Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) Indian Metals and Ferro-Alloys Limited (IMFA); (2) Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited (FACOR); (3) Orissa Cements Limited (OCL);

(4) Orissa Industries Limited (ORIND);

(5) Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC); (6) Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (IDCOL); and (7) Shri Mantosh Aikath.

Of the above, the first four are companies in the private sector, the next two are public sector corporations owned substantially by the State of Orissa and the last, a private individual.

ing in view the principles of natural justice, as recommended by State Govt.

vide in their letter No17410 dated 26.2.74, to centre for 142 Acrs. to Orissa Cement.

3. 15.5.70 226.22 1.5.72 10.2.71 1.6.72 Although Ferro Hecta- on the Alloys Corpo-

	     res		      same    ration have no
	     Boula		      plea,   unit in Orissa
	     & Soso		      reser-  but have a
	   Distt.		    ved	    manufacturing
	  Keonjher		   for state  unitin Andhra
				  exploita-  the Central
				  tion	      Govt. passed
					      orders as un-
					      der in 1971-72
					      over an area
					      of 187.03
					      hects. against
					      strong opposi-
					      tion by State
					      Govt.:
					      "Whereas the
					      Central Govt.
					      in exercise
					      of the powers
					      conferred by
					      Rule 58(2) of
					      the N.C. Rules
					      1960 relaxed
					      the provision
					      of rule 58(1)
					      as a special
					      case for the
					      reason that
					      the appli-
					      cants having
					      establis

					      hed a big fac-
					      tory for manu-
					      facturing Fer-
					      ro Chrome ore,
					      provision has
					      to be made for
					      procurement of
					      raw materials
					      for the proper
					      running of the
					      factory".
					      Based on the
					      said decision
					      a fresh revi-
					      sion petition
					      was filed on
					      6.4.73 but the
					      C.G. it rejec-
					      ted on30.11.74
					      although the
					      S.G.recommen-
					      ded:
					      vide letter
					      No.17410-NG
					      dated26.2.1974
					      for approval
					      for grant of
					      142 Acrs. to
					      O.C.L.
Same application filed again
4. 10.4.74  226.22   No	   6.6.75 29.8.75 The Please see re-
	    Hectares Orders	  Central     marks in Sl(3)
	    Boula    were	  Govt. set   142 Ac. could

ment to give to the petitioners M/S Indian Metal & Ferro Alloys Ltd. within 15 days from today the leases in respect of the full areas of Item No. 3 and 26.62 hectares area out or' Item No. 4 as set out in paragraph 8 of the Writ Peti- tion. This Court further directed so far as the remaining controversy was concerned that the same shall be disposed of later on by giving certain other consequential directions as the petitioners might seek which it is not necessary to refer' here. It was directed that the State Government was to make an application to the Union of India within 5 days from the date of the order for the approval of the leases by the Union of India and which should grant approval within ten days therefrom.

basis. It will be easily appreciated that this should indeed be so for the interests of national mineral development clearly require in the case of major minerals. that the mining lease should be given to that applicant who can exploit it most efficiently. A grant of ML in order of time- will not achieve this result.

In the context of his submission pleading for priority on the basis of the time sequence- Dr. Singhvi referred to certain observations in the decisions reported as Ferro Alloys Corporation of India v. Union, I.L.R. 1977 Delhi 189 at p. 196 and as Mysore Cements Ltd. v. Union, A.I.R. 1972 Mysore 149 at p. 15 1. we do not think these decisions help him. In the former case; an application by FACOR for a lease was rejected on the ground that an earlier application was being accepted. FACOR contended this was wrong- that the S.G. could not have refused to look into its application merely because another applicant had a preferential right under S. 11(2) and that its application as well as that of the earlier applicant should have been considered together. It is in the situation that the Court observed that rule 11 primarily embodies the general principle of "fist come- first served" and an out-ofturn consideration under S. 11(4.) was an exception for which a strong case had to be made out. The petitioner could not have a grievance if the general principle was followed. So also, in the latter case an earlier application having been accepted and a lease granted, the consideration of a later application was held to be uncalled for. These decisions cannot be treated as authorities for the proposition that the S.G. is bound to grant an earlier application as soon as it is received and cannot wait for other applications and consider them all together and grant a later one 'if the circumstances set out in rule 11(4) are fulfilled. That apart it has to be remem- bered that the S.G. did reject ORIND's application by an order dated 23.10. 1973. This order was set aside in the C.G. on 20.2. 1977 and the S.G. directed to consider it afresh. The S.G. did not comply with this order and so a writ petition was filed by ORIND which was pending when this writ petition was" filed. Subsequently the High Court on 9.2.89 directed the S.G. to consider and ,dispose of ORIND's application on merits. The S.G. on' 7.4.89 dismissed ORIND's application on the ground that the issue is before us and hence the S.L.P. against the order of rejection of the S.G. Even assuming that we accept the S.L.P. filed by ORIND that will only entitle ORIND to have its application reconsidered for grant along with such other applications as may be pending as on the date of such reconsideration. In the context of the scheme of the Act and the importance of a lease being granted to one or more of the better qualified candidates where there are a number of them it would not be correct to say that as the S.G.'s order of 29.10.1973 has been set aside ORIND's application should be restored for reconsideration on the basis of the situation that prevailed as on 29.10. 1973 and that therefore it has to be straight- away granted as there was no other application pending on that date before the S.G. In matters like this subsequent applications cannot be ignored and a rule of thumb applied. We are unable to accept the submission of Dr. Singhvi that the application of ORIND being the earliest in point of time should have been accepted and that we should direct accord- ingly. As to how far the requirements of S. 11(4) are ful- filled in the present case that is an aspect which will be considered later.