M/S INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LTD. AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 17-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LTD. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 17, 2002 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, CJ., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND S.B. SINHA,JJ.] 
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957/Mineral 
Concession Rules, 1960-Sections (J) and 11(4)/ Rule 59(1) and(2)-Mining 
lease-Grant of-Previously lease-hold area held by TJSCO-~enewal of lease C 
only in respect of some fraction of the area-Direction by Central Government 
to consider other four applicants for grant of lease in respect of the balance 
area-Rule 59(1) relaxed by Central Government in view of urgent need of 
the four applicants-State Government assessed the need of the four applicants· 
and recommended allotment only in respect of 50% of the balance area-
Further remaining area thrown open for consideration of other claimants D 
including the four claimants-Decision of the State Government approved by 
Court-Expert Committee appointed to consider grant of further remaining 
area-During pendency of consideration by Expert Committee, State 
Government recommended one fraction of further remaining area in favour of 
an applicant 'N'-Recommendation apprpved by Central Government by 
relaxing provision under Rule 59(1)-Recommendation assailed which was E 
dismissed by High Court-Appeal to Supreme Court-Case challenging 
approval by Central Government before High Court, transferred to Supreme 
Court-During pendency of appeal grant of lease in favour of 'N' withdrawn 
by State Governmen! and the lease decided to be granted iJtf avour of its own 
public sector undertaking-However the grant not approved by Central F 
Government-Propriety of recommendation and its approval in favour of 'N'-
Held, the recommendation and its approval is legal-There has been no 
infraction of Rule 59(2)-For grant of preferential right in favour of 'N' 
reasons in accordance with the requirements of Section I I (4) were recorded-
// was permissible for the State Government to pick up any single applicant's 
application-Subsequent event is of no consequence since the issue before the G 
Court is to examine the legality of the recommendation and its approval and 
not the right of 'N' to the lease-hold area-The subsequent event also does 
not exist in the eye of law as the decision of the State Government to grant 
the lease-hold area in favour of public sector undertaking was not accepted 
295 
H 
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A by the Central government. 
Practice and Procedure-Subsequent event-Effect of-Held, in view of 
the facts of the case and the issue for consideration before the Court, subsequent 
event is of no consequence. 
B 
Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) which originally held mining 
lease for 1261.476 Hectares land, applied for renewal of the lease. Central 
Government granted approval for renewal in respect of only 650 Hectares 
and directed the balance area to be made available to other industries. 
On challenge of the order of the Central Government, High Court decided 
C that entire matter required reconsideration by the Central Gover.nment. 
The challenge to the High Court order was ultimately disposed of by 
Supreme Court. Central Government pursuant to the observation of High 
Court appointed an Expert Committee, which recommended grant of lease 
to TISCO only in respect of 406 Hectares. Committee also took into 
consideration claims of other claimants. Central Government by order 
D dated 17.8.1995 on the basis of Report of the Committee asked State 
Government to take steps for grant of 406 Hectares to TISCO and to 
consider the applications of other 4 claimants namely, Jindal, Ferro, IMFA 
and lspat Alloys in respect of balance area of 855.476 Hectares. It relaxed 
the provisions of Rules 59(1) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 in respect 
of the four claimants in view of their urgent need. State Government by · 
E order dated 29.6.1997 recommended for grant of lease to the four 
claimants in respect of the balance area of 855.476 hectares on the basis 
of 50% of their basic requirements i.e. 419 hectares. The recommendation 
of the State Government was confirmed by High Court and consequently 
by Supreme Court in Ferro Alloys Corpn. ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India 
F and Ors., 119991 4 sec 149. State Government in the meantime had 
appointed an Expert Committee to examine grant of the remaining 436.295 
hectares. The Court in para 50 of the judgment in Ferro Alloys case 
observed that the balance area will have to

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