FERRO ALLOYS CORPN. LTD. AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 49 · Decided: 22-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR, AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

FERRO ALLOYS CORPN. LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 22, 1999 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India Article 226 rl'f ,Evidence .jct. 1872, s. 115-
Waiver and estoppel-Central Government granting T/SCO renewal of lease 
B 
for mining chromite over an area smaller than original lease-T/SCO 
challenging decision by a writ petition in the High Court-Appellant, a rival C 
claimant, being made respondent-High Court directing reconsideration of 
matter by Central Government-Supreme Court permiting Central Government 
to dispose of matter during pendency of TISCO's SLP-Central Government 
on basis of report of High Power Expert Coommitte constituted by it issuing 
order granting lease to TISCO for reduced area as .well as to Appellant and D 
other claimants-Central Government's order upheld by Supreme Court and 
TISCO 's appeal dismissed-Appellant making representation to State 
Government against Central Government's order and claiming lease for entire 
area-State Government recommending to Central Government grant of lease 
to appellant to extent of 50% of total requirements as assessed by Committee-
Appellant challenging orders of Central and State Governments-Writ petition E 
dismissed by High Court as not maintainable on ground of res judicata and 
on merits-Whether appellant's writ petition barred on grounds of waiver, 
estoppel and acquiescence-Held, yes; after inviting Supreme Court to confirm 
order of Central Government appellant could not subsequently oppose the 
very same order; further held, appellant waived objection to and acquiesced 
in the order of the Central Government assessing it-Requirements. 
F 
Res Judicata-Constructive res judicata-whether on facts Appellant's 
writ petition challenging orders of Central and State government not 
maintainable on ground of res judicata or constructive res judicata-Held, 
no; issue raised by appellant not expressly adjudicated and no final decision G 
thereon inter se the parties in earlier proceedings in the Supreme Court; 
further held, question of assessment of appellant's entitlement had nothing to 
do with relief granted to TISCO in earlier proceedings-Code of Civil 
Procedure 1908, s.11-Constitution of India, Article 226. 
Constitution of India, Article I 36-Practice and Procedure-Appellant H · 
49 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999) 2 S.C.R. 
A inviting Supreme Court in earlier proceedings to confirm order of Central 
government determining its entitlement to mining area-Appellant's 
subsequent writ petition challenging Central Government's order dismissed 
by High Court as being not maintainable on ground of res judicata-Supreme 
Court finding writ petition not barred by res judicata or constructive res 
judicata-Whether proceeding required to be remanded to High Court for 
B fresh decision-Held, no-Appellant by its own conduct was disentitled to 
get a fresh decision on the point from any court 
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957, s.8(3) 
r/w Mineral Concession Rules, 1960-Central government making order 
C assessing appellant's requirement for mining chromite-State government 
subsequently revising appellant's need downwards by half and reserving the 
remaining half for consideration of claims of other parties-Whether order 
of state government in conflict with order of Central Government-Held, no 
Order of Central Government binding on appellant. 
D 
In 1973 the State ofOrissa 'State' granted Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. 
(TISCO) renewal of lease for mining of chromite over an area of 1261.476 
hectares in Sukinda Valley. Prior to expiry of the lease on October 3, 1991; 
TISCO applied for a second renewal of the mining lease. On the State's 
recommendation, the Central Government conveyed its approval of the said 
E second renewal for the entire area for 10 years. Thereafter, the Central 
Government reviewed its order and approved the grant of renewal of lease 
to only half the area, i.e. 650 hectares. 
The order of the Central Government was challenged by TISCO before 
the. Orissa High Court in a writ petition to which the rival claimants, 
F including the appellant, were party respondents. The High Court took the 
view that the entire matter was required to be reconsidered by the Central 
Government. Against the High Court's order, TISCO filed a special leave 
petition in this court. By an interim direction, this court clarified that the 
pendency of the special leave petition would not stand in t

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