Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. IMFA

(a) Previous Histor),: IMFA made five applications for grant of mining lease in respect of five blocks of land as per the following details (which are hereinafter referred to as items 1 to 5 respectively):

Area Date of  Area	    Village & District
No.   Applica- applied for
    tion

1. 1.7.1981 634.359 Ghotarangia and other villages 8.7.1981 hects. (Dhankanal Distt.)

2. 23.6.1981 142.000 Ostapal Village, SukhindaTehsil hects. (Cuttack Distt. )

3. 6.7.1981 108.860 Kamarada and padar villages hects. (Cuttack Distt. )

4. 9.9.1981 37.008 Ostapal and Gurjang villages, Sukhinda 10.9.1981 hects. Tehsil (Cuttack Distt.)

5. 24.11. 1981 147.693 Ostapal and Gurjang villages, Sukhinda hects. Tehsil (Cuttack Distt. ) The S.G. did not dispose of these applications within the prescribed period of twelve months. They were, there-

fore, deemed to have been rejected under rule 24(3). IMFA applied to the C.G. for the revision of these deemed rejec- tion orders of the S.G. The C.G. set aside the deemed rejec- tion orders and directed the S.G. to dispose of the matter on merits within a period of 200 days. However, the S.G. did not take any action on the applications of the IMFA within the period of 200 days. IMFA made a representation to the Central Government but the Central Government gave no relief on the ground that it had become functus officio and had no jurisdiction to issue further directions to the State Gov- ernment. Thereupon IMFA filed Writ Petition No.14116 of 1984 in this Court. IMFA alleged, that while its applications were kept pending, the S.G. had granted leases in favour of FACOR and thus discriminated against IMFA. It prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the S.G. to grant leases to IMFA also.

5. 11.5.70 388.498 22.10.70 23.10.70 7.4.72 C.G. rejected Hectares as above the applica-

	   Shrhranqi			      tion on the
	   &				      plea they did
	   Tailangi,			      not like to
	   P.S.				      interfere with
	   Sukinda.			      the decision
	   District			      taken by the
	   Cuttack.			      S.G. for keep-
					      ing the area
					      reserved for
					      exploitation
					      in public
					      sector.
Same application filed again

6. 8.5.74 388.498 Deemed 23.2.77 3.6.77 The M/s Sirajudin Hectares rej- delay was was holding Sukrangi ection explained the area of & but rejec- 100 Ac. under Tailangi ted becau- M.L. for 20 Distt. se of delay years from cuttack. 8.8.85 which expired in 1975.

6. I would therefore, request you to kindly obtain and communicate orders of Government of India on revision u/s 30 of Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 and approval u/s 5(2) of the said Act and in relaxation of Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules. 1960 for grant of Mining Lease for chromite over an area of 749.32 hectares in Cuttack District in favour of Orissa Industries Limited." Simultaneously, it is pointed out, the S.G., while sending its comments to the C.G. on the contents of another revision application filed by ORIND against the rejection of its application (also dated 5.7.71) for a lease of 446.38 hec- tares in village Sukrangi of Cuttack District, had this to say: