LexSTATE OF ORISSA & ORS. versus M/S MESCO STEELS LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 245 STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. M/S MESCO STEELS LTD. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2013) MARCH 6, 2013 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: A B Art. 226 - Writ petition - Challenging intra-departmental c communication proposing to consider re-a/location of lease area for mining iron ore - Held: High Court was in error in proceeding on an assumption that a final decision had been taken and in quashing what was no more than an inter- departmental communication constituting at best a step in the 0 process of taking a final decision by the Government - The writ petition in that view was pre-mature and ought to have been disposed of as such - Mines and minerals - Iron ore. Art. 226 - Writ petition - Order by High Court to maintain status quo - Issuance of show cause notice by government E - Held: Issue of show cause notice did not interfere with status ) quo - Once the show cause notice was issued, High Court could have directed the respondent-company to respond to the same and disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty to it to take recourse to appropriate remedy - Since the show F cause notice is not without jurisdiction, Government to consider the reply that may be submitted by respondent and pass a reasoned order on the subject. In response to the advertisement inviting G • applications for grant of prospecting licenses and mining leases for iron ore in the notified area, the respondent- company and others submitted applications. It was required that the lessee would set up two steel plants and 245 H 246. SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 2 S.C.R A would utilize the entire iron ore extracted from the lease area for meeting the captive requirement of such steel plants and no commercial tracking of the mining material would be carried out by it. Ultimately, by letter dated 17.3.2000, the State Government sanctioned the grant of B lease in favour of the respondent-company. However, when it was pointed out that some area in the proposed lease in favour of the respondent-company was overlapping with the area recommended for allotment to the Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. and some area came c under forest land attracting the Provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the Director of Mining, by letter dated 19.9.2006 recommended re-allocation of resources based on the requirement of iron ore for the existing steel plant set up by the respondent-company. It was further 0 recommended that the respondent-company should not be permitted to carry on any trading activity in iron ore removed from the area to be allocated in its favour. This intra departmental communication was challenged by the respondent-company in a writ petition before the High E Court, which, by order dated 1.2.2007, directed maintenance of status quo. However, the State Government issued a notice dated 6.2.2007 to the respondent-co·mpany to show cause as to why the overlapping area of 469.25 hectares of State PSU and 921.258 hectares granted in excess of the captive F requirement of the respondent-company be not deducted from total mining lease area of 1519.980 hectares. The High Court ignored the show cause notice, quashed the letter dated 19.9.2006, and directed the State Government to execute a formal mining lease in favour of the G respondent-company. In the instant appeal filed by the State Government, the questions for consideration before the High Court were: (1) Whether the writ petition filed by the. H respondent-company was premature, the same having STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. MESCO STEELS LTD. 247 &ANR. . been filed against an inter-departmental communication A that did not finally determine any right or obligation of the parties?; (2) Whether the show cause notice could be ignored by the High Court simply because it had been issued in violation of the interim order passed by it requiring the parties to maintain status quo?; and B (3)Whether the show cause notice was without jurisdiction and could, therefore, be quashed?· Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: c Question No.1 1. It is obvious from a conjoint reading of letter dated 12.1.2006 and communication dated 19.9.2006 sent by the Director of Mines in response thereto that a final decision D on the subject had yet to be taken by the Government. It is only after the Government provisionally decided to . resume the area in part or full that a show c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.