LexGEOMIN MINERALS & MARKETING (P) LTD. versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 914 A GEOMIN MINERALS & MARKETING (P) LTD. B V. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4561 of 2013 etc.) MAY 10, 2013 [R.M. LODHA AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, C 1957 - ss. 5(1) proviso, 11(5), 4(3), 63A - Grant of mineral concession - Recommendation for - By State Government - To Central Government - Recommendation challenged - High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, set aside the recommendation deciding the case on merits - Held: High o Court committed grave error of law in deciding the case on merits and deciding the question of legality of recommendation - The petition was pre-mature - The Court should have left the matter to Central Government - Matter remitted to Central Government to consider the question of E approval of the recommendation made by the State - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226. The State Government made recommendation to the Central Government in favour of POSCO (appellant in appeal No. 4563 of 13) for grant of prospecting licence. F The revisional authority set aside the recommendation and directed the State Government to consider all the pending applications simultaneously. Writ petition challenging the order of revisional authority on the ground that direction for simultaneous consideration of G all the applications affected the preferential rights of the first day applicants u/s. 11 (2) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation} Act, 1957, was dismissed by High Court holding that there was no preferential right for the applicant. The appellant-Company 'G' (appellant H 914 GEOMIN MINERALS & MARKETING (P) LTD. v. STATE 915 OF ORISSA in appeal No. 4561/13) filed writ petition seeking A expeditious disposal of its application for mineral concession and the same was directed by High Court. In the meantime, s. 11 of the 1957 Act was amended inserting first proviso to s. 11 (2) and new sub-section (4) was introduced in s. 11. B The State Government, pursuant to the order of revisional authority, after giving a hearing to all the applicants prepared inter se merit of all the applicants. As no recommendation was made by the State Government, C the company 'G' filed writ petition seeking direction for disposal of pending applications. During pendency of the petition, the State Government made recommendation in favour of POSCO to the Central Government. Company 'G' then challenged the recommendation. High Court allowed the writ petition holding that recommendation in D favour of POSCO was invalid and the company 'G' had preferential right for grant of licence and lease. Since no specific direction was given in favour of Company 'G' for issuance of licence in its favour, Company 'G' approached this Court. POSCO and State Government E also challenged the order of High Court. Disposing of the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1.1. Under Section 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, the State Government cannot grant a reconnaissance permit, prospective licence or mining lease to any person unless previous approval of the Central Government has been obtained. The proviso to Section 5(1) expressly prohibits grant of PL except with previous approval of Central Government. G Further, where Section 11 (5) is invoked, there also prior approval of the Central Government is required. The proviso to Section 11 (5) prescribes that prior approval of Central Government shall be obtained "before passing any order under the sub-section". In the present case the H 916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A State Government has only made recommendations and has sought approval of Central Government under proviso to Section 5(1) and proviso to Section 11 (5) but no final decision has been taken. The State Government can pass final order granting mining licence only if B approval is granted by the Central Government under Section 5(1) or Section 11 (5). [Para 22] [941-G-H; 942-A-C] Monnet /spat Energy v. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 11 sec 1: 2012 (7) SCR 644 - relied on. C 1.2. Iron ore is a major mineral specified in Para C of the First Schedule. In matters of such major mineral, State Government itself cannot undertake prospective or mining operations without having prior consultation with the Central Government as per Section 4(3) of the Act, D and if prospecting licence or mining lease is to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.