Orissa High Court
Ocl Iron & Steels Limited vs Union Of India on 28 July, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017
In the matter of an Application under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950
***
1. OCL Iron & Steels Limited
(A company under the Companies Act, 1956)
Having its Registered Office
At: Lamloi, P.O.: Garvana, Rajgangpur
District: Sundergarh
Odisha – 770 017.
2. Mr. Dilip Das
Aged about 51 years
Son of Bidyadar Das
Having address
At: Mallapada, Talagadia, Jajpur
Odisha – 755 043
(being the Executive Director of
the Petitioner-Company. … Petitioners
-VERSUS-
1. Union of India
Represented by
The Secretary (Mines)
Ministry of Mines, 3rd Floor,
Shashtri Bhavan, Rajender Prasad Road
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Union of India
Represented by
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 1 of 85
The Secretary
The Ministry of Environment Forest
& Climate Change, Jorbagh
CGO Complex, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan
New Delhi – 110 003.
3. State of Odisha
Represented by
The Principal Secretary
Department of Steel & Mines
State Secretariat, Bhubaneswar
Odisha … Opposite parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Sri Pinaki Misra,
Senior Advocate
Assisted by
M/s. Saswat Kumar Acharya,
Abhisek Agarwal and
Abhijeet Agarwal,
Advocates.
For the Opposite parties : Mr. Saswat Das,
Additional Government Advocate
Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Panda,
Central Government Counsel.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. HARISH TANDONAND
HONOURABLE JUSTICE
MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMANDate of Hearing : 07.05.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 28.07.2026
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 2 of 85
J UDGMENTMURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.–
The petitioners, alleging inaction on the part of the
opposite parties, particularly the opposite party No.3, in
depriving it of the property by not executing mining lease
before the cut-off date, i.e., 11.01.2017, in terms of
Section 10A(2)(c) of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (be referred to
as “MMDR Act“) read with Rule 8(4) of the Minerals
(Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Mineral)
Concessions Rules, 2016 (abbreviated as “MC Rules”)
and thereby discriminating it vis-Ã -vis sixteen others in
whose favour lease deeds were executed and registered
on 11.01.2017, crave for exercise of extraordinary
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India to issue writ of mandamus to the
opposite parties and beseeches grant of following
relief(s):
“In the circumstances, it is therefore most humbly prayed
that this Hon‟ble Court may kindly be graciously pleased
to:
(a) Pass appropriate writ, order or direction to the effect
that the State Government shall execute and register
the mining lease deed with the petitioner promptly
as the petitioner has complied all the conditions vide
its Letter dated 23.12.2008 as required under
Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Act and/or;
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 3 of 85
(b) Pass appropriate writ, order or direction or
declaration to the effect that the grant of mining
lease shall not lapse or forfeited in the event the
mining lease deed is not-executed and/or registered
on or before 11.01.2017, and/or
(c) Pass appropriate writ, order or direction to the effect
that the mining lease can be executed even after
11.01.2017, and/or;
(d) Pass appropriate writ, order or direction or
declaration to the effect that the provisions of Rule
8(4) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 to the
extent it seeks to forfeit the right of the petitioner on
after 11.01.2017 is declared ultra-vires, illegal being
contrary to the provisions of the MMDR Act and the
Constitution of India;
(e) Pass appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of declaration that the provisions Clause (c) of
sub-section (2) Section 10A of the MMDR Act to the
extent it seeks to curtail, abridge or restrict the right
of the petitioner after a period of two years (i.e. after
11.01.2017) is unconstitutional, ultra-vires and
violative of the Article 14 and 19 and other
provisions of Constitution of India;
(f) Pass appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of declaration that the conditions No. 2(i) of
the Guidelines dated 30.11.2016 is declared ultra
vires illegal and not binding;
(g) Pass any other or further order as may be deemed
fit and proper by this Hon‟ble Court.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall as in
duty bound ever pray.”
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 4 of 85
The facts:
2. The necessary background facts as adumbrated by the
petitioners giving rise to filing of this the writ petition is
narrated hereunder.
2.1. The Government of India in Ministry of Mines vide Letter
bearing No.5/111/2008-M.IV, dated 29.09.2008
accorded approval under Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act
by invoking the provisions of Section 11(5) and by
relaxing provisions under sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule
59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for grant of
mining lease for iron ore over an area of 45.131 hectares
in the village Kundaposi in the district of Keonjhar in
favour of the OCL India Ltd.1 for a period of twenty five1 Vide Order dated 27.11.2007 in the company petition being COPET No.27 of
2007 the company judge of this Court sanctioned “Scheme of Arrangement” and
allowed demerger of the Steel Undertaking (Sponge Iron Works) of OCL India
Limited vis-a-vis M/s.OCL India Ltd., OCL Iron and Steel Ltd., Konark Minerals
Ltd. and Dalmia Cement Ltd. and, thereby allowed transfer and vesting of all
assets and liabilities of said undertaking, which was duly registered by the
Registrar of the Companies on 20.12.2007 and acknowledged by the
Government of Odisha vide Steel and Mines Department Letter No.VSL-
71/03/4084/SM, dated 27.05.2008. Interlocutory Application bearing
No.15936 of 2025 during pendency of the writ application was filed by the
company named “OCL Iron and Steel Limited” for amendment of cause title as
the new company was admitted to corporate insolvency resolution process in
terms of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 pursuant to an Order dated
20.09.2021 by the learned National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench.
Said petition of the petitioner-company being not opposed to by none of the
opposite parties, has been allowed by this Court vide Order dated 15.10.2025
and accordingly original cause titled stands replaced by the amended cause title
depicting the name of the company as “OCL Iron & Steels Limited” in place of
“OCL Iron and Steel Limited”.
Intimation was made to proper quarters as per Rule 62 of the Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960, which stood as follows:
“62. Change of name, nationality, etc. to be intimated.–
(1) An applicant for, or the holder of a reconnaissance permit, a prospecting
licence or a mining lease shall intimate to the State Government within
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 5 of 85
years in response to the recommendation of the State
Government in Department of Steel and Mines,
Bhubaneswar vide Letter No.5198/ III(A)SM-
46/2002/SM, dated 08.07.2008 issued in consideration
of application dated 20.06.2002 in this regard by the
company. By Letter Ref. No.RG:MN:01, dated
24.12.2008, the petitioner-company conveyed
acceptance of the terms and conditions embodied in
Steel and Mines Department Letter No.8556-III(A)SM-
46/2002/SM, dated 23.12.2008 granting lease for
twenty years2.
2.2. The Government of India in Ministry of Mines, Indian
Bureau of Mines, Office of the Regional Controller of
Mines, vide Letter No.MP/OTF. MECH/10-ORI/BHU/
sixty days any change that may take place in his name, nationality or
other particulars mentioned in the relevant Forms.
(2) If the holder of a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence or a
mining lease fails, without sufficient cause, to furnish the information
referred to in sub-rule (1), the State Government may determine the
reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case
may be:
Provided that no such order shall be made without giving the permit
holder or the licensee or the lessee, as the case may be, a reasonable
opportunity of stating his case.”
2 By Steel and Mines Department Proceeding No.III(A)SM-46/2002/SM
communicated in Memo No.897/SM, dated 04.02.209, it has been
acknowledged as follows:
“Whereas M/s. OCL India Ltd. has filed mineral concession applications in the
State of Odisha as read above;
***
Whereas the Scheme of Arrangement came into effect from the appointed date,
i.e., 01.01.2007 and it is already acknowledged by this Department and
communicated vide this Department Letter No.4084, dated 27.05.2008;
***
Now, therefore, the State Government are hereby pleased to order that the mining
lease for iron ore over an area of 45.131 hectares in village Kundaposi of
Keonjhar District for grant in favour of M/s. OCL India Ltd. will now be treated as
decided to be grant in favour of M/s. OCL Iron & Steel Ltd.”
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 6 of 85
2009-10, dated 24.08.2009 approved the mining plan
with certain conditions stipulated therein. A Certificate
dated 24.11.2010 has come to be issued by the
Collector, Keonjhar, the Chairperson of DLC, after
undertaking process for diversion and settlement of
rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
which inter alia certified that:
“It is certified on the basis of joint verification report dated
01.07.2010 and Gram Sabha Resolution that no such
facilities managed by Government requiring diversion of
forest land under Section 3(2) of the Forest Rights Act,
2006 exist over the forest land proposed for diversion.”
In furtherance thereto, Form II (for Projects other than
Linear Projects) dated 06.09.2013 was issued from the
Office of the District Collector, Keonjhar inter alia
asserting that “The rights of primitive tribal groups and
pre-agricultural communities where applicable have been
specifically safeguarded as per Section 3(1) of the Forest
Rights Act.”
2.3. This apart, by Letter No.432/SE/AA, dated 14.01.2013
the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority
(SEIAA), Odisha (constituted vide Order No.S.O. 1899(E),
dated 17.08.2012 of Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India) informed that the SEAC,
Odisha has recommended for grant of Environmental
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 7 of 85
Clearance subject to submission of authentic copy of
Stage-I Forest Clearance.
2.4. On 01.04.2015 “Guidelines for diversion of forest land
for non-forest purposes under the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980” was issued vide F.No.11-599/2014-FC by the
Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division) with
one of the conditions envisaged therein as follows:
“Henceforth, in case of mining leases, including those of
Government Authorities, having forest land in part or in
full, approval of Central Government under Section 2(iii) of
the Forest Act, for the entire forest land located within a
mining lease shall be obtained before execution (including
by way of renewal) of a mining lease in accordance with
the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and the Rules
framed thereunder.”
Though an application was filed for grant of general
approval under Section 2(iii) of the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 for entire forest area including the safety zone
area, in view of Operational Guidelines dated 16.11.2016
issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division) vide
F.No.9-31/2016-FC, dated 16.11.2016 instructing to file
such application by online process “for seeking
permission for getting forest land on lease under Section
2(iii) of Forest Conservation Act, 1980″ and vide F.No.8-
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 8 of 85
31/2016-FC, dated 17.11.2016 instructing to “apply
online on the prescribed form” as made available on
webportal of the Ministry, the petitioner stated to have
filed “online application” on 20.12.2016, which was
forwarded by the State Government for consideration of
proposal under Section 2(iii) of the Forest Conservation
Act, 1980 to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change.
