BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD versus RAJESH VERMA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 5 S.C.R. 493 · Decided: 22-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 5 S.C.R. 493 
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. 
A 
v. 
RAJESH VERMA & ORS. 
(Contempt Petition (C) NO. 374 OF 2012) 
IN 
C. A. No. 2790 OF 2012 
B 
APRIL 22, 2014 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A. K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court: 
Order of Supreme Court - Non-implementation of - In 
terms of an MOU, State Government had committed to 
recommend to Central Government for grant of iron ore mines 
c 
in favour of appellant for use in it~ proposed plant - Pursuant 0 
thereto appellant set up the plant with huge investment -
Order of Supreme Caurt in appeal directing the State 
Government to take steps in terms of MOU- No-compliance 
of - Held: Respondents/contemners do not dispute that the 
directions contained in the judgment have become final -
E 
However, State Government!Contemners have pleaded their 
helplessness by narrating certairi circumstances ·and 
developments as also the statutory mandate embodied in s. · 
11(4) of the MMDR Act - Held: Contemners cannot raise 
such a plea to avoid implementation of directions issued by 
Court - As far as the law- laid down in Sandur Manganese, 
F 
that may be applied in application that are pending -
Respondents are in contempt of orders dated 14. 3. 2012 
passed by the Court, in not complying with the directions in 
respect of Keora area --:- However, they are given one final 
opportunity to purge the contempt by transmitting requisite 
G 
recommendations to the Central Government -:-- It. would be 
for the Central Government to consider the said 
recommendations on its own merits and in accordance with 
law. 
493 
H 
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 5 S.C.R .. 
A 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Alt. 32 - Writ petition - Claiming simll~r relief with regard 
to grant of mining lease as was directed in the case of 
appellant in its appeal - Held: Petitioners cannot approach 
8 the Coult directly under Alt. 32 of the Constitution by filing writ 
petitions, as no fundamental right of th~ petitioners is violated 
by non-granting of mining lease -
However, petitioners are 
at libelty to approach High Coult in the first instance and! or 
any other forum which is available, as per law. 
C 
In terms of MOU dated 15.5.2002 entered into 
between the contempt-petitioner-appellant and the State 
Government of Orissa, the latter recommended to the 
Central Government grant of irpn ore mines ih favour of 
the appellant for use of iron ore in proposed plant. For 
D this purpose, Thakurani area with 96 million tonnes iron 
ore reserve and Keora area with additional 128 million 
tonnes of iron ore were earmarked for 50 years 
requirement of the plant. The. plant was set up, but, due 
to family dispute, which was subsequently resolved, 
E there arose some difficulties in getting the grant of iron 
ore lease. Meanwhile in 2006, the State Government took 
a decision that mining lease over Thakurani area could 
not be allowed in favour of the appellant, and made a 
recommendation to Central Government to grant mining 
F lease in favour of "NM(P) Ltd.". The appellant challenged 
these orders before the High Court in a writ petition, 
which was dismissed. However, the appeal of the 
appellant (C.A. No. 279012012) was allowed by the 
Supreme Court by its order dated 14.3.2012, with the 
G direction to the State Government to take appropriate 
steps to act in terms of MOU dated 15.5.2002 as also its 
earlier commitments to recommend the case of the 
appellants to the Central Government for grant of 
adequate iron ore reserve to meet the requirement of the 
H appellants' steel plant. The directions were implemented 
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v."·' RAJ ESH 
495 
VERMA 
with regard to Thakurani area, but the same were not A 
implemente'd as regards Ke.ora area. Aggrieved, the 
appellant filed the contempt petition. The State 
Government filed I.A. No. 14 of 2013 giving details of 
subsequent developments, whi(:h according to the State 
Government made. it difficult to recommend the case of B 
the appellant. It was also stated that the issue which was 
dealt with by Supreme Court in Sandur Managenese, 1 was 
not raised in the appellants' vyrit petition or in their appeal. 
I.A. No. 2 in 1..A. No. 14 of 2013 was filed by another 
company against the status quo order passed in the c 
applications of the appellant. The petitioners in other 
three writ petitions claimed that benefit granted to the 
appe~nt by order 14.3.2012 in C.A. No. 2790/2012, be also 
extended to them. 
Disposing of the matters, the C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.