Case: M/s. Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. &amp; Another Vs. Union Of India &amp; Others

1. M/s Indian Charge Chrome Limited (hereinafter referred to as, I.C.C.L.) has challenged the decision of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 1830 of 1999 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8501 and 8502 of 2002. In Transferred Case (C) No. 9 of 2002, which was withdrawn to this Court from the High Court of Delhi, the same Company had challenged by way of C.W.P. No. 4230 of 2001 the grant of approval for what it called an out of turn lease to M/s Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, Nava Bharat), respondent No. 3 in the Civil Appeals. Whereas, the Writ Petitions in the Orissa High Court challenged the recommendation of the State Government, the Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court challenged the grant of approval by the Central Government to the lease in favour Nava Bharat2. M/s GMR Technologies & Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as, GMR) filed O.J.C. No. 2236 of 2002 in the High Court of Orissa challenging the decision of the State Government to grant a lease of the extent of 436.295 hectares to the Orissa Mining Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as, OMC) against a recommendation to grant a lease to it of an extent of 43.579 hectares out of it. The said Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court of Orissa and the said decision is challenged by OMC in C.A. No. 6787 of 2004 and in C.A. No. 6788 of 20043. M/s Jindal Strips Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, JINDAL) challenged in the High Court of Orissa by way of Writ Petition No. 7575 of 2003 the decision of the State Government to recommend the grant of the lease in favour of OMC ignoring its own claim for a lease and the said Writ Petition was got transferred to this Court and is numbered as Transferred Case No. 21 of 2005. This case also challenges the recommendation of the State Government for grant of a lease to OMC of the remaining extent of 436.295 hectares4. The proposal of the State Government to grant a lease to OMC was also challenged by I.C.C.L. before the Orissa High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 1326 of 2005 and that is sought to be got transferred to this Court by way of Transfer Petition No. 928 of 2005. Similarly, M/s Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as, FACOR) also challenged the recommendation of the State Government for grant of lease to OMC by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 5960 of 2005 in the High Court of Orissa and the same is sought to be got transferred to this Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 701 of 2005. Nava Bharat, in its turn, challenged the proposal to grant a lease to the OMC, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6459 of 2005 in the High Court of Orissa and the same is sought to be got transferred to this Court by way of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 932 of 2005. Balasore Alloys Limited, formerly known as Ispat Alloys Limited (hereinafter referred to as, ISPAT) filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3767 of 2005 in the High Court of Orissa challenging the very same proposal to grant a lease to OMC and that Writ Petition is sought to be got transferred to this Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 446 of 20055. Thus, the challenges in all these appeals, transferred cases and the cases covered by the transfer petitions, are to the proposal for grant of a lease of an extent of 84.881 hectares to Nava Bharat, the denial of a lease to GMR and the recommendation of the State Government to grant a lease of the entire remaining extent of 436.295 hectares (which includes the extent of 84.881 hectares proposed to be leased out to Nava Bharat) to OMC. Considering that the questions to be decided in the appeals and transferred cases by this Court are the same as the ones raised in the writ petitions in the High Court that are sought to be transferred to this Court, the transfer petitions are allowed and the cases withdrawn thereby are also disposed of by this Judgment. Arguments have been addressed in all the matters6. This litigation has had a chequered career. It had come to this Court on three prior occasions. The facts are detailed in those decisions in Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1990) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 27], Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [(1996) Supp. 3 S.C.R. 808] and Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1999) 2 S.C.R. 49]. Still, a few facts may be reiterated. Chromite ore is said to be a scarce metal ore in India. It is mainly available in the State of Orissa in the Sukinda Valley. An extent of 1812.993 hectares of land was granted on mining lease to Tata Iron and Steel Company (hereinafter referred to as, TISCO) on 22.10.1952. The lease was for 20 years. In the year 1972, TISCO obtained a renewal of the lease, but the area was reduced to 1261.476 hectares. This renewal was again for 20 years. Before the expiry of the term, TISCO applied in the year 1991 for renewal of the lease for a further period of 20 years in respect of the entire extent of 1261.476 hectares. The State Government recommended the renewal and the Central Government granted its approval under Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. But, at the instance of some interested persons, the Central Government reviewed its decision and granted approval for renewal of the lease only in respect of 650 hectares, roughly half of the original area. TISCO challenged the said decision to reduce the extent, by way of a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa. I.C.C.L., Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys (IMFA, for short), JINDAL and ISPAT also filed writ petitions in the High Court of