LexBHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LIMITED versus MR. S.L. SEAL ADDL. SECRETARY (STEEL & MINES) GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2016] 11 S.C.R. 149
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LIMITED
v.
MR. S.L. SEAL ADDL. SECRETARY (STEEL & MINES)
GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA & ORS.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 275 of2016)
IN
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 374 of2012)
IN
(Civil Appeal No. 2790 of2012)
DECEMBER 15, 2016
[A. K. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.)
Contempt of Court - Petitioner-Company applied for grant
of lease for mining iron ore for use in its proposed steel plant -
Application disallowed by the State Government - Petitioner-
Company filed writ petition, which was dismissed - Petitioner filed
SLP against the dismissal, which was allowed - Supreme Court vide
iudgment dated 14.03.2012 directed the State Government to
recommend the case of petitioner to the Central Government -
Direction not implemented - Contempt petition filed by petitioner-
company against the State - Supreme Court vide order dated
22.04.2014 directed the State Government to comply with the earlier
direction in terms of MoU entered between the parties - Instant
contempt petition filed by the petitioner-company pleading that the
State Government did not purge the contempt - Held: As per the
law prevailing at that time, the role of the State Government was
·only to send the recommendations to the Central Government for
allotting· mining areas -,. Ultimate authority/power was vested with
the Central Government to take a decision on the said request of
the State Government - Since the State Government had sent the
necessary letter of request to the Central Government, direction
contained in the judgment dated 14.03.2012 stood compliedwith -
As Central Government was not party in the contempt proceeding,
no direction was ever given by Supreme Court to the Central
Government - On contrary, it was observed in order dated
22.04.2014 that it would be for the Central Government to consider
the recommendations of the State Government on its own merits and
in accordance with law - If that has not been done by the Central
149
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
150
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
r2o 161 11 s.c.R.
Government, it cannot be subject 111atter of the instant Conte111pt
Petition, which is accordingly closed - Mines and Minerals
(Develop111ent and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015.
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 - ss. 5(1), 10A{2J(c), 11 and JJA - Mines and Minerals
(Develop111ent and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 - Petitioner-
Co111pany applied for grant of lease for 111ining iron ore for use in
the proposed plant - Its application recommended to the Central
Govern111ent by the Stale Government - Central Government look
the view that granting of lease has to be dealt with in accordance
with new provisions of the Ame11d111e//f Act, 2015 and under new
scheme, the petitioner '.I· request stood invalidated - Plea of
Petitioner-Company that the State Government had issued 'Letter
of Intent', therefore, its application was protected u/s. JOA(2){c) of
the amended Act - Held: Previous approval of the Central
Government was essential for the State Govern111ent to enter into
any lease agreement/contract with the prospecting licensee - Without
such approval, the State Government could not co111111unicate to the
prospecting licensee/lessee its intention to enter into any contract -
Jn instant case, Letter issued to the Central Government by the State
Government was only reco111111endatory in nature and ultimate
decision rested with the Central Government - Therefore, letter issued
was not 'Letter of Intent' and application of Petitioner not covered
by clause (c) of section 10A(2) of the Act.
Closing the contempt petition, the Court
HELD: 1. In the instant case, direction was given to the
State Government to send the recommendation for grant of mining
lease to the petitioner. As per the law prevailing at that time, the
role of the State Government was only to send the
recommendation to the Central Government for allotting mining
areas. Ultimate authority/power was vested with the Central
Government to take a decision on the said request of the State
Government. Since the Sta~e Government had even refused to
send such a request, this Court was of the view that the act of the
State Government in refusing to send recommendation was
contrary to the MoU and direction was issued to do the needful.
In the order passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) NExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.