F 0 -- "L- H;GH Cp_URrOF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: Bl LA£FU R " DIVISION BENCW -;: {::' / •: . i ;ORAM : : -HON'8LESHraS.R.NAYAK,:CJ . ; .,;,:... ,. , & .--HON'BLE SHRI D.R. DESHMUKH.J.; ;; - : ; ^ .. Writ Petition No.2372 of 2006 <.;^ i Writ Petition No.323 of 2006 !/ WritPetit|onNo;4395of2006 ; !. ^ • ^£^~~, ORDER FOR COiMSIDERATION Sd/- CHIEFJSjSTIGE S4'08/200S ^- yON'BLESHRID.R.DESHMUKH.. _... _ sd/-. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 06;09f20G3 POST IT.FOR PRONOUNCEIuiENT OF DRDER ON:. 07/09/2006 Sd/- CHiEF\il!£TlCE OSiOSffiOOS r.lisa M&N 'P'SQffi.WOI 'UEMBLia Ul?.'"Ar>/.iSt-i 'ElpUI ,.!^' 'IAOQ .'S}S9JO;| pue }U3u".!oi!AU3,J>«j}siuiy\| 'AiK;9J09S 'g ' /f^' !4|9Q MSN'UBMeqg u}s"y<3 '?i"tsu!y\) -y S9wyf }0 ^usuipedsiQ Aims.iosg eu} qSnojql 'eipu] ^o uoiun 'L (y.!86s!BE4L|0) jndiey'QW030 s}i y@no.".ii 'uoRB.iodjoQ }usiudo]9A3a |BU)snpu| 9}Bg qjBSsifteqqo -9 ("O'O) jndrey •eAB|Ej}uE!A| 'UBMRug 's'^'a '4.fe6s!B?44o jo 8)B}S 'Aje}OJ09gjeii;o|BUOit!ppv'L(6u!gfejAii(9'S jndrey .eAejBjiueM 'uemBqg •s'')1'a qjeBsmeuuo .fo 3}etS^8)aJ09S js'40 "t7 ' ('O'O) jndrey '>|MOI)O fflseijs (sv"lw e>|nu9y) &<B|Gflue|A| je&N 'pjeog ueqespjd LfssAiN eAfey •s (•0-0)jnd!By GAEIB.BUESAI 'UEAtei|g -s'X'a 'sso^nossy feiw.w vf s®;";/1,!jo lusiuyedsQ AiKiejosg 94} i|!'3no.fui '.UESsiHeqqo^o e}B}g sqj. •z (•0-0)Jndrey ; . .'eAeje.nur>w!:'ui'MBLjg •g-»'a 'seiflsnpui ; . pUB •so.ia'.uv 103 ;o lueuqjBdga 'Ajeisjoeg . s^} uSno.f!.,i^ ujeSsineqLjO ^o e}G}S .'t SlN3aNC:d33M snsaaA ('O'O) BjnQ puisiQ 'inuep 'duiEO .noq!''-) o/y 'i|Buig doouy o//y\ 'aieooApv-uoissspjcf -'sjesA ^i? 5.noq"'p86e 'fempejBqg etfpns 'g ('O'O) -'nc'rey Pi-ilsiQ'jndiey 'ejBcj JK>||Q>I 'psoy uoiieig o/y '/isqpueiAt . oey ue.teiBN 0/g AsqpusiM JKjueys - 'l. SalNOUIISd 800210 S^SS-ON uomiad ti-iM T'HxnwHsaa •ya lyHS^^g.NOH ^ ro'>wAVN•y's syHsaia.NOH : !NV^'OO HONaaNoisiAia md^ffg":uwosilT^HHO~3anly5tar»'^oiynoo^ °KSS!ft, ^T^T-J-T" (f]^ (/ &isiS^te^ PETjTjONcR :<ESPONDENTS PETiT!ONj2R -SSt^--":^'^. • .'.: 'WSSSSQ^I RcSPQNDENTS 9. Secretary, Ministry of Sieel & Mines, Government of [ndia, Udyog Bhavan, NewDelhi ' 10. National Mineral Davelopment Corporation, Hyderabad (A.P.) 11. Tata Iron and Stee! Co. Ltd,, Registered Office—Bombay House 24, i-iomi Mody Street,Mumbai -400001 Mumbai (M.S.) 12. The Essar Steel Chhatiisgarh Limited, having its registersd Orfice. at Post Hazira,. Pin 394270, District Surat (Gujarat) .WnLPe.tition.Mg,l?.3.ojE.2p.Og 1. Dr. Pratap Agrawat s/o Freedorn fighter Late BN Agrawal, aged 60, Advocate, Jagdalpur 484001. VERSUS 1. Govemment of Chhattisgarh, ChieT Secretary / Principal Secretaiy Industries, Mantralaya, Raipur 432001 2. Cotlector Centrai Bastar, Jagdaipur: 494001 '. WrjtPetitjon No.4395 of200ff Sudiep Shrivastava, S/o Shri V.P. Shrivastava, aged About 37 years, R/o Mungeli Naka, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^fiSUS 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment & ^ Forest, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Compiex, New Delhi 2. Union of India through the Secrelary, Minislry of Coai & Mines, Shastri Bhawan, NewDelhi (India) 3. State of Chhattisgarh Thru' Pisncipal Secreiaiy, Department of Mines, Mantralaya, Dau Kalvan Sii-igh Bhavvan, Raipur (Chhattisgai h) •y"^ 4. . /g-'" ><-' 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. State of Chhattisgarh Thru' Principal Secretary, Department of ii-idustrjes, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgar! i) Central Pollution Control Board, Government of India Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar, New Deihi 110 032 through Its Chairman, Nev,' Dcihi. Central Water Commission Sewa Bhawan.R.K. Puram New' Deihi 110 066through ItsChairman, New Deihi. Chhattisgarh Envii'o!