- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
M/S. BELLARY STEELS and ALLOYS LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 13thday of June 2016
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH Writ Petition No. 13924 of 2016 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
M/S. BELLARY STEELS & ALLOYS LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956
WITH ITS OFFICE AT
M/S B.S.R.M., SY.NO.A-890,
ANANTHAPURA ROAD,BALLARI
BALLARI-583101
REPRESENTEDBY ITS DIRECTOR
S.SHIVARAM PRASAD S/O NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BALLARI CITY ... PETITIONER
[By Sri R G Kolle, Advocate)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,BANGALORE
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
(MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
1
3. THE DIRECTOR
DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001
4. UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO MINES,
MINISTRY OF MINES, GOVT. OF INDIA,
SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110 001 … RESPONDENTS [By Sri I Tharanath Poojary, AGA for R-1 to R-3; Smt. H.R. Anitha, CGC for R-4]
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT - STATE GOVT. TO GRANT & EXECUTE A MINING
LEASE FOR IRON ORE AS PER MINING LEASE APPLICATION DATED
04.09.1993 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HAVING STATUTORY
PRIORITY OVER AN AREA OF 600.00 ACRES IN BLOCK NO.13/1 OF
RAMADURGA RESERVE FOREST AREA IN RAMADURG VILLAGE IN
SANDUR TALUKA, BALLARI DIST. IN TERMS OF UNEQUIVOCAL
AND UNIMPEACHABLE COMMITMENT GIVEN BY THE STATE GOVT.
WHICH IS CONSTRUED AS A 'LETTER OF INTENT' IN TERMS OF
AMENDMENTS CARRIED OUT TO MMDR (AMENDMENT) ACT 2015
AT ANNEXURE-F AND REITERATED IN THE PROCEEDING OF HIGH
LEVEL COMMITTEE MEETING PRESIDED OVER BY THE PRL.
SECRETARY TO GOVT. (C&I), AT ANNEXURE-G FOLLOWED BY THE
ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT IN W.P.21793 OF 2005 AT
ANNEXURE-H AND ALSO ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE APEX
COURT IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.717 OF 2009 AT
ANNEXURE-J AS WELL AS ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT IN W.P.7194 OF 2009 AT ANNEXURE-L AND ALSO DIRECTIONS
ISSUED BY BIFR IN CASE NO.114 OF 2004 EXPEDITIOUSLY
WITHIN A TIME FRAME TO BE FIXED, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
This is a writ petition seeking for a direction on the authorities to grant mining lease in respect of Block No
2
13/1 of Ramadurga reserve forest area in Ramadurga village in Sandur taluk of Ballari district, for mining of iron ore, upon declaration that one Rama Rao Poal fraudulently obtained a mining lease in respect of 70 acres of land in the said block.
2. On September 14, 1993, the writ petitioner applied for grant of mining lease for extracting iron ore in Block No 13/1 of Ramadurga reserve forest area of Sandur village in Ballari district.
3. Mr R G Kolle, learned advocate for the writ petitioner, in his usual fairness, submits that in view of the amendment to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation), 1957 by Amendment Act of 2015, ['the said Amendment Act' for short] if a letter of intent has been issued by the State government, only then his client is entitled to a mining lease in respect of the area sought for.
4. Section 10A was inserted by the said Amendment Act of 2015. The Amended Act, inter alia, provides that an
3
application for grant of mining lease received prior to the date of commencement of the Amended Act shall remain eligible, where a letter of intent (by whatever name it is called) has been issued by the State government to grant a mining lease.
5. It is true that the writ petitioner had applied for grant of mining lease in the year 1993 and its case had come up for consideration before the authority concerned on several occasions.
6. Mr R G Kolle, learned advocate for the writ petitioner, draws our attention to Annexure-F, which is a proceeding concerning the request of the writ petitioner for allotment of land for iron ore mining lease. It was noticed that as the petitioner wanted to establish a steel manufacturing project, it required raw materials and for that it was necessary for the petitioner to get an iron ore mining lease to build a steel plant.
4
7. Our attention is drawn to a proceeding of a high level committee dated February 28, 1997. In such meeting discussions took place and it was proposed that the petitioner could be granted iron ore mining lease.
8. Mr Kolle, strenuously, submits before us that these two documents should constitute an intent by the State government and as the government has issued the intent, the writ petitioner is entitled to be considered for the mining lease.
9. Mr I, Tharanath Pujary, learned additional government advocate, submits that those documents are only proceedings in the process of consideration and they are not final intention of the authorities to grant mining lease in favour of the petitioner.
10. In spite of persuasive arguments of Mr Kolle, we are unable to accept such contention that those
5
documents, as referred to above, tantamount to issue of a letter of intent by the State government within the meaning of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Amended Act.
11. We, therefore, hold that there was no letter of intent in favour of the writ petitioner issued by the State government to grant a mining lease entitling the writ petitioner to come within the exception clause in Section 10A of the said Act for getting a mining lease.
12. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition.
13. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
*pjk
6
Alert