Government of India in Ministry of Environment Forest
and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division)
issued Guidelines for diversion of forest land for non-
forest purposes under the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 with the following clarification vide Letter bearing
F.No.11-599/2014-FC, dated 19.10.2015:
“I am directed to refer to this Ministry‟s letter of even
number dated 1st April 2015 on the above-mentioned
subject, and to say that some of the States have
sought clarification from this Ministry on
applicability of para 2(v)3 of the said letter to the
3 Clause (v) of Paragraph 2 of the Guidelines in Letter dated 01.04.2015 stood as
follows:
“In case of existing mining leases having forest land in part or in full, where
approval under Section 2 of the FC Act for a part of the forest land has only been
obtained, Central Government hereby accords general approval under Section
2(iii) of the FC Act for the remaining area of the forest land falling within such
mining leases, subject to following conditions:
(a) State Government shall, within a .period of one year from the date of issue
of this letter, realize from the user agency, NPV of the entire forest land
falling in the mining lease, in case NPV of such forest land has not already
been realised;
(b) In case State Government fails to realize from the user agency, NPV of the
entire forest land falling in a mining lease within a period of one year from
the date of issue of this letter, this general approval in respect of such
mining lease, shall be kept in abeyance, and shall be deemed to have
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 9 of 85
existing mining leases (as on the date of the issue of
the said letter) having Forest land in part where
approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 for even a part of the forest land falling in
such leases has not been obtained, and to say that
to facilitate this Ministry to take decision on the
matter, details of existing mining leases having
forest land in part or in full for which though the
mining lease has already been executed at least
once before 1st April 2015 but approval under die
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for even a part of
forest land falling in such mining lease has not been
obtained, may be provided to this Ministry at the
earliest, and in any case before the expiry of a
period of one year from the date of issue of the said
letter dated 1st April 2015.
2. I am further directed to say that till decision on the
said matter is taken by this Ministry after the receipt
of the afore-mentioned information from all the
been kept in abeyance, and all mining activities in such mining lease shall
be stopped, till such time, the NPV of such forest land is realised by the
State Government;
(c) The general approval shall be valid for a period co-terminus with the
period of mining lease in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as amended, and the
Rules framed thereunder;
(d) This general approval does not, in any manager, exempt a user agency
from obtaining prior approval under Section 2(ii) of the FC Act in regard to
such area of forest land which is to be used for non-forest purpose;
(e) Grant of this general approval under Section 2(iii) does not, in any
manner, create any right or equity in favour of the user agency for grant of
approval under Section 2(ii) of the FC Act and decision on proposals under
Section 2(ii) will be taken purely on the merit of each case;
(f) This general approval will not be applicable to the forest land for which
Central Government before the issue of this letter has already declined
approval under Section 2 of the FC Act; and
(g) Grant of this general approval does not in any manner, exonerate the
concerned Authorities in the State Government or in any other Authority,
from the proceedings under Sections 3A and 3B of the FC Act, liable to be
initiated for violation, if any, of the FC Act committed by them by
assigning such, forest land on mining lease without obtaining prior
approval of Central Government under Section 2 of tlie FC Act.”
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 10 of 85
States and Union territories, the States and Union
territories if so desires, may seek general
approval under Section 2(iii) of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 for the forest land
falling in such mining leases, on case to case
basis, by giving details (viz. date of execution of
mining lease deed and area of forest and non-forest
land falling in such mining leases) of one or more of
such mining leases to this Ministry in letter form.”
On 09.01.2017 the said Ministry granted general
approval under Section 2(iii) of the Forest Conservation
Act, 1980, just two days prior to the last date fixed for
execution of mining lease deed in terms of Section
10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Act read with Rule 8(4) of the MC
Rules, 2016.
2.5. Pursuant thereto, the Divisional Forest Officer raised a
demand to the tune of Rs.4,22,82,331/- as Net Present
Value over the forest land admeasuring 45.029 hectares,
which stood deposited vide NEFT/RTGS Challan dated
10.01.2017 (Annexure-13) in favour of Odisha State
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and
Planning Authority (“CAMPA, Odisha”, for short). The
petitioner made a fervent request for issue of lease
execution of order in its favour vide Letter dated
10.01.2017 (Annexure-14) addressed to Principal
Secretary to the Government of Odisha, Department of
Steel and Mines by enclosing evidence showing
compliance of terms and conditions. Besides such step,
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 11 of 85
another Letter was submitted in the Office of the
Divisional Forest Officer, Keonjhar Division, on
11.01.2017 demonstrating compliance of conditions
including Clearance by the Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change.
2.6. Though the petitioner has taken all possible steps, due
to delay in the process on the part of the opposite parties
and the circumstances not within the control of the
petitioner, the mining lease deed was not executed in its
favour on or before 17.11.2017 as specified under Rule
8(4) of the MC Rules, 2016 read with Section 10A(2)(c) of
the MMDR Act, while the State Government in similarly
situated companies/entities executed such lease deed on
or about said cut-off date.
At the stage of fresh admission:
3. This Court at the stage of entertainment of the writ
petition passed the following Order on 16.01.2017:
“Connect with W.P.(C) Nos.2814 and 283 of 20175.
4 Visiting webportal it is found that on 07.03.2017 the following order was passed
in W.P.(C) No.281 of 2017 [Rudra Sen Sindhu Vrs. Union of India and Others]:
“07.03.2017
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not wish to press
this writ petition. Misc. Case No. 3381 of 2017 has also been filed with a prayer
to permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition as the lease deed has
already been executed between the State and the petitioner.
Prayer is allowed.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn.”
5 Visiting webportal it could be ascertained that W.P.(C) No.283 of 2017
(Parmeswari Devi Vrs. State of Odisha and Others) is pending as on date.
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 12 of 85
The submission of Mr. Ashok Parija, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had
applied for grant of mining lease, which was duly
approved by the Central Government under Section
5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 on 29.09.2008. The
application however kept pending and in the
meantime, the Act was amended and certain
provisions have been inserted by Act 10 of 2015
with effect from 12.01.2015. Under the new
provision of Section 10A, lease deed is to be granted
within a period of two years from the date of the
amendment of the Act i.e. with effect from
12.01.2015. Besides, several prayers which have
been made, the grievance of the petitioners at this
stage is with regard to the provision of Rule 8(4) of
Mineral (Other Than Atomic and Hydro Carbons
Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, which
provides that in case the mining lease is not
executed on or before 11.01.2017, the rights of the
applicant shall be forfeited.
2. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that because of the lapses on the part
of the opposite parties, the mining lease has not
been granted for which the petitioners cannot be
made to suffer. The petitioners further contends
that the provision of sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 is
contrary to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c)
of MMDR Act, 1957 and as such, the same
cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
3. In our view, the matter requires consideration.
4. Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Assistant Solicitor General
accepts notice on behalf of opposite parties No. 1
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 13 of 85
and 2 and Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Additional
Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
opposite party No.3. They pray for and are granted
four weeks time to file counter affidavit and the
petitioners shall have two weeks thereafter to file
rejoinder affidavit.
5. List this matter immediately after six weeks.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and keeping in view the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, as an interim
measure, it is directed that the provisions of
Rule 8(4) of Mineral (Other Than Atomic and
Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession
Rules, 2016, shall not be made applicable in
the case of the petitioners till the next date of
listing.”
Response of the opposite party No.3:
4. A counter affidavit being sworn to by the Deputy
Secretary to the Government of Odisha in Steel and
Mines Department has come to be filed on 01.09.2017
inter alia with the following replies:
(i) Having admitted that the petitioner being accorded
with prior approval by the Central Government
under Section 5 of the MMDR Act, a Letter of Intent
with certain terms and conditions to govern grant
of lease in favour of the petitioner was issued by
the State Government and that the mining plan
was approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines. YetW.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 14 of 85
when certain terms and conditions which formed
part of Letter No.8556/SM, dated 23.12.2008
remained unfulfilled even after six years, the
petitioner was issued with notice vide Letter
No.III(A)SM-46/2002/2994/SM, dated 09.04.2015
calling upon it to explain as to why such terms and
conditions would not be revoked and the
application for mining lease dated 20.06.2002
would not be rejected.
(ii) Since the petitioner submitted compliance of terms
indicated in Letter of Intent on 10.01.2017 (late
afternoon) in view of Rule 8(1) of the MC Rules for
consideration of grant of mining lease under Rule
8(2) of the said Rules, such partial compliance
could not be processed due to paucity of time. The
petitioner could/did not furnish full compliance of
terms and conditions on or before 11.01.2017, as a
result of which grant order of mining lease was not
considered.
(iii) Due to non-compliance of the terms and conditions
mentioned in the Letter of Intent within the period
specified in Rule 8(4) of the MC Rules read with
Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Act, the right of the
petitioner for grant of mining lease got forfeited
with effect from 12.01.2017.
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 15 of 85
(iv) In order to eliminate discretion and improve
transparency in the allocation of mineral resources
as evident from the Statement of Objects and
Reasons for bringing into force auction regime
necessary amendments were made in the MMDR
Act inter alia introducing Section 10A in said Act in
the year 2015 and framing relevant Rules in the
year 2016. The twin conditions stipulated in
Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Act being not
satisfied, the petitioner became ineligible for grant
of mining lease in terms of Section 10A(1) thereof.
(v) The petitioner having got approval under Section
2(iii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 on
09.01.2017 submitted the full compliance letter on
10.01.2017 in the late afternoon, just the day
before 11.01.2017, i.e., the last date for grant and
execution of the lease saved under Section 10(2)(c)
of the MMDR Act, due to paucity of time the lease
deed could not be executed and registered.
Response of the opposite party No.2:
5. Citing Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
as amended by virtue of the Forest (Conservation)
Amendment Act, 1988, a counter affidavit has been filed
by the opposite party No.2 by stating that:
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 16 of 85
“That with regard to the approval under Section 2(iii) of
the Forest (Conservation) Act, it is submitted that the
proposal received from the State Government has been
granted approval by the Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change, New Delhi vide its Letter No.8-73/
2016-FC, dated 09.01.2017.”
Rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner:
6. Strongly opposing the blame put upon it by the opposite
parties in delaying the process to obtain necessary
clearances to comply with the terms and conditions
envisaged in the Letter of Intent dated 23.12.2008, the
petitioner submitted that one of the conditions contained
in Letter dated 29.02.2008 granting prior approval under
Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act was that the applicant was
required to obtain statutory clearance under the
provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and
Environmental Notification dated 27.01.1994. It is
explained that the petitioner submitted a Forest
Diversion Proposal under Section 2(ii) of the Forest
(Conservation) Act for an area of 41.011 hectares. The
process of such grant took considerable length of period
at the behest of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change. It is only on 09.01.2017 the petitioner
was issued with clearance in terms of Section 2(iii) of
said Act. The delay cannot be attributed to the
petitioner.
Hearing:
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 17 of 85
7. As the pleadings are complete and this Court as an
interim measure vide Order dated 16.01.2017 directed
not to make provisions of Rule 8(4) of the MC Rules,
2016 applicable qua the petitioner(s), respective counsel
representing the parties agreed for final hearing of the
matter.
7.1. Though on 01.12.2025 the matter was heard, written
note of submissions were sought to be filed on
15.12.2025. Having allowed, such notes so filed were
directed to be taken on record. For clarification of certain
aspects, the case was instructed to be posted on
07.05.2026, on which date final hearing was conducted
by the counsel for the parties.
7.2. Sri Pinaki Misra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Abhisek Agarwal, learned Advocate representing the
petitioner and Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional
Standing Counsel were heard in the matter.
7.3. Upon conclusion of hearing, the matter stood reserved
for preparation and pronouncement of judgment/order.