Orissa challenging the approval for renewal of the lease to TISCO in respect of an extent of 650 hectares. All these writ petitions raising a challenge to the decision of the Union Government dated 5.10.1993 were allowed by the High Court, which directed the Union Government to consider the matter afresh after hearing all those who had filed writ petitions. The decision of the Orissa High Court was challenged by TISCO in this Court. This Court dismissed the appeal filed by TISCO, thus confirming the decision of the High Court and directed the Union Government to consider the matter afresh. But pending the proceedings in this Court, since there was no order of stay passed by this Court, the Union Government on 17.8.1995, granted sanction for renewal of the mining lease in favour of TISCO in respect of 406 hectares. The Union Government also directed that the balance area of 855.476 hectares be distributed by way of leases among the other claimants in terms of a Committee report prepared as per the direction of this Court, in an earlier proceeding7. Subsequently, regarding 855.476 hectares remaining for grant of leases to the applicants other than TISCO, the State Government recommended to the Union Government thatf of the said area could be allotted to the other four pending applicants and the balance half of the area of 855.476 hectares can be leased to others who also required the mineral. This proposal was implemented. After these four grants, the balance extent left is said to be 436.295 hectares8. Meanwhile, FACOR filed Writ Petition No. 12032 of 1997 in the High Court of Orissa challenging the assessment of its need made by what came to be known as Sharma Committee constituted as directed by this Court. That Writ Petition was dismissed by the Orissa High Court on 31.8.1998. Meanwhile, the State Government set up another Committee, the Dash Committee, for considering the distribution of the area of 436.295 hectares, the area remaining out of 855.476 hectares, after the distribution among the four companies. FACOR challenged the decision of the High Court of Orissa before this Court. While Dash Committee was considering the claims of the various applicants, a recommendation was made by the State Government for grant of a lease to Nava Bharat of an extent of 84.881 hectares out of the 436.295 hectares in respect of which claims were being considered by the Dash Committee. This recommendation was challenged by I.C.C.L. in the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. 1830 of 1999. Meanwhile, on 22.3.1999, this Court in the FACORs appeal upheld the recommendations of Sharma Committee as also the recommendation of the State Government dated 29.6.1997 allotting 50% of 855.476 hectares to the four applicants then claiming and leaving out 436.295 hectares for distribution by way of lease among other needy entities. This Court directed that the remaining 436.295 hectares be allotted after the report of the Dash Committee. It may be noted here that after Mr. Dash left the scene, the Committee came to be known after his successor, as the Chahar Committee9. The Orissa High Court, meanwhile, dismissed the Writ Petition, O.J.C. No. 1830 of 1999 filed by I.C.C.L. challenging the decision recommending an out of turn lease to Nava Bharat. I.C.C.L., as we have noticed in the beginning, has challenged that decision in the appeals. Subsequently, the Orissa Government decided that the balance extent of 436.295 hectares be granted on lease to OMC and that decision also has been challenged in the High Court and the High Court held the decision invalid. That decision of the High Court is also under challenge. The position, therefore, now is that the correctness of the decision to grant a lease to Nava Bharat of 84.881 hectares and the validity of the recommendation of the State Government to grant a lease of the remaining area of 436.295 hectares to OMC, are both in question before this Court. The challenge to the grant in favour of Nava Bharat is on the basis that Nava Bharat was nowhere in the picture when the four companies that were dealt with in the earlier judgments were claiming the grant of leases and in respect of whom directions were issued by this Court and there was no reason for ignoring the priority in their favour and granting a lease out of turn to Nava Bharat especially in the teeth of the report of Sharma Committee and the partial implementation of its recommendations by lease of 50% of the areas claimed by the four companies. The decision to grant the mining lease to OMC was struck down by the High Court by taking the view that in the light of the earlier orders of this Court, it was not open to the State Government to take such a decision. The correctness of the same is also in question. Thus, we are concerned with the question whether the decision to grant a lease to Nava Bharat on the facts and in the circumstances of the case was justified and whether the proposal of the State Government to grant the balance area to OMC could be justified. Actually, if the claim of OMC were to be upheld in the sense that the recommendation of the State Government for the grant of a lease to OMC in respect of the balance extent left, is found sustainable, there would be no need to consider specifically the challenge made by I.C.C.L. and GMR to the grant of a lease to Nava Bharat. But since the recommendation of the State Government to grant the lease to OMC has to have prior approval of the Central Government and the approval had not yet been granted, that aspect will also have to be decided on merits. We, therefore, think that it will be appropriate to consider first, the question whether it was open to the State Government to make a recommendation that the balance extent of 436.295 hectares be leased to OMC in preference to the other private parties who are making claims for the lease and thereafter consider the challenge raised to the grant of lease to Nava Bharat.