-iment Conservation Board, thru' Its Sed'Btary, Nanak Niwas, Civil Linss, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Coliector, Bastar (Chhattisgarh) at jagdalpur Collector.South Bastar at Dantewara (Chhattisgarh) Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Bombay House, 24, Homi JVIody Str&et, I'/iumbai 400001 (M.S.) : Essar Steel Chhattisgarh Limiied, (a wholiy owned Subsidiary of Essai' Steel Ltd.), Registered Office at PO Hazira, DistrictSurat (Gujarat) 394270 PtMsnLL;- •• ' '. • ; • Shri Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner No.1 & Ms. Sudha Bhsidw&j, peiitioner No.2 in person in W.P.No.2372/2006. Dr. Pi-atap Agrawal, petitioner in personin W.P.No.323/2006. Shri Manindt'a Shrivastava.learned SeniorAdvocate with Shri Amrito Das, leairtcd counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.4395/2006. Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Addl. Advocate General wiui Shri Utkarsh Veiina, iesmed Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State or Chhattisgarh alonswitliShri Shivraj Singh, Addl. Chief Secretary, State of'Chhattisgarh. Shri S.K. Beriwal, learnedstanding counsel forthe Union of India. Shri S. Pal, learned Senior Acfvocate wjth Shri S. Mitra & Shri Sanjay K. Agrav/al, learned counselfor respondenVTata Iron & Steei Company Ltd. aiongv/iih Mrs. Meena Lal, Head-Legal (Corporate Matters), TISCO. Shri Vivek Tankha, learned Senior Advocate vvith Shri Sachin Singh Rajpui:, iearned counsel for respondent/EssarSteei Chhati:isgarh Ltd. Shri P.S. Koshy, learned counsel for respondent/ Nationaj Mineral DiiVcloprnent Corporation. ^"' 's«i^-^-.•L-;'^--^-^-:^ /:.'--.^h^ ORD^fR (Passedon^September, 2006) v The foilowing order of the Court was passed by S.R. NAYAK;CJ, : The tndian Parliament by enacting Madhya Pradesh Reoiganization Act, 2000 (Act 28 of 2000), formed the new State of ChhatusQarh by dividingthe ershvhile State ofMadhya Pradesh with effect iTom 01-1 T-20CX). As per theStatement of Qbjects and Reasons of the said Act. She new State ofChhattisgarh was fprmed intera:ia to meetthe dsniocra'iic aspiraiions of the people of Chhattisgarh Stats. , (2) The new State of Chhattisgarh framed the Industrisl Folicy in the ysar 2004 for a period of five years. The relevant objectives of the industriai Policymfera/faincludethefollowing: : • "(i) tocreateadditionalemploymentopportuniiies by accelerating the process of industrialization In the state; , (ii) to create enabling environment for ensuiing maximum vaiue addition to the abundanl', locaily available mineral and forest based resources; : (iii) toensure balanced regional developmentby attracting industries in the economicalty backward areas ofthe state; (iv) to promote privato sector participation for creation of industrial infrastructure in the staie and (v) to create a conducive environment for in'creasing tndustfial production, produciivity aiid quality up gradation to face the challenge of competition emerging from economic liberalization". !t is stsied that the said Industrial Policy has been formuiated with the object of t-apid economic growth and development vvith regiona! balance to ,tako the Ciihattisgarh State tothe level ofdeveloped States in ine country ^as^ te^S.' and to bring about prosperity in the Stateso as to improve tr-ie siandard of life of tne people. The Industrial Policy promises severai incentjves, Goncession;s and benefrts to prospective investors who desire to set up industriai units in ths State of Chhattisgarh: Such incentives infer alia inciude subsidies of various nature and exemption and/or deferred paymsnt ot taxes. / ^ . (3) Tata iron & Steel Company Limited (for short'TISCO') and Essar Stes! Chhafflsgarh Limited (forshort'ESSAR'), respondents No,11 & 12 and lespondenis iMo.10 & 11, respectively, in W.P.Nos, 2372/2006 & 4395/2000, it is stated, held several meetings with the topmost & lesponsibls officersandauthoritiesoftheState Government In s year 2005 having regard to the obj'ectives