Consideration of arguments advanced and submissions
made by the counsel for respective parties:
8. At the outset it needs to be stated that in the writ
application the petitioner has raised many issues
including validity and rationality in putting cut-off date,
i.e., 11.01.2017 for execution of lease deed vide Rule 8(4)
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 18 of 85
of the MC Rules, 2016, nonetheless, at the stage of
arguments Sri Pinaki Misra, learned Senior Advocate
confined his arguments to the extent of discriminatory
treatment meted to the petitioner in not executing
mining lease deed on 11.01.2017 despite fulfilment of all
the statutory requirements.
9. For convenience relevant statutory provisions which are
necessary for the present purpose are reproduced
hereunder:
The Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957:
“5. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting licences or
mining leases.―(1) A State Government shall not grant a
reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining
lease to any person unless such person―
(a) is an Indian national, or company as defined in
Clause (20) of Section 2 of the Companies Act,
2013 (18 of 2013); and
(b) satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed:
Provided that in respect of any mineral specified in
Part A and Part B of the First Schedule, no
reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining
lease shall be granted except with the previous
approval of the Central Government.
Explanation.―
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 19 of 85
For the purposes of this sub-section, a person shall
be deemed to be an Indian national,―
(a) in the case of a firm or other association of
individuals, only if all the members of the firm
or members of the association are citizens of
India; and
(b) in the case of an individual, only if he is a
citizen of India.
(2) No mining lease shall be granted by the State
Government unless it is satisfied that―
(a) there is evidence to show the existence of
mineral contents in the area for which the
application for a mining lease has been made
in accordance with such parameters as may be
prescribed for this purpose by the Central
Government;
(b) there is a mining plan duly approved by the
Central Government, or by the State
Government, in respect of such category of
mines as may be specified by the Central
Government, for the development of mineral
deposits in the area concerned:
Provided that a mining lease may be granted upon
the filing of a mining plan in accordance with a
system established by the State Government for
preparation, certification, and monitoring of such
plan, with the approval of the Central Government.
10A.Rights of existing concession holders and
applicants.―W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 20 of 85
(1) All applications received prior to the date of
commencement of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,
20156, shall become ineligible.
(2) Without prejudice to sub-section (1), the following
shall remain eligible on and from the date of
commencement of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,
2015:
a. applications received under section 11A of this
Act;
b. where before the commencement of the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Amendment Act, 2015 a reconnaissance permit
or prospecting licence has been granted in
respect of any land for any mineral, the permit
holder or the licensee shall have a right for
obtaining a prospecting licence followed by a
mining lease, or a mining lease, as the case
may be, in respect of that mineral in that land,
if the State Government is satisfied that the
permit holder or the licensee, as the case may
be,―
(i) has undertaken reconnaissance
operations or prospecting operations, as
the case may be, to establish the
existence of mineral contents in such land
in accordance with such parameters as
may be prescribed by the Central
Government;
6 Inserted by Section 10 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Amendment Act, 2015 [Act 10 of 2015], with effect from 12.01.2015.
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 21 of 85
(ii) has not committed any breach of the
terms and conditions of the
reconnaissance permit or the prospecting
licence;
(iii) has not become ineligible under the
provisions of this Act; and
(iv) has not failed to apply for grant of
prospecting licence or mining lease, as the
case may be, within a period of three
months after the expiry of reconnaissance
permit or prospecting licence, as the case
may be, or within such further period not
exceeding six months as may be extended
by the State Government;
c. where the Central Government has
communicated previous approval as
required under sub-section (1) of Section 5
for grant of a mining lease, or if a letter of
intent (by whatever name called) has been
issued by the State Government to grant a
mining lease, before the commencement of
the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, the
mining lease shall be granted subject to
fulfilment of the conditions of the previous
approval or of the letter of intent within a
period of two years from the date of
commencement of the said Act:
Provided that in respect of any mineral
specified in the First Schedule, no prospecting
licence or mining lease shall be granted underW.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 22 of 85
clause (b) of this subsection except with the
previous approval of the Central Government.”
The Minerals (Other Than Atomic and Hydro
Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016:
“8. Rights under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-
section (2) of Section 10A.–
(1) The applicant in whose favour:
(a) the State Government has issued a letter of
intent (by whatever name called) in writing
before January 12, 2015, for grant of a mining
lease for minerals not specified in the First
Schedule to the Act; or
(b) the Central Government has communicated the
previous approval in writing before January
12, 2015, under sub-section (1) of Section 5, for
grant of a mining lease for minerals specified in
Part C of the First Schedule to the Act, shall
submit a letter of compliance to the State
Government, of the conditions mentioned in the
letter of intent or the conditions mentioned in
the previous approval granted by the Central
Government, as the case may be; and the State
Government shall send an acknowledgement of
receipt of the letter of compliance to the
applicant in Schedule II within a period of three
days of receipt thereof.
(2) After receipt of letter of compliance under sub-rule
(1), the State Government shall issue an order for
grant of the mining lease within a period of sixty
days from the date of receipt of such letter subject toW.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 23 of 85
verification of fulfilment of the conditions mentioned
in the letter of intent or previous approval of the
Central Government, as the case may be:
Provided that in case the conditions as mentioned in
the
(i) letter of intent issued by the State Government,
or
(ii) previous approval granted by the Central
Governmentare not fulfilled, the State Government shall, after
giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard
and for reasons to be recorded in writing and
communicated to the applicant within a period of
sixty days from the date of receipt of letter of
compliance, refuse to grant a mining lease for non-
compliance of conditions mentioned in the letter of
intent or the previous approval of the Central
Government, as the case may be.
(3) Upon issuance of an order of grant of mining lease
under sub-rule (2), the applicant shall:
(a) furnish a performance security to the State
Government in the form of a bank guarantee in
the format specified in Schedule IV or as a
security deposit for an amount equivalent to
0.50% of the value of estimated resources,
which may be invoked by the State
Government as per the terms and conditions of
the Mine Development and Production
Agreement, published by the Government of
India in the Ministry of Mines, vide Part I,
Section-I of the Gazette of India, dated the 2nd
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 24 of 85
July, 2015, and the mining lease deed. The
performance security shall be adjusted every
five years to correspond to 0.50% of the
reassessed value of estimated resources; and
(b) sign a Mine Development and Production
Agreement with the State Government in the
format specified by the Central Government
after compliance of conditions specified in this
sub-rule.
(4) Where an order for grant of mining lease has
been issued under sub-rule (2), the mining lease
shall be executed with the applicant in the
format specified in Schedule VII and registered
on or before 11th January, 2017, failing which
the right of such an applicant under clause (c)
of sub-section (2) of Section 10A for grant of a
mining lease shall be forfeited and in such
cases, it would not be mandatory for the State
Government to issue any order in this regard.
(5) The State Government may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing and communicated to the
applicant, reduce the area applied for at the time of
grant of the mining lease.
(6) The date of the commencement of the period for
which a mining lease is granted shall be the date on
which a duly executed mining lease deed is
registered.”
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980:
“2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of
forest land for non-forest purpose.–
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 25 of 85
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force in a State, no State
Government or other authority shall make, except
with the prior approval of the Central Government,
any order directing–
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of
the expression “reserved forest” in any law for
the time being in force in that State) or any
portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved:
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may
be used for any non-forest purpose.
7[(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may
be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to
any private person or to any authority,
corporation, agency or any other organisation
not owned, managed or controlled by
Government;
(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may
cleared of trees which have grown naturally in
that land portion, for the purpose of using it for
reafforestation.]
8[Explanation.–
For the purpose of this section “non-forest purpose”
means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land
or portion thereof for:
7 Inserted by the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 1988 [Act 69 of 1988]
came into force with effect from 15.03.1989, being notified in the Gazette of
India, Extraordinary, 1989 [Notification No.SO188 (E), 15.03.1989].
8 Substituted ibid.
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 26 of 85
(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber,
palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or
medicinal plants;
(b) any purpose other than reafforestation,
but does not include any work relating or ancillary to
conservation, development and management of
forests and wild life, namely, the establishment of
check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and
construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams,
waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks,
pipelines or other like purposes.]
3. Constitution of Advisory Committee.–
The Central Government may constitute a Committee
consisting of such number of persons as it may
deem fit to advise that Government with regard to–
(i) the grant of approval under Section 2; and
(ii) any other matter connected with the
conservation of forests which may be referred
to it by the Central Government.”
10. Referring to Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Act, Sri
Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate
submitted that two categories of applicants9 who could
be considered for grant of mining lease without auction,
subject to specific conditions, namely:
i. those who received a Letter of Intent for grant of the
mining lease from the State Government; or9 Paragraph 2 of written note of submissions filed on behalf of the opposite party
No.3.
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 27 of 85
ii. those who had received prior approval from the
Central Government for the grant of mining lease.
10.1. These two categories of applicants are required to fulfil
all the conditions specified in the Letter of Intent or must
be in possession of prior approval of the Central
Government under Section 5 of the MMDR Act within
two years from 12.01.2015. Exercising power conferred
under Section 13 of the MMDR Act, the MC Rules, 2016
have been framed. It is submitted that the mining lease
applications pending at the time of commencement of
said Amendment Act, i.e., 12.01.2015, lease could be
granted subject to fulfilment of conditions stipulated
therein.
10.2. Referring to following paragraphs from Bhushan Power
and Steel Limited Vrs. S.L. Seal, Additional Secretary,
(Steel and Mines), State of Odisha and Others, (2017) 2
SCC 125, it was submitted that having not fulfilled
conditions the petitioner has rightly been refused grant
of the mining lease:
“12. It was argued with vehemence that even when
under sub-section (1) of Section 10-A, all applications
received prior to the date of commencement of the
Amendment Act, 2015 have been rendered ineligible,
sub-section (2) saves certain kinds of applications.
Clause (c) thereof is invoked by the petitioner to
submit that in the instant case since “letter of
intent” had been issued by the StateW.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 28 of 85
Government to grant a mining lease, the
petitioner‟s application stands protected. For
this purpose, recommendation dated 24.05.2014 is
treated as letter of intent by the petitioner, laying
emphasis on the words “letter of intent (by whatever
name called)”. It was, thus, argued that form of
letter of intent is not necessary and the substance of
the letter had to be seen. It was argued that since
the Letter dated 24.05.2014 of the State Government
is in the nature of recommendation for grant of lease,
it signifies intention to grant the mining lease insofar
as the State Government is concerned and,
therefore, in substance, it is the letter of intent. It
was, thus, argued that under the new regime
contained in Section 10-A, approval of the Central
Government was not even required and the State
Government could have proceeded further and
granted the lease.
16. Since the State Government had sent the necessary
letter of request to the Central Government, direction
contained in the judgment dated 14.03.2012
[Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. Vrs. State of Orissa,
(2012) 4 SCC 246] stands complied with. The issue
now raised, as reflected and discussed in the earlier
portion of this judgment, is whether the application
of the petitioner is rendered ineligible in view of
Section 10-A of the Act or whether it still survives.
We are examining this issue as the petitioner’s
counsel have argued that the petitioner is eligible to
be considered as its application falls in the category
carved out by clause (c) of Section 10-A(2) and
further that since no approval of the Central
Government is required now, the State Government
could itself grant the lease. It is argued that failure
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 29 of 85
of the State Government amounts to contempt of the
orders of this Court.
