Case: Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys Ltd Vs. Union Of India And Ors

sions, it does not follow that it becomes entitled to a captive mine to cater to its needs. We, however, express no concluded opinion on this issue which does not arise for our consideration . The SG has to take into account various factors and aspects (some of which have also been referredto in the interim order of this Court dated 27.9.84) before granting a ML to an individual concern carving out an excep- tion to its reservation policy . This it has done in respect of IMFA and FACOR for certain special reasons which have been elaborated upon earlier. Whether it would do so also in favour of OCL and ORIND is for the State to consider. We express no opinion on these claims and l eave it for the consideration of the SG and C.G. It would have been noticed that the applications of these two companies have not been considered in this light earlier. We, therefore, restore the applications of OCL and ORIND for the consideration o f the S.G. The learned Advocate General of Orissa also submitted that Special Leave Petition No. 8574/89 filed by ORIND from the order of the S.G. is not maintainable. He urged that the S.G., in disposing of applications for ML, is not function- ing as "tribunal" and he cited the decisions in Shivji v. Union, 1960 (2) SCR 775 and Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. v. Jasjit Singh, 1964 (6) SCR 594 in support. We do not 95 consider it necessary to go into this issue. The S.G. has, by the impugn ed order, rejected ORINDs application, inter alia, on the ground that, in view of the pendency of W.P. 14116/84 before this Court, it could not at that stage pass any order on the application. It would, therefore, be open to ORIND to ask the S.G. to reconsider the application in the light of our present order. We see no necessity f6r insisting on such a formal request and would, therefore, direct the S.G. to consider ORINDs application afresh in the light of this judgment. So far as OMC &IDCOL are concerned, Rao has "recommend- ed" that the areas of items I &2, left after the grants to IMFA and FACOR. be given on lease to OMC. We have seen that there are huge areas of mineral bearing lands which have been reserved for the public sector. Its interests do not clash or come into conflict with those of private applicants which can only claim a right to the extent the SG is willing to relax the rule of reservation. We do not think the OMC orIDCOL have any voice in requiring that the SG should keep certain extents of land reserved and should not grant any ML at all in favour of an), private party. The interests of these corporations are safe in the hands 01 the S.G. and the allocation of MLs to these organisations i s a matter of discretion with the S.G. Strictly speaking, , therefore. no question of any application by them for ML need arise at all. But, when made, their applications arc considered by the S.G. and, on revision by the C.G. as a matter of for m. To this extent, they have a statutory remedy but, beyond this. we think they cannot go. We are of opinion that their interests are safe with the S.G. and need no directions from us. Even IMFA and FACOR urge that their claims to further lease s deserve consideration. Rao has already adjudicated upon their claims and "recommended" leases to them to the extent indicated. If they apply to the S.G. for more leases. it is open to the S.G. to consider whether they deserve any further leases and if so, to what extent. more reserved areas could be released in their favour. The learned Advocate General for the State emphasised that the State is also interested in its industrial develop- ment and the national economy and that, while reserving substantial areas for public sector exploitation, the State has a well-formulated policy in respect of grant of private leases which has been placed before Rao. He also submits that, even if grant of a ML in favour of a particular party is not found feasible, the State will do its best to ensure that the ore mined in the 96 State is equitably distributed so as to meet the legitimate needs of all industries operating in the State. We have no doubt that the S.G. will keep. all relevant aspects urged by the parties in reaching their decision on the matters re- manded to it by us. In the circumstances, we accept and confirm Raos recom- mendation for grant of MLs to IMFA, FACOR and AIKATH, to the extent indicated by him. We set asi de his rejection of theclaims of OCL and ORIND. We leave it open to all the parties to place their claims, or further claims, as the case may be, in regard to the areas applied for by them on or before 30.4.1987, backed by supporting reasons, before the S.G. in the form of representations within four weeks from the date of this order. The S.G., we hope, will dispose of these applications within the statutory period failing which the parties will have their remedy under the statute by way of revision to the C.G. In arriving at its decisions, it will be open to the S.G. to take into account the discussions and findings of the Rao report in the light of this judgment. The S.G. should also keep in mind that no leases to any of the partie s (other than OMC &IDCOL) can be granted unless either the areas so proposed to be leased out are dereserved and thrown open to applications from the public or unless the C.G., after considering the recommendations of the S.G., for reasons to be reco rded in writing, considers a relaxa- tion in favour of any of the parties necessary and justi- fied.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We do not think the OMC orIDCOL have any voice in requiring that the SG should keep certain extents of land reserved and should not grant any ML at all in favour of an), private party. The interests of these corporations are safe in the hands 01 the S.G. and the allocation of MLs to these organisations i s a matter of discretion with the S.G. Strictly speaking, , therefore. no question of any application by them for ML need arise at all. But, when made, their applications arc considered by the S.G. and, on revision by the C.G. as a matter of for m. To this extent, they have a statutory remedy but, beyond this. we think they cannot go. We are of opinion that their interests are safe with the S.G. and need no directions from us. Even IMFA and FACOR urge that their claims to further lease s deserve consideration. Rao has already adjudicated upon their claims and "recommended" leases to them to the extent indicated. If they apply to the S.G. for more leases. it is open to the S.G. to consider whether they deserve any further leases and if so, to what extent. more reserved areas could be released in their favour. The learned Advocate General for the State emphasised that the State is also interested in its industrial develop- ment and the national economy and that, while reserving substantial areas for public sector exploitation, the State has a well-formulated policy in respect of grant of private leases which has been placed before Rao. He also submits that, even if grant of a ML in favour of a particular party is not found feasible, the State will do its best to ensure that the ore mined in the 96 State is equitably distributed so as to meet the legitimate needs of all industries operating in the State. We have no doubt that the S.G. will keep. all relevant aspects urged by the parties in reaching their decision on the matters re- manded to it by us. In the circumstances, we accept and confirm Raos recom- mendation for grant of MLs to IMFA, FACOR and AIKATH, to the extent indicated by him. We set asi de his rejection of theclaims of OCL and ORIND. We leave it open to all the parties to place their claims, or further claims, as the case may be, in regard to the areas applied for by them on or before 30.4.1987, backed by supporting reasons, before the S.G. in the form of representations within four weeks from the date of this order. The S.G., we hope, will dispose of these applications within the statutory period failing which the parties will have their remedy under the statute by way of revision to the C.G. In arriving at its decisions, it will be open to the S.G. to take into account the discussions and findings of the Rao report in the light of this judgment. The S.G. should also keep in mind that no leases to any of the partie s (other than OMC &IDCOL) can be granted unless either the areas so proposed to be leased out are dereserved and thrown open to applications from the public or unless the C.G., after considering the recommendations of the S.G., for reasons to be reco rded in writing, considers a relaxa- tion in favour of any of the parties necessary and justi- fied.