ofthe State Government to promote industiisltestion and upgrade the life of the citizens of ihe Sfate of Chhatiisgari'i and cameforward to set upintegrated steel pianfe, Those negouations anci discussions led to the signing of Memorandum of Understendings (for short 'MOUs'), The MOU with TISCO was signed on 04-00-2005 containing, mfer a/o, the road-map for seiiing up the integiafed steel plant in Bastar region witha capacity of 5 million tonnes per annui-n as also the benefits, incentives and concessions which are to be graiited by the State of Chhattisgarh. Similar MOU with ESSAR was siyiied on 05-07-2005 to set up a Steel Plant in Bastar reglon with a proeiuction capacity of 3.2 million tones per annum in phasss at an spproximaie investmentofRs.6,OOOcrores. . (4) In pursuance of the MOU, in the return filed by T1SCO, it is stated thai the foliowing steps have been taken: 6 -VSK -'^4,^- ys^- "20.1 That, inaccordance with Rule 4(2) of the Chhattisgarh Audhyogik Nivesh Protsahan Niaym. 2004, framed under the Chhattisgarh Audhyogik Nivesh Protsahan Niaym. 2002, the State Government provided the severat forrnats coiiectively calledas 'Common Application Forrn' to ths answering Respondent for necessary provisions such as land,water, etc. as are required for an industriat prpject, such forms inter-alia including : i. Application for use^ of forest land for non- forest purposes; ii. ApplicationforailotmentofGovernmentland; iii. Application for acquisition of private land. 20.2 That after working out the necessaiy deiaiis jointlywith the officials ofthe State Government, the answering Respondent, submitted the Coiriinon Application Form to the Nodal Officer in the mai-iner prescribed by the State Government. 20.3 That in the tndustria) Poiicy 2004-2009, ihe District of Bastar has been defined as the 'fviosi: Backward Scheduied Tribe Dominant Area' and for bringing the said areato the levelofother pads of the Slate, private sector participation is being envisaged by the State Government. Therefore, it v/as jointly decided by the officials of the Siate Government and the answering Respondent that ihe industrial unit would be set up in the Saiepai end Barupata villages of District Bastar, 20.4 That under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the petitioner has submitted requisite applications for alloeation of ironore mines, which is one of most important raw materials for steel rnaking; ./*• 47/. 7 ?•-.<» •xtSS,^.. 20.5 That similarly,t for suppiy of water and electricity, theanswering Respondent has submltted requisite applications under th®reievant Cenlral/ Statelaws; ; :• 20.6 That while the applications Qf this Respondent were being scrutinizsd the Governrnent of Chhattisgarh, it came to light that the land identified in the villages Salepal and Barupata contains a mineral resource called 'Kimberlite', which isa diamondbearing mineral; 20.7 That under such circumstances, the ? answering Respondenthad nooption, butto change the site of location of the industry to the Lohandiguda Block in Bastar District; 20.8 That the acquisition of land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894 and allocation thereof to this Respondent is subject to the Rehabilitation Plan to be submitted by an invostor, which is prepared underthe State Model RehabiiitationPolicy,2005andinconsuitationWith ' ths authoritiesofState Governmsnt." (5) VVRen the matter stood thus, it seems that in the month of January, 200c; Dr. Pratap Agrawal, S/o Late B.N. Agravvat, Advocaie, sent an unslgnea' petition, styled as a writ petition to the High Court. It is unfortunate, though the above petition wasnot signed by Dr. Pratap Agruwal, slnce that factwas not brought to the noticeof.tiie concerned, erroiisousiy, the samewas directed to be treatedas a Pubiic Interest Litigation, In ihat petition (W.P. No. 323 of 206) the following reliefs are sought:: ! , .:.