17. Undoubtedly, as per sub-section (1) of Section 10-A,
all applications received prior to coming into force of
the Amendment Act, 2015, become ineligible. Reason
for interpreting such a provision is not far to seek.
Before the passing of the Amendment Act, 2015, it
was the Central Government which had the ultimate
control over the grant of licences insofar as mining of
major minerals is concerned. As per the procedure
then existing, the State Government could
recommend the application submitted by any
applicant for grant of mining lease to the
Central Government and the Central
Government was given the power to grant or
refuse to grant the approval. Thus, “previous
approval” from the Central Government was
essential for grant of lease, without which the
State Government could not enter into any such
lease agreement with the applicant.
Shortcomings of this procedure were noticed by this
Court in its judgment rendered in Centre for Public
Interest Litigation Vrs. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC
1 (for short “CPIL case”) and also in Natural
Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1
of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1. In these judgments, this
Court expressed that allocation of natural resources
should normally be by auction. Judgment in Centre
for Public Interest Litigation Vrs. Union of India,
(2012) 3 SCC 1 had a direct relevance to the grant of
mineral concessions as the Government found that it
was resulting in multipurpose litigation which was
becoming counterproductive. Mining Ordinance,
2015 was passed on 12.01.2015 which was
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 30 of 85
ultimately replaced when Parliament enacted the
Amendment Act, 2015.
18. The exhaustive Statement of Objects and Reasons
reveals that the extensive amendment in the Act
were effected after extensive consultations and
intensive scrutiny by the Standing Committee on
Coal and Steel, who gave their Report in May 2013.
As is evident from the Statement that difficulties
were experienced because the existing Act does not
permit the auctioning of mineral concessions. It was
observed that with auctioning of mineral
concessions, transparency in allocation will improve;
the Government will get an increased share of the
value of mineral resources; and that it will alleviate
the procedural delay, which in turn would check
slowdown which adversely affected the growth of
mining sector.
19. The Amendment Act, 2015, as is evident from the
objects, aims at: (i) eliminating discretion; (ii)
improving transparency in the allocation of mineral
resources; (iii) simplifying procedures; (iv) eliminating
delay on administration, so as to enable expeditious
and optimum development of the mineral resources
of the country; (v) obtaining for the Government an
enhanced share of the value of the mineral
resources; and (vi) attracting private investment and
the latest technology.
20. The Amendment Act, 2015 ushered in the
amendment of Sections 3, 4, 4-A, 5, 6, 13, 15, 21
and First Schedule; substitution of new sections for
Sections 8, 11 and 13; and, insertion of new
Sections 8-A, 9-B, 9-C, 10-A, 10-C, 11-B, 11-C, 12-A,
15-A, 17-A, 20-A, 30-B, 30-C and Fourth Schedule.
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 31 of 85
21. These amendments brought in vogue : (i) auction to
be the sole method of allotment; (ii) extension of
tenure of existing lease from the date of their last
renewal to 31.03.2030 (in the case of captive mines)
and till 31.03.2020 (for the merchant miners) or till
the completion of renewal already granted, if any, or
a period of 50 years from the date of grant of such
lease; (iii) establishment of District Mineral
Foundation for safeguarding interest of persons
affected by mining related activities; (iv) setting up of
a National Mineral Exploration Trust created out of
contributions from the mining lease-holders, in order
to have a dedicated fund for encouraging exploration
and investment; (v) removal of the provisions
requiring “previous approval” from the Central
Government for grant of mineral concessions in case
of important minerals like iron ore, bauxite,
manganese, etc. thereby making the process simpler
and quicker; (vi) introduction of stringent penal
provisions to check illegal mining prescribing higher
penalties up to Rs 5 lakhs per hectare and
imprisonment up to 5 years; and (vii) further
empowering the State Government to set up Special
Courts for trial of offences under the Act.
22. Newly inserted provisions of the Amendment Act,
2015 are to be examined and interpreted keeping in
view the aforesaid method of allocation of mineral
resources through auctioning, that has been
introduced by the Amendment Act, 2015. Amended
Section 11 now makes it clear that the mining leases
are to be granted by auction. It is for this reason
that sub-section (1) of Section 10-A mandates
that all applications received prior to 12-1-
2015 shall become ineligible. Notwithstanding,
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 32 of 85
sub-section (2) thereof carves out exceptions by
saving certain categories of applications even filed
before the Amendment Act, 2015 came into
operation. Three kinds of applications are
saved:
22.1. First, applications received under Section 11-A of the
Act. Section 11-A, under new avatar is an exception
to Section 11 which mandates grant of prospecting
licence combining lease through auction in respect of
minerals, other than notified minerals. Section 11-A
empowers the Central Government to select certain
kinds of companies mentioned in the said section,
through auction by competitive bidding on such
terms and conditions, as may be prescribed, for the
purpose of granting reconnaissance permit,
prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of any
area containing coal or lignite. Unamended provision
was also of similar nature except that the companies
which can be selected now for this purpose under
the new provision are different from the companies
which were mentioned in the old provision. It is for
this reason, if applications were received even under
unamended Section 11-A, they are saved and
protected, which means that these applications can
be processed under Section 11-A of the Act.
22.2. Second category of applications, which are kept
eligible under the new provision, are those where the
reconnaissance, permit or prospecting licence had
been granted and the permit-holder or the licensee,
as the case may be, had undertaken reconnaissance
operations or prospecting operations. The reason for
protecting this class of applicants, it appears, is that
such applicants, with hope to get the licence, hadW.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 33 of 85
altered their position by spending lot of money on
reconnaissance operations or prospecting
operations. This category, therefore, respects the
principle of legitimate expectation.
22.3. Third category is that category of applicants
where the Central Government had already
communicated previous approval under Section
5(1) of the Act for grant of mining lease or the
State Government had issued letter of intent to
grant a mining lease before coming into force
of the Amendment Act, 2015. Here again, the
raison dêtre is that certain right had accrued
to these applicants inasmuch as all the
necessary procedures and formalities were
complied with under the unamended provisions
and only formal lease deed remained to be
executed.
22.4. It would, thus, be seen that in all the three cases,
some kind of right, in law, came to be vested in
these categories of cases which led Parliament to
make such a provision saving those rights, and
understandably so.
23. Here, the petitioner seeks to cover its case under the
third category with the plea that insofar as the State
Government is concerned, it had issued “letter of
intent”. The petitioner is treating Letter dated
24.05.2014, which was sent by the State
Government to the Central Government with a
request to the Central Government to give its
approval for grant of mineral concessions, as
the “letter of intent”. It is in this hue, the
submission is that the intention behind the said
letter is to be seen even if it is not termed as “letter
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 34 of 85
of intent” and this argument is predicated on the
words “by whatever name called”.
24. No doubt, having regard to the words “by whatever
name called”, the expression “letter of intent” is to be
given wider connotation. It means that nomenclature
of the letter would not be the determinative factor. It
is the substantive nature of the letter in question
that would determine as to whether it can be treated
as the letter of intent. For this purpose, it is first
necessary to find the meaning that has to be
attributed to the term “letter of intent”. As per the
legal dictionary, “letter of intent” is a document that
described the preliminary understanding between
the parties who intend to make a contract or join
together in another action. This term has come up for
interpretation on few occasions before this Court.
25. In Rishi Kiran Logistics (P) Ltd. Vrs. Kandla Port
Trust, (2015) 13 SCC 233, relying upon an earlier
decision, this Court held that a letter of intent merely
indicates a party‟s intention to enter into a contract
with other party in future, as can be seen from the
following para 43 thereof, which reads as under:
„43. At this juncture, while keeping the aforesaid
pertinent features of the case in mind, we
would take note of “the Rules and Procedure
for Allotment of Plots” in question issued by
Kandla Port Trust. As per Clause 12 thereof the
Port Trust had reserved with itself right of
acceptance or rejection of any bid with specific
stipulation that mere payment of EMD and
offering of premium will not confer any right or
interest in favour of the bidder for allotment of
land. Such a right to reject the bid could be
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 35 of 85
exercised “at any time without assigning any
reasons thereto”. Clause 13 relates to
“approvals from statutory authorities”, with
unequivocal assertion therein that the allottees
will have to obtain all approvals from different
authorities and these included approvals from
CRZ as well. As per Clause 16, the allotment
was to be made subject to the approval of
Kandla Port Trust Board/competent authority.
In view of this material on record and factual
position noted in earlier paragraphs we are of
the opinion that observations in Dresser Rand
S.A. Vrs. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd., (2006) 1 SCC
751 would be squarely available in the present
case, wherein the Court held that:
„39. … a letter of intent merely indicates a
party‟s intention to enter into a contract
with the other party in future. A letter of
intent is not intended to bind either party
ultimately to enter into any contract. …
40. It is no doubt true that a letter of intent
may be construed as a letter of
acceptance if such intention is evident
from its terms. It is not uncommon in
contracts involving detailed procedure, in
order to save time, to issue a letter of
intent communicating the acceptance of
the offer and asking the contractor to start
the work with a stipulation that the
detailed contract would be drawn up
later. If such a letter is issued to the
contractor, though it may be termed as a
letter of intent, it may amount toW.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 36 of 85
acceptance of the offer resulting in a
concluded contract between the parties.
But the question whether the letter of
intent is merely an expression of an
intention to place an order in future or
whether it is a final acceptance of the
offer thereby leading to a contract, is a
matter that has to be decided with
reference to the terms of the letter.‟
When the LoI is itself hedged with the
condition that the final allotment would
be made later after obtaining CRZ and
other clearances, it may depict an
intention to enter into contract at a later
stage. Thus, we find that on the facts of this
case it appears that a letter with intention to
enter into a contract which could take place
after all other formalities are completed.
However, when the completion of these
formalities had taken undue long time and the
prices of land, in the interregnum, shot up
sharply, the respondent had a right to cancel
the process which had not resulted in a
concluded contract.‟
[See also Rajasthan Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Vrs.
Maha Laxmi Mingrate Mktg. Service (P) Ltd., (1996)
10 SCC 405]
26. Applying the aforesaid meaning, can it be said
that Letter dated 24.05.2014 of the State
Government would constitute a letter of intent?
We are afraid, answer has to be in the negative.
Reason is simple. As mentioned above, in order to
enable the State Government to enter into any lease
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 37 of 85
agreement/contract with the prospecting licensee,
“previous approval” of the Central Government was
essential. Unless such approval came, the State
Government could not communicate to the
prospecting licensee/lessee its intention to enter into
any contract as the prerequisite prior approval
would be lacking. Therefore, no promise could be
held by the State Government to any applicant
showing its intention to enter into a contract in the
future. Position would have been different had Letter
dated 24.05.2014 been issued after receiving
previous approval of the Central Government.
