be appropriate for the Court to entertain the writ petition. The Rule is based on public policy but the motivating factor is the existence of a parallel jurisdiction in another Court. But this Court has also held in C.B. Gosain Bhan v. State of Orissa, 14 STC 766 : 1963 (2) SCR 879 that even when an alternative remedy has been availed of by a party but not pursued that the party could prosecute proceedings under Article 226 for the same relief. This Court has also held that that when a party has already moved the High Court under Article 226 and failed to obtain relief and then moved an application under Article 32 before this Court for the same relief, normally the Court will not entertain the application under Article
32. But where in the parallel jurisdiction, the order is not a speaking one or the matter has been disposed of on some other ground, this Court has, in a suitable case, entertained the application under Article 32. Instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the alternative remedy had been availed of the Court may call upon the party to elect whether it will proceed with the alternative remedy or with the application under Article 226. Therefore the fact that a suit had already been filed by the appellant was not such a fact the suppression of which could have affected the final disposal of the writ petition on merits."
As the issue of suppression was the only ground on which the learned Single Judge rejected all the writ-petitions preferred by the appellant herein, we would, ordinarily, have set-aside the order of the learned Single Judge in view of our finding and remanded back to the learned Single Judge for decision of the matter on merits. But, the matter has been argued on merits before us and we are in a position to dispose of the matter, which we accordingly proceed to do keeping in mind that a pure question of law is to be determined.
Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, we find that during the period from November 2004 to February 2008, almost all lessees in the State of Gujarat were making payment of royalty on bauxite at the rate prescribed by the Central Government in the Second Schedule to the Act read with the guidelines issued by the Central Government by way of notifications issued from time to time in exercise of powers conferred under Section 13 of the MMDR Act. The Indian Bureau of Mines would convey the average State-wise mineral value by way of circulars issued from time to time, and which, in turn, were forwarded by the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Gandhinagar to the Geologist, Jamnagar. The Geologist, Jamnagar conveyed to the lessees the rates of royalty on bauxite of various categories including 'others' category on the basis of the mineral value as conveyed by the IBM. The said State- wise average value of the minerals as published by the IBM in the 'Monthly Statistics' of 'Mineral Production' constituted the sale price for the purpose of computation of royalty and accordingly all lessees within Gujarat paid royalty on the bauxite cleared by them, on the basis of the IBM rate.
Respondent no.1 is engaged in the mining of bauxite which is sold to various traders, who, in turn, export the same to foreign countries. As per the notification of the Central Government, the said sale being a sale of bauxite dispatched for use other than alumina and aluminium metal extraction and/or export, the same would fall within Entry 5(b) as per the notification dated 14th October 2004 and in Entry 4(b) as per the notification dated 13th August 2009. According to respondent no.1, the Central Government has not prescribed any separate formula or rate of royalty in case of bauxite which is exported and as per the IBM circular, the said bauxite not being covered by Cement grade, Abrasive grade or Refractory grade, the same would naturally fall in the category of 'others', for which the IBM regularly used to convey the average mineral value of bauxite which would constitute the sale price for computation of royalty. The same was also the understanding of the appellant - State Government and its officers during the period from November 2004 to February 2008. However, in February 2008, the officers of the State Government unilaterally decided that since the IBM does not give a separate mineral value for bauxite which is exported and that the exported bauxite 'may be' used in alumina and aluminium metal extraction, the lessees clearing NPG Bauxite must pay royalty on F.O.B. basis calculated on the basis of Pit Mouth Sale Value. Hence, the State Government unilaterally increased the rate of royalty from the existing rate of Rs.25=00 to Rs.30=00 per metric tonne of NPG Bauxite to Rs.120=00 per metric tonne. Accordingly, the State Government passed the order dated 15th February 2008 demanding revised rate of royalty at the rate of Rs.120=00 per metric tonne of NPG Bauxite which, was clearly contrary to the circulars of the IBM as well as its own circulars as also the guidelines for computation of royalty as issued by the Central Government. The said order dated 15th February 2008 was carried in revision to the Central Government by way of Revision Application preferred under Section 30 of the MMDR Act which were allowed by Central Government and against which, the writ petitions were filed by the State Government which were rejected vide the impugned order dated 22nd December 2010 of the learned Single Judge.
It, appears to us that the order dated 19th June 2008 of the State Government refusing the permission for sale/export of bauxite is only a direct counter-blast to respondent no.1's action of challenging the State Government's decision of demanding enhanced royalty @ Rs.120=00 per metric tonne of bauxite by way of writ petition being No.4934 of 2008 and allied matters. Neither the Exim Policy nor the MMDR Act impose any restrictions on sale/export of bauxite. As is well- known, bauxite is a major mineral. The State Government could not have introduced its own policy for sale/export of bauxite and imposed restrictions thereon in conflict with the policies and decisions of the Central Government. Even in the lease-deed executed with respondent No.1, no such condition of captive consumption has been stipulated by the State Government. The said action of the State Government is, therefore, patently without jurisdiction and without authority of law and the Central Government vide its orders dated 27th August 2009, 4th November 2009 and 11th November 2009 was justified in setting aside the order dated 19th June 2008 of the State Government refusing the permission for sale/export of NPG Bauxite to respondent no.1, more particularly, in light of the fact that the conditions for captive consumption of bauxite as approved by the Central Government on 16th January 1980 did not apply to the existing leasehold area of respondent no.1.
We may also state that, prima facie, it appears that the appellant herein had not canvassed any submissions before the learned Single Judge so far as the legality and validity of the order dated 19th June 2008 of the State Government is concerned, which was set-aside vide orders dated 27th August 2009, 4th November 2009 and 11th November 2009 of the Central Government i.e. revisional authority under the MMDR Act. So far as this issue is concerned, no contentions were canvassed even before us during the course of hearing of the above captioned Appeals.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Appeals deserve to be partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the order of learned Single Judge imposing costs of Rs.50,000=00 upon the appellant at the time of rejecting the writ petitions.
Since we have decided the main issue against the appellant, no relief can be granted to the appellant - State, and consequently, we confirm the order dated 4th November 2009 passed by the Central Government i.e. revisional authority of Ministry of Mines, New Delhi.
The Appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Actg. C.J.) (J.B.Pardiwala, J.) /moin Top