••• : : :, ,' "i) aninterim stay against land acquisition process. I? 8 ^. vsri'l sssse&^.. ''"^"••"-^^ '-K».!)X. ii) No Agricultural iand, abadi sites, grave yan temples, ponds, school buildings, panchayat buildings, roads, stone quarry, should be acquired for any industry. : iii) The village panchayat should not be intimidated to pass resotution in favour of industiy. Every individualcultjvator, house hold shouid be given free chance eitherto consent/dissent and their land should not be acquired unless they give free consent. . . iv) Process of allotment of land or land acquisition should not start without impact assessmeritstudyand a public hearing on this, The denial of cultivators tQ part with their land, shouid be protected. v) villagesshoyid not be put in under iand acquisition for an industry alternatively, if lana' is acquired and industry established employment guarantee to every member of family shouiQ' be given from the date of acquisition, there shouid be profit sharing, unofficial locai director, project director shoutd be local should be ordered from fne a'ate of acquisition process starts. vi) relief as pleaded and prayed In aforesaid paras 3 be granted in the discretion of this Hori'ble Court. : vii) The process of establishment of Tata Steei or any other project should succeed after study and clearance on the points of agriculture, flora, faiina, bio diversity, ecology, environment, water-stroani, wild animal, pollution control etc. viii) This is a kimberlitic zone and thus no iand shouid be allotted to the industry for a siesl piant. The applied tand is a part of kimberlitic zone. ix) Untess transparently every material is put before the public, no action for tand acquisition 9 ^ ^1 should stari:. Thosewho do not want to part vvith their land, their land should not be acquired. x) Ifthe industryis imposed, than In the board of directors of the company, an independent director ^ from the locality should beappointed and aiso ihe project director should be a local engineer. This is necessary to safeguard the interest of locai in ihe rnatterof employment and to curb the evil of the East India Co.attitude. xi) No land or abadi can be evacuated for being ailotted to any industrywhich is in breach of ia<v enumerated in above para6. An appropriate writ be issued by this Honourable Court to declare such action illegal, null and void and.an inierim order prohibiting the respondents to proceed vyith evacuation and land acquisition and allotment of land to any industry be granted. xii) if the Court deems necessity of the industri', the steel industry does not need more than 1000 acres of land and the land applied in excess bo rejected, and only vacant government land may be alloUed. xiii) Rehabilitation package for new-Raipur and that for Tata-Steel acquisition is different. Tv.'o different formula can't be formulated and it bs declared illegal, null and void. xiv) Any other reliefthe Court deems fit be 3ranted". Subsequentiy, Shri V.C. Ottalwar, Shri R.D. Rai and Shri O.P. Agrawal, Advocates t'iied Vakalatnama on behalfofthe petitioner. TheCourt having erireilained the writ petition as Pubiic Interest Litigation, dii-ected notice re- ru!e ,';js;on 23-01-2006. The Govemment ofChhattisgarh represented by the Chief Secretary / Principal Secretary Industries and the Collector, .Ceiiual Bastar, Jagdalpur arearrayed as respondents to tne saidwrit 10 pc-tiuon. On service ofnotice, on behalfofthe respondents a returnwas riisd. - . : 1 . . (6) in the month ofApril,2006,Shri Shankar Mendhey and Ms. Sudha Bharadwaj jointly filed W.P. No.2372 of 2006 as a Pubiic Interest LitiQELtion daiming to be pro bono public Characters, questioning the legality or the MOUs signed by the Government of Chhattisgarh with TISCO andESSAR.In thewrit petition, they have prayed for the following reiiets; •: • ' '. ' ! . ' • "i. To