However, that is not so. This letter to the Central
Government was only recommendatory in nature
and ultimate decision rested with the Central
Government. It is a different thing if the Central
Government refuses to give its approval on any
extraneous reasons or mala fides or does not take
into consideration relevant factors/material while
rejecting the application, which may form a different
cause of action and may become a reason to
challenge the action of the Central Government
rejecting the application on the grounds that are
available in law to seek judicial review of such an
action. However, we are not dealing with that
situation in the instant case. Our discussion is
confined to the plea raised before us viz. whether
Letter dated 24.05.2014 can be termed as “letter of
intent”. For the reasons stated above, we are of the
view that it was not a letter of intent. The application
of the petitioner, therefore, would not be covered by
clause (c) of Section 10-A of the Act.
27. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioner
herein had originally succeeded in the appeal
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 38 of 85
inasmuch as judgment dated 14.03.2012 was
rendered giving direction to the State Government to
recommend the case of the petitioner, in terms of the
MoU entered into between the parties, to the Central
Government. This was not done and the decision
was reiterated in orders dated 22.04.2014 passed
in Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. Vrs. Rajesh Verma,
(2014) 5 SCR 493. It is possible that had the State
Government acted promptly and sent the
recommendations earlier, the Central Government
might have accorded its approval. However, whether
it could have done so or not would be in the realm of
conjectures. Insofar as the Central Government is
concerned, no direction was ever given by this Court.
On the contrary, it was categorically observed in the
order dated 22.04.2014 in Bhushan Power and
Steel Ltd. Vrs. Rajesh Verma that it would be for the
Central Government to consider the
recommendations of the State Government on its
own merits and in accordance with law. If that has
not been done by the Central Government, it cannot
be the subject-matter of present contempt petition.”
10.3. In the present set of facts, there is no dispute that upon
consideration of the application of the petitioner, the
State Government recommended the case for prior
approval of the Central Government and the latter
approved invoking Section 5(1) and Section 11(5) of the
MMDR Act read with sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 59 of
the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Of course, such
approval was hedged with certain conditions which were
required to be fulfilled.
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 39 of 85
10.4. It may be significant to take note of following
observations contained in State of West Bengal Vrs.
Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih and Others,
(2023) 12 SCR 277:
“8. The Respondent No.1-M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)
Industries of Bagandih has relied upon judgment of
this Court in Bhushan Power and Steel Limited Vrs.
S.L. Seal, Additional Secretary (Steel and Mines),
State of Odisha and Others, (2017) 2 SCC 125. In
the said case, the predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioner therein had made an application for grant
of lease before the State of Odisha for mining of Iron
Ore in an area measuring 1250 acres. The
application was in view of the proposal to set up a
steel plant in the district of Sambalpur, Odisha. The
rejection for the grant of the mining lease to M/s.
Bhushan Power and Steel Limited was challenged in
a Writ Petition in the High Court, which was
dismissed, but the appeal preferred before this Court
was allowed vide judgment dated 14.03.2012 in
Bhushan Power and Steel, Limited and Others Vrs.
State of Orissa and Another, (2012) 4 SCC 246,
setting aside the order of the State Government
dated 09.02.2016, with the following directions:
„41. In the light of the above, the High Court erred
in holding that it could not interfere with the
decision of the State Government calling upon
the appellants to sign a fresh MoU with the
Government, during subsistence of the earlier
MoU. Since the State Government has already
made allotments in favour of others in
relaxation of the Mineral Concession Rules,W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 40 of 85
1960, under Rule 59(2) thereof, no cogent
ground had been made out on behalf of the
State to deny the said privilege to the
appellants as well. Accordingly, we allow the
appeal and set aside the judgment and order
of the High Court of Orissa and also the
decision of the State Government dated
09.02.2006, rejecting the appellants‟ claim for
grant of mining lease.
42. During the course of hearing, we have been
informed that Thakurani Block A has large
reserves of iron ore, in which the appellants
can also be accommodated. We, accordingly,
direct the State of Orissa to take appropriate
steps to act in terms of the MoU dated
15.05.2002, as also its earlier commitments to
recommend the case of the appellants to the
Central Government for grant of adequate iron
ore reserves to meet the requirements of the
appellants in their steel plant at Lapanga.‟
9. The State of Odisha thereafter filed an application
for review of the judgment in Bhushan Power and
Steel Limited and Others Vrs. State of Orissa and
Another, (2012) 4 SCC 246 which was rejected vide
order dated 11.09.2012.
10. Alleging non-compliance and in-action of the
judgment dated 14.03.2012, a contempt petition
was filed by M/s. Bhushan Power and Steel Limited.
The contempt petition was contested by the State of
Odisha on several grounds, including that the
judgment dated 14.03.2012 is incapable of
enforcement, for which reliance was placed on a
subsequent judgment of this Court in Sandur
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 41 of 85
Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. Vrs. State of
Karnataka, (2010) 13 SCC 1. This stand did not find
favour with this Court and the officers of the State
Government were found to be in contempt of the
judgment dated 14.03.2012 vide judgment dated
22.04.2014 in Bhushan Power and Steel Limited
Vrs. Rajesh Verma, (2014) 5 SCC 551. Under these
circumstances, the judgment dated 22.04.2014 had
given one more opportunity to the State Government
to send requisite recommendation to the Central
Government inter alia observing that this Court
cannot lose sight of the fact that there is a judgment
inter se the parties, which has become final.
Accordingly, the contention that the judgment of this
Court in Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited
(supra) will not undo the directions given in the
judgment dated 14.03.2012 was rejected. The
relevant observations in the judgment dated
22.04.2014 read as under:
„21. We cannot lose sight of the fact that there is a
judgment, inter partes, which has become final.
Even when the civil appeal was being heard,
certain other parties claiming their interest in
these very lands had moved intervention
applications which were dismissed. At that
time also it was mentioned that there are 195
applicants. However, notwithstanding the
same, this Court issued firm directions to the
State Government to recommend the case of the
petitioners for mining lease in both the areas.
In view of such categorical and unambiguous
directions given in the judgment which has
attained finality, merely because another
judgment has been delivered by this Court inW.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 42 of 85
Sandur Manganese case, cannot be a ground
to undo the directions contained in the
judgment dated 14.03.2012. Insofar as law
laid down in Sandur Manganese is concerned,
that may be applied and followed by the State
Government in respect of other applications
which are still pending. However, that cannot
be pressed into service qua the petitioner
whose rights have been crystallised by the
judgment rendered in its favour. It cannot be
reopened, that too at the stage of
implementation of the said judgment.
22. … Once we hold that the respondents are
bound to implement the direction contained in
the judgment dated 14.03.2012, insofar as the
State Government is concerned, it is obliged to
comply therewith and such matters, along with
other relevant considerations, can be left to the
wisdom of the Central Government while
taking a decision on the recommendation of the
State Government.
***
24. … However, we are giving one final opportunity
to them to purge the contempt by transmitting
requisite recommendations to the Central
Government. It would be for the Central
Government to consider the said
recommendations on its own merits and in
accordance with law. In case the
recommendation is sent within one month from
the date of copy of receipt of this order, we
propose not to take any further action and the
respondents/contemnors shall stand
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 43 of 85
discharged from this contempt petition.
However, in case the respondents do not purge
in the manner mentioned above, it would be
open to the petitioners to point out the same to
this Court by moving appropriate application
and in that event the contemnors shall be
proceeded against.‟
11. Consequent to the directions dated 22.04.2014, the
State Government had sent the requisite
recommendation to the Central Government for grant
of mining lease of the area in question. The Central
Government, however, took the stand that having
regard to the amendments in the MMDR Act, 1957,
vide the Amendment Act, 2015 introducing Section
10-A, the request made by M/s Bhushan Power and
Steel Limited stands invalidated. In view of the
aforesaid stand, the Central Government had
written letters to the State Government, with a copy
sent to M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited. In
the letter dated 13.05.2015, the Central Government
had stated that the proposal for according the prior
approval for grant of mineral concession was
ineligible in terms of sub-section (1) to Section 10-A
of the MMDR Act, 1957 and, therefore, should be
treated as closed. However, the State Government
might ascertain whether the proposal was safe from
ineligibility under Section 10-A of the MMDR Act,
1957 and thereupon the State Government could
take action accordingly. Similar view was also
expressed by the Central Government in the letter
dated 29.05.2015 therein. Consequent to these
communications, the State Government vide letter
dated 09.07.2015 had informed M/s Bhushan
Power and Steel Limited that their applications for
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 44 of 85
grant of mining lease had become ineligible as per
sub-section (1) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act,
1957.
12. This Court in M/s Bhushan Steel and Power
Limited, (2012) 4 SCC 246 specifically
examined the contention whether in the facts
of the said case, clause (c) to sub-section (2) to
Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 could be
invoked in view of the contention raised by M/s
Bhushan Steel and Power Limited that the
Letter of Intent was issued by the State
Government for grant of mining lease and,
therefore, their application stands protected.
The submission was that the recommendation
dated 24.05.2014, given by the State
Government should be treated as a Letter of
Intent by “whatever name called”, as it
signifies the intention to grant mining lease
insofar as the State Government is concerned.
It was also argued that under the new regime
contained under Section 10-A of the MMDR Act,
1957, approval of the Central Government was not
even required and the State Government could have
proceeded further and granted the lease.
13. The aforesaid arguments did not find favour of
this Court in the case of M/s Bhushan Steel and
Power Limited (supra) in spite of the earlier
judgment of this Court dated 14.03.2012 and
the order passed in the contempt petition
dated 22.04.2014 with the observations
therein that there was failure of the State
Government to comply with the directions. This
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 45 of 85
Court rejected the submissions in M/s Bhushan
Steel and Power Limited (supra) and held as under:
***
14. Thus, the object and purpose of the Amendment Act,
2015 is to ensure that allocation of mineral
resources is done through auctioning. This is the
reason why sub-section (1) to Section 10-A of the
MMDR Act, 1957 mandates that all applications
received prior to 12.01.2015 shall become ineligible.
The exceptions or the saving clause applies to three
kinds of situations specified in sub-section (2) to
Section 10-A of the MMDR Act. 1957. The first
category is where an application has been received
under Section 11-A of the MMDR Act, 1957. The
second category is where a reconnaissance permit or
a prospecting licence has been granted the permit
holder or the licensee has the right to obtain a
prospecting licence followed by a mining lease and
the State Government is satisfied that the permit
holder or the licensee has complied with the
requirements specified in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of
clause (b) of sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of the
MMDR Act, 1957. The reason for protecting this class
of cases is on account of the fact that they had
altered their position by spending money on
reconnaissance operations or prospecting
operations. Accordingly, the principle of legitimate
expectation is applied. The third category is where
the Central Government had already communicated
their previous approval or the State Government had
issue Letter of Intent for grant of mining lease before
coming into force of the Amendment Act 2015. The
raison dêtre, it is observed therein, is that certain
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 46 of 85
rights had accrued to these applicants inasmuch as
all necessary procedures and formalities had been
complied with and only formal lease remains to be
executed.
15. Delving on the question of whether the letter for
approval dated 22.05.2014 granted by the State
Government can be treated as a Letter of Intent
predicated on the words by whatever name, which
expression, it was submitted, should be given a
broad interpretation in view of the words „by
whatever name called‟ was examined in-depth and
in detail. Reference was made to the legal
dictionary for the meaning of the term „Letter
of Intent‟ as a preliminary understanding
between the parties who intend to make a
contract or join together for further action.
