Delhi High Court National Mineral Developmnet ... vs Government Of India And Ors. on 18 February, 2008 JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. In the present proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the validity of the approval of the Union Government (hereafter "the Union"), Ministry of Mines, given under Section 5(1) of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter the "MMDR Act"), for granting a prospecting license for iron ore over an area of 2500 hectares in Deposit No. 1 of Bailadila Reserve Forest, Tahsil Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chattisgarh in favor of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., the third Respondent, for 2 years by invoking provisions of Section 11(5) of the MMDR Act, through letter dated 14th February 2007. 2. The Petitioner, the National Mineral Development Corporation, is a Government of India owned Public Sector enterprise engaged in mining operations throughout India. On 25th April 1991, it applied for prospecting license (hereafter referred to as "PL") for Iron ore in Bailadila Deposit No. 1 in Form B over an area of 1130 hectares (ha) in the area reserved for public sector undertakings, Bailadila range in Bastar District, Madhya Pradesh (now Dantewada District, Chattisgarh). The State Government of Madhya Pradesh had not notified the area in the Gazette for prospecting and mining and it is averred that there were no other previous applications for Deposit No. 1 filed earlier to that lodged by the petitioner. In June 2002 the Petitioner submitted an application for permission to undertake mineral exploration on payment of necessary fees; inspection was carried out in February 2003. The Chief Conservator of Forests and survey, Chattisgarh forwarded that application for permission to enter into the forest for exploration, to the Ministry Environment and Forests, New Delhi. On 10th November 2006, the Government of Chattisgarh, (the state) recommended PL over an area of 2500 ha to third Respondent, on the ground that the later proposed to construct a Steel Plant in Chattisgarh. The area so recommended overlapped by 1130 ha in relation to the area applied the Petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the decision of the state, the Petitioner filed a Revision Application on 17th January 2007 under Rule 54 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 framed under the MMDR Act, before the Mines Tribunal requesting it to set aside the impugned proceeding. The same is pending before the Tribunal. By letter dated 14th February 2007, i.e. the impugned order, the Central Government conveyed approval under Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 for grant of a prospecting license for iron ore concerning an area of 2500 ha in Deposit No. 1 of Bailadila Reserve Forest, Tahsil Dantewada, Dist South Bastar Dantewada, Chattisgarh, in favor of the third Respondent for a period of 2 years, under Section 11(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, subject to the outcome of the revision application. The grant of this approval is impugned in the present proceeding. 4. While granting its approval, the Central Government waived the special condition imposed by the state upon the third Respondent, i.e, setting up a Steel Plant in Chattisgarh and also directed the state to comply with the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (hereafter referred to as the "Forest act"). The relevant portions of the letter dated 14th February 2007 is extracted below: I am directed to refer to your letter No. 399/2003/12 dated 10.11.2006 on the above mentioned subject and to convey the approval of the Central Government under Section 5(1) of the Mines and mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 to the grant of prospecting license for iron ore over an area of 2500 hect om Deposit No. 1 (Group) of Bailadila Reserve Forest, Tahsil Dantewada, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada, Chattisgarh in favor of M/s Tata Iron & Steel Ltd for a period of 2 (two) years by invoking the provisions of Sec. 11(5) of the said Act subject to the outcome of the revision application pending against the proposal. 2. The special condition proposed by the State Government for imposition under Rule 14(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 in the above mentioned prospecting license is not agreed to because imposition of such restrictive condition may not be in the interest of mineral development. 3 . Before allowing grant of prospecting license, the State Government may kindly ensure the compliance of the amended provisions of the Act and Rules, and other applicable Acts and Rules including Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and environmental notification dated 27.01.1994 as issued and amended by Ministry of Environment and Forests. 5. The Petitioner alleges that the issuance of the impugned order was kept secret, and under wraps until it applied for a copy of the same under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 15th