kindly call for the records of the cass frorn the respondents. ii. Tokindlyissueawritofcertioraribyquashing theimpugned MOUs executed betw'eQn ihe ; respondent Stateand the respondents 11 and 12. iii. To kindly issue a writ of mandamus to the respondentsto keepthe iron ore blocks reseivs in due andadequate measurein favour of the SAIL, B.S.P. iv. To kindly issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent Stateto first makea detaited study by the team of experts including the chQsen representatives ofthe people to evaluate the pros andconsofthe proposal of theestablishmentof the atoresaid steel plants. v. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit andjust in the facts and circumstancesof the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioners." Ti'iis Court having entertained the said writ petition on 21-06-20Cs3 directed notics to she respondents TISCO& ESSAR. On behalf of Ihe other respondsriis, learned Additional Advocate General and other standing w, 11 ^S^-^J^: Zsy. counoel took notice. On service of notice, return was filed on behalf of ' respo.ndcnis 1 to 5 and also on behalf ofTISCOand ESSAR with certain docurnents in support oftheir contentions. TISCO aiso filed an appiicatiQn, I.A, No.6330of2006fordismissalofthe wrjt petition as not mainiaina&ie. : (7) In view of the contentions raised by respondents 1| fo 5 that the iMOUs produced by the petitioners are not the correct versions of the IviOUs signed with the TISCO and ESSAR and since the correct versions of the MOUs are produced with the return of respondenls. 1 to 5 and other respondents, the petitioners filed I.A. No.7989 of 2006 for ainendment of the v/iit pstition so as to challenge the correct MOUs. That spplication vvas aiiowed by the Court vide its order dated 22-06-2006. (8) In the meanwhile, anotherwrit petition, being W.P. No.4395 of 2006 was nied by one Sudiep Shrivastava, S/o Shri V.P. Shrivastava, R/o Mui-igeii Naka, Bilaspur as a Public Interest Litigation, claiming to be a pro jbono pubiic character, questioning the legaiity ofthesame MOUs. In W.P. No.4395 of 2006 the following reliefs are sought: "i. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pteased to call for the entire records ieading to execution of MOU from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. ii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate order / direction restraining the respondent State from giving erfect to or acting upon uncalied for undertakings, assurances, and commitments tothe respondents Tata Steei and Essar so as to bind it in breach of Central & Siate Laws, public policy and pubiic interest referred in thepetition. _ __—__^_—- - 12 "'-'•..fe^-. vv'^:^r; 'tSiifc. '"/v^-. iii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate order / directions to respondents Tata Steel and Essar restraining them from undertaking the projects for establishment of integratea' Stee! Plants without clearance from Ministry of Environment& Forest, Government of India, as required under Environment (Protection) Act as also Forest Conservation Act. iv, Appropriate order/ directions may also kindiy be issued by this Hon'ble restraining respondent State from acquiring land for the purposss of project for establishment of integrated steei piant and/or acquisition of land for the purposes of declaring Special Industrial Area without obtaining required clearance under the provisions of EPA andFCA. v. This Hon'ble Court may further be pieased to issue appropriatedirectjons/ orders to the State Government to restrain it from granting tax concessions as referred to in the petjtion in ravour ofthe respondentsTataSteel and Essar. vi. This Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to issue appropriate directions / orders commanding the State enforce rehabilitation policy as promulgated by the Government of Ina'ia by irnposing appropriate terms and con<.iitions regarding identification of project affected persons and families as also special provisions tor ScheduIedCaste and Scheduled Tribes, vii. This Hon'bleCourt may also kindly be pleassd to issue appropriate directions / orders to the Staie to formulate new rate of compensation as aiao the other fadlities as per the demand charter of the directly affected population. vjii.Any other relief/ reliefs, which this Hon'bl'e Coiirt may think fit and proper in the facts and w 13 ~'<-.,.