Reference was also made to decisions of this Court
in Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited Vrs. Board of
Trustees of Kandla Port Trust and Others, (2015) 13
SCC 233 and Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy
Federation Limited Vrs. Maha Laxmi Mingrate
Marketing Service Private Limited and Others, (1996)
10 SCC 405. ***
16. The aforesaid judgment is relevant for our purpose,
though in the present case, post Notification No. S.O.
423(E) dated 10.02.2015, Dolomite was notified as a
minor mineral and hence, the approval of the Central
Government was not required for the reason that the
Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was hedged with
pre-conditions, including the requirement to submit
consent letters of the owners of the land in question
(Raiyats) before the execution of the lease deed, or
there was to be a stipulation that a condition to this
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 47 of 85
effect would be incorporated in the draft lease.
Therefore, in our opinion, the Grant Order dated
16.07.2015 is provisional, and is subject to
fulfilment of the conditions therein.
***
21. During the course of arguments before us, reference
was made by the appellants to the provisions of the
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and the
judgment of this Court in Thressiamma Jacob and
Others Vrs. Geologist, Department of Mining and
Geology and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 725. We have not
examined the said aspects which are left open and
not adjudicated upon. However, we deem it
appropriate to observe that the judgment of this
Court in Thressiamma Jacob and Others (supra) is
prior to the enforcement of the Amendment Act, 2015
and the Concession Rules, 2016. The amendments
made by the Amendment Act, 2015 were not
subject matter of decision in the said case and
would have to be considered by the courts and
the authorities as a judgment‟s binding ratio
depends upon the legal provisions considered,
interpreted and applied in a given judgment.
When the law changes by an amendment in the
legislation, the amended legal provisions have
to be considered, interpreted and applied.”
10.5. It is apposite to say that having got the approval of the
Government of India, Ministry of Mines vide Letter
No.5/111/2008-M.IV, dated 29.09.2008 (Annexure-1)
stipulating condition to ensure compliance of amended
provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules framed
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 48 of 85
thereunder and other applicable Acts and Rules
including the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the
Environmental Notification dated 27.01.1994 as issued
and amended by MoEF, and the Letter bearing No.8556-
III(A)SM 46/2002, dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure-2) issued
by the State Government specifying conditions therein
for compliance, the applicant (petitioner) confirmed the
same by accepting terms and conditions embodied in
said letters for grant of mining lease for iron ore over an
area of 45.131 hectares in village: Kundaposi in the
District of Keonjhar. Upon taking all the necessary
steps, it was granted the approval by the Central
Government under Section 2(iii) of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 over an area of 45.029 hectares
of forest land within total mining lease area of 45.131
hectares pertaining to iron ore mining lease in the said
village subject to conditions (see, Letter F. No.8-
73/2016-FC, dated 09.01.2017 available at Annexure-
12) in consonance with Guidelines, as amended/
modified from time to time including the Ministry of
Mines Order dated 04.01.2017 vide F.No.7/1/2016-M.IV
(Part-1), titled “the Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Removal of Difficulties Order, 2017″ (for
brevity, Removal of Difficulties Order”). Upon receipt of
such approval the petitioner deposited amount of Net
Present Value on 10.01.2017 (Annexure-13) and
furnished compliance report on 10.01.2017.
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 49 of 85
11. Sri Pinaki Misra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the petitioner referring to the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as amended by
virtue of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 emphasised that
there has been paradigm shift from “grant of lease” to
“auction regime”. Therefore, necessary amendments
have been brought not only in the statute but also the
Rules framed thereunder. Nevertheless, he would
emphatically submit that the cut-off date which has
been fixed for execution of mining lease deed, i.e.,
11.01.2017 inasmuch as the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015
came into force with effect from 12.01.2015, has no
rational bearing. He would submit that since the
petitioner has complied with all the necessary terms and
conditions put upon in the Letter of Intent dated
23.12.2008 issued by the State Government read with
the prior approval of the Central Government in terms of
Section 5 of the MMDR Act vide Letter dated 29.09.2008
prior to said cut-off date, that is on 10.01.2017, which
fact was duly communicated to proper quarters on this
date, instead of going ahead with the execution of the
lease deed on 11.01.2017, the petitioner could not be
discriminated vis-Ã -vis other similarly situated
person/entities. Therefore, while not pressing for the
consideration of the present matter with regard to attack
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 50 of 85
on the vires of Rule 8(4) of the MC Rules, 2016, he
advanced arguments based on protection postulated in
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11.1. Sri Pinaki Misra, learned Senior Advocate has taken this
Court to Letter of Intent of the Government of Odisha in
Department of Steel and Mines issued way back on
23.12.2008 (Annexure-2) to contend that pursuant to
Government of India in Ministry of Mines Letter dated
29.09.2008 (Annexure-1) according approval under
Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act invoking provisions of
Section 11(5) of said Act read with Rule 59 of the Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960, such Letter of Intent contained
certain terms and conditions including requirement of
obtaining statutory clearance under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980.
11.2. Dates and events indicates the following facts:
i. Mining plan was approved on 24.08.2009 by the
Indian Bureau of Mines, Office of the Regional
Controller of Mines subject to conditions.
ii. Collector issued Certificate on 24.11.2010
indicating compliance under the Scheduled Tribes
and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition
of Forest Right) Act, 2006.
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 51 of 85
iii. On 14.01.2013 the State Environment Impact
Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Odisha sought for
authentic copy of Stage-I Forest Clearance for issue
of Environmental Clearance.
iv. Guidelines were issued frequently in quick
succession with change in procedures. Such
Guidelines were issued on 01.04.2015, 19.10.2015,
16.11.2016 and 17.11.2016. Though the
amendment of the MMDR Act came into force with
effect 12.01.2015 with stipulation of two years from
the date of commencement of said Amendment Act
for grant of mining lease, an Inter-Departmental
Committee constituted by the Government of
Odisha in Steel and Mines Department vide
Notification No.2507-IV(AB)SM-10/2010/SM, dated
19.03.2015 was vested with power by Notification
bearing No.3736-III(A)SM-29/1998, dated
07.05.2016 to examine all proposals for grant of
mining lease under clauses (b) and (c) of sub-
section (2) of Section 10A of the MMDR Act and
make recommendation to the Government.
v. Even while pending consideration of the online
application of the petitioner which was submitted
in view of amended Guidelines, notwithstanding
earlier one being pending, the Ministry of Mines by
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 52 of 85
Order dated 04.01.2017 [vide F. No.7/1/2016-M.IV
(Part-1)] clarified as follows:
“Ministry Mines
Order
New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017S.O.27(E).–
Whereas difficulties have arisen in giving effect to
the provisions of clause (c) sub-section (2) of Section
10A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (10 of 2015),
insofar as it relates to fulfilment of conditions laid in
the letter of intent (by whatever name called) issued
by the State Governments within a period of two
years from the date of commencement of the said
Act.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by the sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment
Act, 2015 (10 of 2015), the Central Government
hereby makes the following order to remove the
difficulties relating to fulfilment of conditions laid in
the letter of intent, namely:
1. Short title and commencement.–
(1) This order may be called the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Removal of Difficulties Order, 2017.
(2) It shall come into force on the date of its
publication in the Official Gazette.
2. Environmental Clearance.–
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 53 of 85
Notwithstanding anything contained in clause
(c) of sub-section (2) of Section 10A of the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Amendment Act, 2015 (10 of 2015), it is
clarified that where the condition of obtaining
environmental clearance has not been complied
with by the applicant on or before 11 th
January, 2017, but all other conditions
specified in previous approval or the letter of
intent have been fulfilled, the applications shall
be considered under that section and mining
lease shall be granted by the concerned State
Governments in accordance with the
notifications issued under the Environment
(Protection) Act 1986) (29 of 1986):
Provided that no mining activity shall
commence unless and until the applicant
obtain Environmental Clearance as laid down
under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
and the rules made thereunder.”
vi. The present context is relatable to Section 10A(2)(c)
which indicates on a bare reading that the mining
lease shall be granted subject to fulfilment of
conditions of previous approval of the Central
Government or the Letter of Intent within a period
of two years from the date the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,
2015 came into force, i.e., 12.01.2015. This would
mean that the fulfilment of conditions by an
applicant as instructed in the Letter concerningW.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 54 of 85
prior approval of Government of India in Ministry of
Mines Letter dated 29.09.2008 or in the Letter of
Intent of the Government of Odisha in Department
of Steel and Mines issued in Letter dated
23.12.2008 ought to be on or before 11.01.2017.
The provisions of Section 10(2)(c) of the MMDR Act
read with Rule 8(4) of the MC Rules makes it
abundantly clear that such cut-off date is non-
negotiable.
vii. Order of the Government of India, Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest
Conservation Division) in F. No.3-1/2016-FC, dated
10.10.2016 reconstituted the Forest Advisory
Committee in exercise of power conferred under
Section 3 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
The Forest Advisory Committee postponed its
meeting vide Office Memorandum F.No.11-
91/2012-FC, dated 09.12.2016.
viii. Order of the Ministry of Mines dated 04.01.2017
merely provides for obtaining the Environment
Certificate subsequently where it could not be
obtained on or before 11.01.2017. Nevertheless,
said order clearly lays down that no mining activity
shall commence until the applicant obtains the
Environment Clearance Certificate as laid down
under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 55 of 85
Rules, retaining such mandatory requirement to
obtain the Environment Clearance.
ix. The minutes of the meeting held on 10.05.2016 at
the Ministry of Mines inter alia reveals as follows:
“A meeting to expedite the pending mining lease
cases saved under Section 10A(2)(c) was held under
the Chairmanship of Union Secretary (Mines) on 10 th
May, 2016 at 12 AM at Aluminium Rood, 101-D,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi, 110001. The list of
participants of the meeting is given in Annexure-1.
***
5. Further, the Union Secretary (Mines) desired that a
pro forma be circulated to all State Governments for
obtaining a uniform status of the saved cases under
Section 10A(2)(c) with the request to complete the
data, so that the consolidated list of pending
clearances from Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change and Indian Bureau of Mines may be
expedited, within prescribed time limit. The pro
forma has been circulated and the same is given in
Annexure-III.”
11.3. The sequel of events depicts that it is the authorities/
opposite parties who have delayed the consideration of
Environment Clearance and Forest Clearance. It
emanates from paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit of
Government of Odisha in Steel and Mines Department
that:
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 56 of 85
“That, the petitioner is not eligible for grant of mining
lease in terms of Section 10A(2)(c) of MMDR Act and Rule
8 of the MC Rules, 2016 for the following reasons:
(i) The applicant has not submitted any compliance
letter in time as required under Rule 8(1) of the MC
Rules, 2016 for consideration of his case for issuing
the letter of grant of mining lease to him.
(ii) The applicant has obtained forest clearance as
required under the provisions of Section 2(iii) of the
Forest Conservation Act, 1980, which is a pre-
condition for grant of a mining lease only on
09.01.2017 and submitted on 10.01.2017 late after-
noon.
