Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

e) Whether the criterion of "captive consumption"

referred to in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1996) 9 SCC 709, have any application in this case despite not being one of the factors referred to in Section 11 (3) of the MMDR Act or Rule 35 of the MC Rules.

 f) Whether factors such as the past commitments by the State Government to applicants who have already set up steel plants, matter for consideration for grant of lease despite the MMDR Act and the MC Rules constituting a complete Code.

16) After rejecting those applications, the impugned proceeding shows that a total number of 55 companies/firms have applied for mining lease and the details furnished by them have been incorporated in a tabular form in para 9. In para 10 of the order, it was stated that out of 55 companies/firms who have applied for mining lease, only 12 companies/firms were having mining lease in the State. Some of the companies have already established their units in the State and they have requested the sanction of mining lease for using the ore for captive consumption and for value addition to the ore. Some of the firms who are willing to invest huge amounts in mining industry have indicated that they require the mines for exporting ore and for supplying it to the local market. Some of the companies have already established their units in Karnataka by investing huge amounts and they are depending upon local market for their raw material, that is, iron ore. In para 11 of the order, it is stated that since the request of such of the companies is for `captive consumption' and for `value addition', they deserve consideration over others. In para 12, the order refers those who established steel plants in Karnataka. Finally, after quoting Rule 35 which provides for preferential rights for certain persons and by arriving at a conclusion that "it is desirable to allot the mining areas to applicants who have already established their plants in the State by investing huge amounts", and by invoking Rule 35 of the MC Rules, the Chief Minister recommended or in other words filled up dotted lines by mentioning Jindal and Kalyani.

29) Mr. Harish N. Salve and Mr. Dushyant Dave, by drawing our attention to the decision of this Court in TISCO vs. U.O.I. & Anr., (1996) 9 SCC 709, submitted that inasmuch as this Court had upheld the grants based on "captive consumption", there is no flaw or error in the recommendation of the State Government dated 06.12.2004. A perusal of the above decision clearly shows that it concerned with Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act which requires consideration of the extremely general criterion of the interests of mineral development before granting second renewal of a mining lease. Unlike in Section 11(3), no further criteria was specified and it was in this background, this Court upheld on the facts of that case that relevant material taken into account by the Committee set up by the Central Government rightly included "captive consumption". In view of the factual situation, the said decision can have no bearing on initial grants of mining lease where the only permissible criteria are the matters set out in Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act. Issue (b) "Whether the respondent-Jindal's application dated 24.10.2002 made prior to the Notification dated 15.03.2003 is capable of being entertained along with the applications made pursuant to the said notification."

Whether the criterion of captive consumption referred to in the TISCO's case has no application to the present case because it is not one of the factors referred to in Section 11(3) or even in Rule 35.

45) The criterion of captive consumption referred to in TISCO's case (supra) does not have any application in this case, which we will refer in the later part of this paragraph.

Section 11(4) and even the second proviso to Section 11(2) provide that the State Government may grant, inter alia, a mining lease after taking into consideration the matters specified in Section 11(3). Section 11(3)(d) specifies "the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on the minerals" as one of such matters and on a plain interpretation, it is clear that only the proposed investment is a relevant factor. If the Legislature had intended that it should include past investments also, the use of the word "proposed" is superfluous, which could never be the case. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents have not pointed out any other provision in the MMDR Act or the MC Rules permitting grant of mining lease based on past commitments or for captive purposes in existing industries.