~ -'•?.,/-. circumstances of the case, with cost of the petitiori, may also please.be granted to the petitioner", , The said v,i-it peiition was.admitted on 22-08-2006. Since theother two writ petitions were listed forfinal hearing and disposalon 22-08-2006, with the consent of Shri Manindra Shrivastava, learnsd Sr. Counsel who appeared for the petitioner in W.P. No.4395 of 2006, that vfrit petition was clubbed 'A'tth the other two writ petitions and ail the writ peiitions were heard on 22-08-2006 and 23-08-2006 for final disposaf. Shri Prashant fvlishra, ieuiTied Additional Advocate General appearing for State and its Authorities, Shri S.Pal, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for TISCO and Shri.Vivek Tankha, learned Sr. Adyocate appearing for ESSAR submitted thdt tney vrould adopt the returns filed by their clients in VV.P. No.2372 of 2003 as thsir retum in W.P. No.4395 of 2006 also. (9) Wo heardlearned counsel for the parties. (1ti) Ms. Sudha Bhardwajwho is the petitioner No.2 in W.P. No.2372of 2006 appeared in person and argued on behalf of the petiiioiisrs in the said writ puii'tion. She contended that the Government of Chhattisgarh by slsning th& iiiipugned MOUs with the TISCO and ESSAR has sacrificed the inisrest of the most down-trodden.poverty-stricken people of Bastar region, She woufd contend that under the MOUs the Government has aQi-eed to consider for giving relaxation to TISCO and ESSAR from the employnisnt conditjons of the Industrial Policy. She wouid conisnd that the ocquismon of private lands forthe proposed projects of TiSCQ and ES3AR would deprivs the owners of the private lands of agriculture and tivelil-iood. Sho vvould contend that in signing the MOUs with TISCO and 14 2"Bs«%a., -^l^ •"^s^ ESSAR, the State Government has vioiated its own model rehabilitation poiicy. She v/ouid contend thatthe State Government in agreeing to make constant suppiy of electricity and water has sacrificed the interest of the agriculiurists and violated the provisions ofthe irrigatJon Act, 1931. She would subrnit that by proposing to give a free hand to TISCO and ESSAR for seiection ofsites / lands including private lands even belonging to tribat peopie and other backward classes and also forest lands, the Government . has violatcd aii applicable laws. Shewould contend that ifthe projects envjsagea' under the impugned MOUs are executed.it wouid cause ineparabio damage to the environment and forests of Bastar. She would contend thai the MOUs were signed with TISCO and ESSAR m violation of tlie provisions of Environment (Protection) Act,1986; Water (Prevention and Controi of Pollution) Act,1974; Forest Conservation Act and C.G. irrigation Aet, 1931. She concluded by contending that if the proposed projscts envisaged under theimpugned MOUs are uitimately sxecuted, thsy v/ould be totaliy against the people's interest; they wouid desiroy the environriieiit and ecology and thatthere was absolutely no neea' for the State Governmsnt to go for these projects and they are npt in thc interest of pubiic at iarge norin the interest ofthe State. (11) Dr.Pratap Agrawal, who is the petitioner in W.P. No.323 of 2006 appsared in porson and made his submissions. Dr. Pratap Agrav/ni while adopting th& submissions of Ms.Sudha Bhardwaj would suppie-mont by coniendiny tnat the landsrequired by TISCO and ESSAR for esteoiishing their plants fall within the Scheduled Areas and therefote, the State Govsmme;it bsfore signing the itnpugned MOUs with TISCO ar.d ESSAR . ought to have taken consent of the concerned Gram Sabhas or the Punchayats in te-rms of the mandatory provisions ofdause (i) ofScction 4 971. 