(iii) The mining lease application has thus become
ineligible for consideration and letter of
intent/previous approval under Section 5 of the
MMDR Act have become invalid for consideration.”
11.4. The reasons so ascribed for attributing the petitioner’s
laches in obtaining the necessary clearance from
competent Department of the Government could not
persuade this Court to accede to the contention of the
learned Additional Government Advocate.
11.5. Careful scrutiny of the documents enclosed with the writ
petition would demonstrate that all the conditions were
fulfilled including approval under Section 2(iii) of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The approval found
mentioned in Letter dated 09.01.2017 issued by the
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 57 of 85
has been issued in consideration of State Government
Letter No.10F(Con) 138/2016/23789/F&E, dated
20.12.2016. Such approval further seems to have been
issued after clarification in Removal of Difficulties Order
dated 04.01.2017 being issued by the Ministry of Mines.
11.6. From the aforesaid discussions it is not apt to say that
the delay or laches could be attributed to the petitioner.
Examination of claim of the petitioner and
recommendation of the State Government being the
domain of the Central Government, knowing fully well
that there was frequent changes in modalities for
making application and scrutiny of contents thereof
during 2015-17, at the fag end (i.e., 04.01.2017) the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Removal of Difficulties Order, 2017 was issued, and it
was also well within knowledge of all concerned that the
cut-off date was fixed on 11.01.2017 for execution of
lease deed. However, after receipt of Letter dated
09.01.2017 according approval under Section 2(iii) of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the petitioner took
immediate step on the very next date i.e., 10.01.2017 by
making deposit of Net Present Value (Annexure-13) and
submitting compliance report.
11.7. A stance is taken by the learned Additional Government
Advocate that as the petitioner furnished compliance
report at the last moment on 10.01.2017, due to paucity
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 58 of 85
of time the lease deed could not be prepared and
executed. It is interesting to notice counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the opposite party No.2, Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Referring to
history of legislation, reproducing Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, it is only asserted at
paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit that proposal
received from the State Government has been granted
approval by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change, New Delhi vide Letter dated
09.01.2017. The opposite party No.3 also made it clear
that the stand of the petitioner at paragraph 5(H) of the
writ petition needs no reply. None of the counter affidavit
does show any explanation with respect to the fact
stated at paragraph 5(H) of the writ petition, which is as
follows:
“That on 17.06.2011, the DFO Keonjhar forwarded the
proposal to RCCF (Rourkela) after verifying the Forest
Diversion Proposal of the petitioner No.1-Company. Finally
on 11.04.2014, the Government of Odisha, Forest &
Environment Department forwarded the proposal of the
petitioner No.1 to the MoEF. Thereafter, on 30.05.2014,
the MoEF scrutinizing the proposal, forwarded the same
to the Forest Appraisal Committee. It is submitted that the
proposal of the petitioner No.1 for diversion of 41.01
hectares of forest land under Section 2(ii) of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 is pending with the MoEF.”
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 59 of 85
11.8. No reply is proffered by the said opposite party No.3 as
to why the approval could be accomplished on
09.01.2017 though it was within its knowledge that
time-frame is stipulated in the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. It
is not out of place to have reference to Letter dated
31.10.2016 addressed to Principal Secretary,
Department of Steel and Mines, Government of Odisha
(Annexure-24), whereby the petitioner candidly
intimated that “The Forest Appraisal Committee after
detailed deliberations recommended that decision on the
proposal involving diversion of large area of forest land for
execution of a fresh mining lease may be deferred till
completion of the carrying capacity study proposed to be
undertaken by Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change”. As it has already been mentioned in
the foregoing paragraphs there were very many
Guidelines issued by the Ministry concerned and the last
such clarification in the form of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Removal of Difficulties
Order, 2017 was issued only on 04.01.2017. It is
thereafter within five days of such Order, the approval
under Section 2(iii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 was accorded.
11.9. The petitioner enclosing all necessary documents
submitted a representation under the Subject
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 60 of 85
“Compliance Report with respect to grant proceeding vide
Letter No.III(A)SM 46/02/8556/SM, BBSR, dated
23.12.2008 and Memo No.897/SM, BBSR, dated
04.02.2009” with request to issue lease execution order.
Said representation dated 10.01.2017 addressed to the
Principal Secretary to Government of Odisha in
Department of Steel and Mines, was received in the
Office of the Secretary, Steel and Mines Department. A
letter indicating compliance of all the requirements has
been filed in the Office of Divisional Forest Officer,
Keonjhar Division, on 11.01.2017.
11.10. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the
petitioner did not comply with the conditions envisaged
for execution of lease deed. It is the allegation of the
opposite parties that the compliance report was received
by them at late hours of 10.01.2017 just before the last
date, i.e., 11.01.2017.
11.11. The petitioner having complied with all such terms
and conditions including deposit of Net Present Value
and approval under Section 2(iii) of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 (see, Annexures-12, 13 and 14),
in the considered view of this Court, the Government of
Odisha should have been more pragmatic than pedantic
in its approach, particularly when it could execute many
lease deeds on a single day, i.e., 11.01.2017 with respect
to others. Save and except receipt of compliance report
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 61 of 85
“late afternoon”, no explanation is offered by the
opposite parties as to why the petitioner was
discriminated.
12. It is in the wake of aforesaid factual scenario and legal
position, Sri Pinaki Misra, learned Senior Advocate
pressed into service provisions of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India by demonstrating that to the
information of the petitioner sixteen numbers of mining
leases with respect to major minerals pertaining to
Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Act were executed and
registered on a single day, i.e., 11.01.2017 (See,
Annexure-1 to the written note of submission dated
15.12.2025). Amongst them, to illustrate, he
categorically wished to demonstrate the case of Sree
Metaliks Ltd., whose facts and circumstances are akin to
that of the petitioner.
12.1. Referring to Annexure-31 enclosed with the Additional
Affidavit dated 11.09.2025 (filed on 15.09.2025)
emphasis is laid on the date of execution of Mining Lease
Deed in specified format in Schedule VII (See Rules
7(11), 8(4), 9(2), 12(1)(d) of the MC Rules, 2016. It is
submitted that the lease deed was not only executed on
11.01.2017 between the Governor of Odisha acting
through the Department of Steel and Mines, Government
of Odisha signed by the Collector, Keonjhar (Lessor) and
the Sree Metaliks Ltd. (Lessee) and registered on the very
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 62 of 85
same date. To further clarify the position with the
similarity between Sree Metaliks Ltd. and the instant
petitioner, the submission of learned Senior Counsel
proceeded to state that said Sree Metaliks Ltd. also got
approval under Section 2(iii) of the Forest Conservation
Act, 1980 on 10.01.2017, i.e., one day prior to
11.01.2017. He stated that rather the petitioner was on
better footing.
12.2. Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government
Advocate as against the plea taken by the petitioner in
the Rejoinder Affidavit that discrimination has been
caused to it as it is similarly circumstanced in
comparison to the facts of Sree Metaliks Ltd., submitted
that Article 14 of the Constitution of India emphasises
equality before law which is subject to reasonable
restriction. In other words, the fundamental right are
subject to reasonable restriction. The reasonable
restriction is apparent under the provisions envisioned
under 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Act read with Rule 8(4) of
the MC Rules, 2016. The petitioner cannot claim equity
vis-a-vis operation of law as constricted under sub-rule
(4) of Rule 8 of the MC Rules, 2016. The claim of the
petitioner is hit by negative equality. Merely because the
lease deed could be timely executed with Sree Metaliks
Ltd. it is with vehemence urged that non-execution of
lease deed in favour of the petitioner cannot be agitated
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 63 of 85
as a matter of right by comparing with the facts of said
company. It is arduously contended that it does not cast
an obligation on the State Government to execute the
lease deed in favour of the petitioner contrary to the
conditions with cut-off date laid down in Section
10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Act read with sub-rule (4) of Rule
8 of the MC Rules.
12.3. Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government
Advocate stemmed on following observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made in R. Muthukumar
Vrs. Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO,
(2022) 1 SCR 577:
“A principle, axiomatic in this country‟s constitutional lore
is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if
there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or
a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that
benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of
parity or equality. In Basawaraj & Anr. Vrs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 = (2013) 8 SCR 227,
this court ruled that:
„8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the
Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or
fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made
in other cases. The said provision does not envisage
negative equality but has only a positive aspect.
Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have
been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by
mistake, such an order does not confer any legal
right on others to get the same relief as well. If aW.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 64 of 85
wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be
perpetuated.‟Other decisions have enunciated or applied this principle
(Ref: Chandigarh Admn. Vrs. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC
745, Anand Buttons Ltd. Vrs State of Haryana, (2005) 9
SCC 164, K.K. Bhalla Vrs. State of M.P., (2006) 3 SCC
581; Fuljit Kaur Vrs. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 455;
and Chaman Lal Vrs. State of Punjab, (2014) 15 SCC
715). Recently, in The State of Odisha Vrs. Anup Kumar
Senapati, 2019 SCC Online SC 1207 this court observed
as follows:
„If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in
favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a
wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior
court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or
illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong
order/decision in favour of any particular party
does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on
the basis of the wrong decision.”
12.4. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner that the explanation/reply in the
counter affidavit(s) does not emerge any distinctive
feature being drawn between the circumstances of the
petitioner and Sree Metaliks Ltd. Highlighting that the
opposite parties, in view of Mohinder Singh Gill Vrs. The
Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851, cannot,
in absence of any pleading in that regard, contend that a
wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party
does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on theW.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 65 of 85
basis of the wrong decision. Nothing is placed on record
to suggest that steps are being taken against the err, if
at all, perpetrated by the functionaries. No dispute is set
out by the opposite parties with respect to execution and
registration of sixteen mining lease deeds with respect to
major minerals on a single date, i.e., 11.01.2017.
12.5. In order to bring to fore the similarity between the two,
Sri Pinaki Misra, learned Senior Advocate insisted to
consider Letter dated 10.01.2017 issued by the
Conservator of Forests (Central) addressing the Principal
Secretary, Forest and Environment Department,
Government of Odisha (Annexure-28 of the Rejoinder
Affidavit filed by the petitioner) and Letter dated
09.01.2017 issued by Assistant Inspector General of
Forests (Annexure-12 of the writ petition). Minute
excursion into both the letters reveals that approval
invoking Section 2(iii) under the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 was accorded to Sree Metaliks Ltd. in the
Letter marked as Annexure-28, whereas Letter marked
as Annexure-12 was issued in favour of the petitioner.
The tenor and nature of both the letters are found to be
identical requiring certain conditions to be fulfilled. Sri
Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate
could not dispute the similitude in both the letters of
approval issued under Section 2(iii) of the Forest
(Conservation) Act. This Court finds force in the
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 66 of 85
contention of the learned Senior Advocate that though
Sree Metaliks Ltd. got the said approval on 10.01.2017,
its lease deed could be prepared, executed and registered
on 11.01.2017; whereas the approval accorded in favour
of the petitioner granted on 09.01.2017 and compliance
report with respect to grant proceeding was submitted
by the petitioner on 10.01.2017 having deposited the
amount of Net Present Value (Annexure-13), its lease
deed was not executed and/or registered.