Court's reasoning:
19. We also do not find any substance in the contention that the decision to grant a lease of the remaining extent to OMC is irrational in the context of the performance of OMC and the other attendant circumstances of the case and in the context of the National Mining Policy. The argument that on principle the necessity of industries established in Orissa for captive mining had also been approved and the said aspect could not be lost sight of while taking such a decision cannot be the controlling factor. What we find is that the area available for chromite ore mining has already been divided among TISCO, the four companies and AIKITH and what is left is the extent of 436.295 hectares. It is clear that a number of companies have applied for leases of varying extents from that remaining extent and if the State Government took a decision that further fragmentation of the area would not be in the interests of scientific mining and to ensure even distribution among the consumers in the country, it is necessary to leave the mining to a corporation controlled by the Government, it is difficult to say that the decision is irrational. In a sense, it is a policy decision and though in a given case this Court could interfere with a policy decision of the Government, we cannot say that the present case is one where the decision is so irrational, unreasonable or patently illegal as to justify interference by this Court. All industries outside the State of Orissa also require the precious ore and it is the duty of the Government to ensure a just distribution at a fair price. In the circumstances, it is difficult to say that the decision taken to retain the area in a compact bloc for mining by a Government controlled Corporation is irrational. We therefore reject this contentiont is seen that the Central Government took the stand that as the matter was pending in this Court, it would not be appropriate for it to take a decision. The application or request of the State Government is seen to have been returned. Of course, the Central Government is also entitled to seek further clarifications or additional facts so as to make up its mind on the question of approval. As matters stand at this stage, the Central Government has refused to take a decision one way or the other on the request of the State Government. It is therefore not possible to proceed on the basis that the Central Government has already rejected the request of the State Government for reserving the area for exploitation by OMC26. In our view, the High Court was not right in holding that what had transpired thus far, or the directions of this Court earlier made, precluded the State Government from exercising the power and seeking approval in terms of Section 17A(2) of the Act. As we have held, the State Government could exercise that power until a grant is actually made since it is an overriding power. The taking up of a particular stand earlier, cannot also preclude the exercise of that power. Whether it has laid itself open to claims for damages by its prior actions is a different question and that cannot control the exercise of the power under Section 17A of the Act27. Now, we come to the lease proposed to be granted to Nava Bharat. In view of our upholding the decision of the State Government subject to approval by the Central Government, the lease proposed has to be found to be still born; or that the decision no more survives. But it is necessary to consider the contentions put forward, since the question would become relevant if for any reason, the Central Government chooses not to approve the request or decision of the State Government to lease the balance extent of 436.295 hectares to OMC28. As regards the allotment to Nava Bharat, we see considerable force in the submission on behalf of the I.C.C.L. that the decision to grant lease to Nava Bharat in preference to the other applicants who were before the Government was incorrect and calls for interference. On the materials, it is not established that the State Government exercised its power undern (5) of Section 11 of the Act. Nava Bharat was a subsequent entrant into the fray and had claimed the grant even while the claims of various applicants were being considered by Dash Committee. Even without sending the request of Nava Bharat to Dash Committee for consideration and recommendation, the State Government proceeded to recommend the grant of a lease to Nava Bharat from out of the extent available with it. This was a case to which the rule of preference under Section 11 of the Act as modified by the earlier orders of this Court applied and there was a preference available to those who had applied for leases earlier. Of course, the position had been explained in the first decision in Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). What is the reason that led to overriding the claims of others is not disclosed. On the materials, it cannot be said that the conditions ofn (5) of Section 11 are fulfilled in this case. No special reasons are recorded justifying such an out of turn grant29. If it was a case of consideration of the claims under Section 11 of the Act, we feel that the State Government was bound by the directions of this Court issued ultimately in Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). The State Government had to proceed on the basis of the directions contained therein and make allotments as recommended by the Dash Committee or the successor Chahar Committee. Of course, the State Government might have been in a position to forward the application of Nava Bharat also to the said Committee for consideration and recommendation