15 <»£;. orthe Provisions of the Panchayats (Extensions tothe Scheduied Areas) Aci:, 'i 995, because, without consent of the concerned Gram Sabhas or ths FJanchayats, no land in theScheduled Areascould be acquire'd for any dsvul'.ipmentprojects...':' '": 1.: . ' (12) Shri Manindra Shrivastava, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the pe-tiuoner in VV.P. No.4395 of 2006, would contend that the undertakings, assurances and commitments held out bythe State Government in favour ofthe TISCO and ESSAR.as contained in their respective MOUs are in breach of ihe Forest Consen/ation Act, Environment (Protsction) Act, 1966; MMRD Act, 1957; Air (Prevention and Control of Poiiution) Act, 1881: Ths VVater (Prevention andControlof Pollution) Act,1S74, as also sgalnst variuiis Natjonal and State Rehabilitation Policies. He would coniend that the SiateGovernment in breach of doctrine of' public trust has given such undertakings, assurances and commitments. He would contend thut the State Government ought not to have comtiHitoc! jtself to aiiot required land to TISCO and ESSAR within a stipulated time without reclprocal >.indertai(ing of clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1966 and ForestConservatipn Act as a CQndition precedent and that tantamounts to gross abuse and misuse of public authority and also agaiiist the precautionary principle of sustainable development. He would coRtgiKlthaEinetertnsandconditionsoftheMOUswithregardtograntof rniniri.g leaso irrespective of prefereniial entitlement under the statutory provisions of MMRD Actand Mineral Concession Rutes, is in vioiati.on of la,y, hie would submit that the action of the State Government to proceed to ac.quire ihe land / declare any parcel ofland as industrial area without seeking ci&arance from Ministry of Environment & Forest as required under E.I.A. noiiriCation is illegal and excess of authority. He would Submit 16 ""-i^ ^ that ihe lindertaking of the State Government to make available water wlthout iecornmendation fromtheappropriateauthoritymainlytiieCentral VVater Cornmission is also in excess of authority. Similarly, he would submit that the commitments of the State Government to make available liuyo power requirementwithoutany reference to resources is completely arbriTary and irrational. Shri ManindraShrivastava would conciude his subiiiission by contending that the terms and conditions incorporated in the impugned MOUs are totally against public interest in general and in ^ the iriieresi of tribai people of Bastar District in particular. (^3) Per^contra, Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Additionai Advocate General uppearing for the State Government and its authoritiss, would submit thatthe GovemmentofChhattisgarh.since its inception, has been taking poiicy iniuatives for acceleration of the development process in various sectors of the State's economy so as to generate nevy- economic activitiss ieading to avenues for employment and for raising ths standard of i;fe or its people in general, and the people in the Scheduled Areas rnainly ii-iiiabited by the tribals in particular and towards that end the State Government has formulated State's new Industrial Policy for a period of five years i.o. 2004-2009,with effectfrom 1st November, 2004. In the new IndusSn'al Poiicy incentivesand concessions have been provided to attract investnienis in the State. Accordingly, the State Government received proposals ftom TISCO and ESSAR for putting up Steel Plarris in the econornicaily' backward Bastar region wheredeposits of iron ore, the basic