and might have thereafter acted on the basis of recommendations of the Chahar Committee. But that was not done and the decision to lease to Nava Bharat was straight away taken. We see some force in the submission on behalf of I.C.C.L and GMR that no proper reasons are given for overriding the preferences of others especially in the light of the directions of this Court while deciding to grant a lease in favour of Nava Bharat. Notwithstanding the valiant effort in that behalf made by learned Senior Counsel for Nava Bharat to salvage the grant made to it, we are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision to grant a lease to Nava Bharat out of turn was not justified, legal or proper30. When the State Government made the recommendation for grant of a lease to Nava Bharat, the infirmities in that recommendation were pointed out by the Central Government, in its letter dated 27.6.2001. The violation of Rule 59 was also pointed out. Instead of placing the letter before the Chief Minister or the Cabinet and obtaining directions thereon, the Steel and Mines Department on its own chose to send a letter dated 30.6.2001 purporting to conform to the requirements. When the matter reached the Chief Minister and the Cabinet, the decision taken was to withdraw the earlier request for grant of approval of lease to Nava Bharat. On the materials, it is clear that the letter dated 30.6.2001 sent by the Secretary of the Steel and Mines Department was not one consistent with the Rules of Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The letter also lost its efficacy in view of the decision taken by the Cabinet to withdraw the recommendation itself. The position that emerges is that there was no valid recommendation by the State Government for the grant of a lease to Nava Bharat and there was hence no valid approval of the Central Government.e with Rule 59 of the Rules also vitiated the proposal to lease to Nava Bharat31. In view of our conclusion that the State Government was entitled to seek the approval of the Central Government in respect of the balance extent of 436.295 hectares, in which was included the proposed Nava Bharat grant, for exploitation by OMC and since, we are satisfied that the grant to Nava Bharat cannot be sustained, the proposed grant or grant to it has to be set aside. We do so. If it is a question of reconsideration of the applications of various entities for grant of leases in respect of 436.295 hectares, it would be a case where the claim of Nava Bharat would also have to be considered along with the claim of others in the light of the directions earlier issued by this Court. This contingency may arise only if the Central Government does not grant approval to the request of the State Government under Section 17A(2) of the Act. To that extent, we allow the appeals of I.C.C.L32. Taking note of the circumstances, it is for the State Government to make a fresh request to the Central Government in terms of Section 17A(2) of the Act setting out all the relevant details for consideration of the Central Government. Thereupon the Central Government will have to take a decision in terms of Section 17A(2) of the Act and in the context of Section 17A of the Act and all relevant attendant circumstances. We make it clear that the prior directions of this Court or that of the High Court cannot and do not stand in the way of the Central Government in applying its mind to the request made by the State Government under Section 17A(2) of the Act and in taking an independent decision thereon. All that is necessary at the moment is to hold that the recommendation of the State Government cannot be rejected by the Central Government on the ground that it has no freedom or right to take a decision on the request, in view of the prior orders of this Court or on the ground that adequate details are not forthcoming. In the latter contingency, it is for the Central Government to seek such further details from the State Government as it deems fit and thereafter to come to a decision33. The decisions of the High Court of Orissa are thus set aside. The appeals are allowed in the manner indicated above. The State Government is directed to make a proper request in terms of Section 17A(2) of the Act and the Central Government is directed to take a decision thereon bearing in mind all the aspects as indicated hereinbefore. What is to happen thereafter will depend upon the decision the Central Government takes and the consequences that flow therefrom. Those are aspects that will have to be tackled at the appropriate time, if the need or occasion for it arises34. Since, this matter has been pending for years and what is involved is exploitation of a precious mineral, we direct the State Government and the Central Government to comply with the directions we have made expeditiously. The State Government should send its request within a period of four months from today with all relevant details and the Central Government should take its decision on the recommendation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the recommendation, if necessary, after calling for any further detail that it may consider relevant19. We also do not find any substance in the contention that the decision to grant a lease of the remaining extent to OMC is irrational in the context of the performance of OMC and the other attendant circumstances of the case and in the context of the National Mining Policy. The argument that on principle the necessity of industries established in Orissa for captive mining had also been approved and the said aspect could not be lost sight of while taking such a decision cannot be the controlling factor. What we find is that the area available for chromite ore mining has already been divided among TISCO, the four companies and AIKITH and what is left is the extent of 436.295 hectares. It is clear that a number of companies have applied for leases of varying extents from that remaining extent and if the State Government took a decision that further fragmentation of the area would not be in the interests of scientific mining and to ensure even distribution among the consumers in the country, it is necessary to leave the mining to a corporation controlled by the Government, it is difficult to say that the decision is irrational. In a sense, it is a policy decision and though in a given case this Court could interfere with a policy decision of the Government, we cannot say that the present case is one where the decision is so irrational, unreasonable or patently illegal as to justify interference by this Court. All industries outside the State of Orissa also require the precious ore and it is the duty of the Government to ensure a just distribution at a fair price. In the circumstances, it is difficult to say that the decision taken to retain the area in a compact bloc for mining by a Government controlled Corporation is irrational. We therefore reject this contention20. The contention on behalf of the Companies, that the Central Government must be taken to have rejected the approval sought by the State Government under Section 17A(2) of the Act, cannot be accepted.seen that the Central Government took the stand that as the matter was pending in this Court, it would not be appropriate for it to take a decision. The application or request of the State Government is seen to have been returned. Of course, the Central Government is also entitled to seek further clarifications or additional facts so as to make up its mind on the question of approval. As matters stand at this stage, the Central Government has refused to take a decision one way or the other on the request of the State Government. It is therefore not possible to proceed on the basis that the Central Government has already rejected the request of the State Government for reserving the area for exploitation by OMC25. We find some merit in the contention of learned counsel for the State and OMC that the fact that the ore is required by many industries in the country other than the applicants for leases for captive mining and if the whole area is divided and given for private exploitation, there may be difficulty in ensuring equitable distribution of the ore was a relevant consideration for the State Government in making the recommendation under Section 17A (2) of the Act. We cannot certainly say that this aspect is not a relevant circumstance. Anyway, as we have indicated, it is not for us to pronounce on it at this stage and that would also be one of the aspects to be considered by the Central Government when it considers the request of the State Government for approval under Section 17A(2) of the Act26. In our view, the High Court was not right in holding that what had transpired thus far, or the directions of this Court earlier made, precluded the State Government from exercising the power and seeking approval in terms of Section 17A(2) of the Act. As we have held, the State Government could exercise that power until a grant is actually made since it is an overriding power. The taking up of a particular stand earlier, cannot also preclude the exercise of that power. Whether it has laid itself open to claims for damages by its prior actions is a different question and that cannot control the exercise of the power under Section 17A of the Act27. Now, we come to the lease proposed to be granted to Nava Bharat. In view of our upholding the decision of the State Government subject to approval by the Central Government, the lease proposed has to be found to be still born; or that the decision no more survives. But it is necessary to consider the contentions put forward, since the question would become relevant if for any reason, the Central Government chooses not to approve the request or decision of the State Government to lease the balance extent of 436.295 hectares to OMC28. As regards the allotment to Nava Bharat, we see considerable force in the submission on behalf of the I.C.C.L. that the decision to grant lease to Nava Bharat in preference to the other applicants who were before the Government was incorrect and calls for interference. On the materials, it is not established that the State Government exercised its power undern (5) of Section 11 of the Act. Nava Bharat was a subsequent entrant into the fray and had claimed the grant even while the claims of various applicants were being considered by Dash Committee. Even without sending the request of Nava Bharat to Dash Committee for consideration and recommendation, the State Government proceeded to recommend the grant of a lease to Nava Bharat from out of the extent available with it. This was a case to which the rule of preference under Section 11 of the Act as modified by the earlier orders of this Court applied and there was a preference available to those who had applied for leases earlier. Of course, the position had been explained in the first decision in Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). What is the reason that led to overriding the claims of others is not disclosed. On the materials, it cannot be said that the conditions ofn (5) of Section 11 are fulfilled in this case. No special reasons are recorded justifying such an out of turn grant29. If it was a case of consideration of the claims under Section 11 of the Act, we feel that the State Government was bound by the directions of this Court issued ultimately in Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). The State Government had to proceed on the basis of the directions contained therein and make allotments as recommended by the Dash Committee or the successor Chahar Committee. Of course, the State Government might have been in a position to forward the application of Nava Bharat also to the said Committee for consideration and recommendation and might have thereafter acted on the basis of recommendations of the Chahar Committee. But that was not done and the decision to lease to Nava Bharat was straight away taken. We see some force in the submission on behalf of I.C.C.L and GMR that no proper reasons are given for overriding the preferences of others especially in the light of the directions of this Court while deciding to grant a lease in favour of Nava Bharat. Notwithstanding the valiant effort in that behalf made by learned Senior Counsel for Nava Bharat to salvage the grant made to it, we are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision to grant a lease to Nava Bharat out of turn was not justified, legal or proper30. When the State Government made the recommendation for grant of a lease to Nava Bharat, the infirmities in that recommendation were pointed out by the Central Government, in its letter dated 27.6.2001. The violation of Rule 59 was also pointed out. Instead of placing the letter before the Chief Minister or the Cabinet and obtaining directions thereon, the Steel and Mines Department on its own chose to send a letter dated 30.6.2001 purporting to conform to the requirements. When the matter reached the Chief Minister and the Cabinet, the decision taken was to withdraw the earlier request for grant of approval of lease to Nava Bharat. On the materials, it is clear that the letter dated 30.6.2001 sent by the Secretary of the Steel and Mines Department was not one consistent with the Rules of Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The letter also lost its efficacy in view of the decision taken by the Cabinet to withdraw the recommendation itself. The position that emerges is that there was no valid recommendation by the State Government for the grant of a lease to Nava Bharat and there was hence no valid approval of the Central Government.e with Rule 59 of the Rules also vitiated the proposal to lease to Nava Bharat31. In view of our conclusion that the State Government was entitled to seek the approval of the Central Government in respect of the balance extent of 436.295 hectares, in which was included the proposed Nava Bharat grant, for exploitation by OMC and since, we are satisfied that the grant to Nava Bharat cannot be sustained, the proposed grant or grant to it has to be set aside. We do so. If it is a question of reconsideration of the applications of various entities for grant of leases in respect of 436.295 hectares, it would be a case where the claim of Nava Bharat would also have to be considered along with the claim of others in the light of the directions earlier issued by this Court. This contingency may arise only if the Central Government does not grant approval to the request of the State Government under Section 17A(2) of the Act. To that extent, we allow the appeals of I.C.C.L32. Taking note of the circumstances, it is for the State Government to make a fresh request to the Central Government in terms of Section 17A(2) of the Act setting out all the relevant details for consideration of the Central Government. Thereupon the Central Government will have to take a decision in terms of Section 17A(2) of the Act and in the context of Section 17A of the Act and all relevant attendant circumstances. We make it clear that the prior directions of this Court or that of the High Court cannot and do not stand in the way of the Central Government in applying its mind to the request made by the State Government under Section 17A(2) of the Act and in taking an independent decision thereon. All that is necessary at the moment is to hold that the recommendation of the State Government cannot be rejected by the Central Government on the ground that it has no freedom or right to take a decision on the request, in view of the prior orders of this Court or on the ground that adequate details are not forthcoming. In the latter contingency, it is for the Central Government to seek such further details from the State Government as it deems fit and thereafter to come to a decision33. The decisions of the High Court of Orissa are thus set aside. The appeals are allowed in the manner indicated above. The State Government is directed to make a proper request in terms of Section 17A(2) of the Act and the Central Government is directed to take a decision thereon bearing in mind all the aspects as indicated hereinbefore. What is to happen thereafter will depend upon the decision the Central Government takes and the consequences that flow therefrom. Those are aspects that will have to be tackled at the appropriate time, if the need or occasion for it arises34. Since, this matter has been pending for years and what is involved is exploitation of a precious mineral, we direct the State Government and the Central Government to comply with the directions we have made expeditiously. The State Government should send its request within a period of four months from today with all relevant details and the Central Government should take its decision on the recommendation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the recommendation, if necessary, after calling for any further detail that it may consider