12.6. It is, thus, observed that the case law cited and relied
upon by the learned Additional Government Advocate to
counter the argument of the petitioner qua equality/
parity in treatment between two similarly situated
entities/persons has no application on the present facts
and in the circumstances of the matter.
12.7. In the considered view of this Court, the State
Government should have been considerate and it could
not discriminate the petitioner particularly when it is
demonstrated that sixteen lease deeds in respect of
major minerals could be executed and registered on a
single day, i.e., 11.01.2017 including similarly situated
entity, namely Sree Metaliks Limited.
13. It is pointed out by Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional
Government Advocate that in Balasore Alloys Limited
Vrs. State of Odisha, 2019 (I) ILR-CUT 214 this Court
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 67 of 85
while taking cognizance of the fact that the matter
pertaining vires of provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the
MMDR Act read with Rule 8(4) of the MC Rules, 2016,
being sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, passed the following order:
“21. So far the various provisions contained in Section
10-A(2)(c) of MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 read with
Rule 8(4) of the Concession Rules, 2016 are
concerned, it has been brought to the notice of this
Court that the matter is pending before the apex
Court for consideration. Therefore, this Court is
refrained from examining the same, when the matter
is sub judice before the apex Court. But at the same
time, this Court is of the considered opinion that
there is nothing available on record to stand in the
way of petitioner No.1 for executing the mining lease,
as it has already complied all the requirements
under various provisions of the Act and all the
authorities concerned have acknowledged the
requisite fees deposited for the purpose of execution
of such mining lease. Therefore, we direct the
opposite parties to execute the mining lease as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period
of two months hence.
22. The writ application is thus allowed. No order to
costs.”
13.1. Against the said judgment and order, the State of Odisha
moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 68 of 85
Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).6602 of 201910 wherein
the following order was passed on 11.03.2019:
“Delay condoned.
Issue notice.
In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order
passed by the High Court shall remain stayed.”
13.2. It is submitted by the learned Additional Government
Advocate that in Larsen & Toubro Limited Vrs. Union of
India, W.P.(C) No.4301 of 2021, vide Judgment dated
02.03.202311 this Court upheld the vires of the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment
Act No.16 of 2021, which came into force with effect
from 28.03.2021 whereby proviso to Section 10A(2)(b)
was added and further Section 10A(2)(d) inserted. In the
said case, this Court held as follows:
“70. Above apart, the Amendment Act, 2021 is also
protected under Article 31C of the Constitution of
India, inasmuch as, it is a law towards securing that
the ownership and control of the material resources
of the community („minerals‟ in the present case) are
so distributed to best subserve the common good, as
has been referred to Article 39(b) of the Constitution
of India. Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company Vrs.
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, (1983) 1 SCC 147 is to
be referred to reach at the conclusion.
10 Numbered as Civil Appeal No.2336 of 2026 : State of Odisha Vrs. Balasore Alloys
Limited.
11 The judgment of this Court reported at 2023 SCC OnLine Ori 706 being
challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No.006163 of
2023 [now, numbered as C.A. No.013687 of 2024], the same is pending.
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 69 of 85
71. In view of the fact and law, as discussed above, it is
held that the provisions contained in Section
10A(2)(b) of the Amendment Act, 2021 cannot be
declared as ultra vires rather it is intra vires of
Constitution of India. As it appears, under Sub-
section (1) of Section 5 of the MMDR Act, of 1957,
prior approval of the Central Government is essential
and that itself cannot be construed to be an empty
formality rather the recommendation made by the
State Government is not binding on the Central
Government. The saving clause, i.e., Section
10A(2)(b), which has been inserted vide MMDR
Amendment Act 2015, with effect from 12.01.2015
does not create vested right automatically, it merely
saves the applicants from ineligibility due to
introduction of auction as the only method of
obtaining mineral concession. Even the right to
obtain a mining lease is subject to compliance of the
terms and conditions mentioned in Section 10A(2)(b),
which has also lapsed on coming into effect of the
MMDR Amendment Act, 2021.
***
77. As discussed above, by way of Mineral
Concession Rules Fourth Amendment Rules,
2021, the Central Government also omitted
Rule 7 and Rule 8 of the Mineral Concession
Rules, 2016, by which the modalities for saved
applications under Section 10A(2)(b) and
Section 10A(2)(c) of the Amendment Act, 2015
were wiped out. Needless to say, prior to the 2015
Amendment, for all minerals under First Schedule
(major mineral) of the Act, the State Government only
had the authority to recommend to the CentralW.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 70 of 85
Government for grant or mining lease. Such
authority was governed by the then existing Section
11 of the Act. The State was only a recommendatory
authority. The ultimate authority for approving the
grant of mining lease for all First Schedule (major
mineral) of the Act lay with the Central Government
under Section 5(1) of the then prevailing MMDR Act,
1957. After the 2015 Amendment, Section 10A(2)(b)
of the Act and the proviso to Section 10A(2)(c)
mandate the Central Government‟s approval for
grant of mining lease. Therefore, Section 10A(2)(b)
does not vest any right on the petitioner to obtain a
mining lease without the prior approval of the
Central Government.
***
91. On the factual matrix, as discussed above, it is
made clear that the petitioner has breached the
terms and conditions of the PL as it had made three
PL applications for bauxite deposits on 31.10.1990
for use in its captive plant. In its applications, the
petitioner stated that it is proposing to set up
alumina plant. The Central Government
communicated its approval on 22.05.1992 under
Section 5(1) (b) of the MMDR Act, 1957 to grant PL
for all the 3 applications for a period of 2 years
subject to the condition, inter alia, that in case the
petitioner failed to get the LOI for the plant within a
year or if such LOI is issued to any other party for a
project, the PL will be prematurely determined under
Rule 14 (3) of the M.C. Rules, 1960. If the petitioner
seeks to take benefit of its status as PL holder under
Section 10A(2)(b) of the Act despite the fact that its
PL had expired in 1993, it should have compliedW.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 71 of 85
with its terms and conditions. But the petitioner is in
continuing breach of the terms and conditions of the
PLs all along as it failed to establish an alumina
plant and extended its LOI with the Central
Government.
92. During the year 2020-2021, the State of Odisha
received revenue to the tune of approximately Rs.
20,600/- crores from 140 working mines whereas
auction premium from 23 auctioned mines alone was
Rs. 19,250/- crores. Similarly, during the same
period Karanataka had earned royalty revenue of
Rs. 649/- crores from 131 working mines whereas
the auction premium from 11 auctioned mines alone
was Rs. 1883.8 crores. Therefore, the amended Acts
2015 and 2021, because of the introduction of the
auction regime not only got well established in last 7
years, but also gave encouraging results to the State
Governments in terms of participation of bidders.
Therefore, the augmentation of revenue being
encouraging one, which will be utilized for greater
public interest, the amendment cannot be said to be
arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the
provisions of law.
93. Though a large number of judgments were cited on
behalf of the parties, but the judgments, which are
apt for the just and proper adjudication of the case,
have been taken into consideration.
94. In view of the facts and law, as discussed above,
this Court is of the considered view that the
provisions contained in Section 10A(2)(b) in the
Amendment Act, 2021 is intra vires. Thereby, the
application of the petitioner under Section 10A(2)(b)
for grant of mining lease has lapsed by operation of
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 72 of 85
law and the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief
in this writ petition.”
13.3. Sri Pinaki Misra, learned Senior Advocate contended
that the said case was with respect to consideration of
three applications for prospecting licenses which were
recommended by the State Government stating inter alia
(i) the applicant had proposed to set up the plant; and
that (ii) issuance of LoI in favour of the applicant for
setting up such plant. Drawing distinction, he submitted
that the petitioner being conscious of the factum of
matter pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India with respect to validity of the amendment, it does
not press for adjudication of such vires. On the contrary,
it is harped by the petitioner that even though on
10.01.2017 it complied with necessary conditions
attached to the approval order of the Central
Government under Section 5 of the MMDR Act and the
LoI issued by the State Government, there was no
impediment on the part of the Government of Odisha to
execute and register the mining lease deed along with
sixteen others including Sree Metaliks Limited, whose
case is identical to the instant petitioner. The entire case
in the present context is on the anvil of discriminatory
treatment falling within the scope of provisions
envisioned in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 73 of 85
13.4. Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government
Advocate could not improve upon to justify the action of
the authorities concerned as to why the lease deed could
not be executed on 11.01.2017, though in case of Sree
Metaliks Limited which got the approval under Section
2(iii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 on
10.01.2017 whereas the petitioner got such approval on
09.01.2017 and deposited the Net Present Value on
10.01.2017 and also submitted the compliance report on
the very same date. Only explanation rendered in the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party
No.3 was that the petitioner submitted the compliance
report in the “afternoon” on the eve of last date for
execution of lease deed. In the considered opinion of this
Court such vague explanation cannot be countenanced.
As the Government of Odisha was fully conscious of
such date-line and facilitated many other similarly
situated entities/persons no rational and plausible
explanation is forthcoming from the opposite parties.
Even the counter affidavit of the opposite party No.2, as
has already been stated in the foregoing paragraphs, is
silent as to why it took considerable period to grant
approval invoking Section 2(iii) of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. The events in issuing
Guidelines and clarification through the Ministry of
Mines Order dated 04.01.2017 vide F.No.7/1/2016-M.IV
(Part-1), titled “the Mines and Minerals (Development
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 74 of 85
and Regulation) Removal of Difficulties Order, 2017″
came at the fag end of two years period stipulated under
Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Act read with Rule 8(4) of
the MC Rules, 2016.
13.5. Under the above scenario, delay and laches cannot be
attributed to the petitioner.
14. Valiant attempt was made by Sri Saswat Das, learned
Additional Government Advocate to support his
contention to deny direction to execute mining lease. The
rights of parties being crystallised on the date of filing of
writ petition12, i.e., in the year 2017. Rule 8 of the MC12 See, Beg Raj Singh Vrs. State of U.P., (2003) 1 SCC 726 wherein it has been held
that,
“6. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that
the appellant has been given a very rough deal by the State Government
and the injustice done to the appellant the High Court has failed to
redeem. He had identified and explored the new mining area and made
huge expenditure in making the mining area approachable and therefore it
was the legitimate expectation of the appellant that he would be entitled to
operate the mine for a minimum period of three years as per the declared
policy of the State Government. The State Government should not have
interfered with the order of the Collector and that too at the instance of a
third party — Respondent 3, when no auction was held and no right was
created in favour of Respondent 3. Matter as to the grant or renewal of the
lease for a total period of three years was in accordance with the policy of
the State Government and was a matter between the State and the
appellant. It was submitted at the end that the appellant has been
agitating his right diligently throughout and the time lost in prosecuting
legal proceedings up to the High Court wherein the plea raised by the
appellant laying challenge to the order of the State Government was found
to be meritorious and the order of the State Government held liable to be
set aside, the appellant should not have been denied relief and should
have been allowed to operate the mine for that period by which the mining
operation by the appellant fell short of three years‟ time.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as also the learned
counsel for the State and the private respondent, we are satisfied that the
petition deserves to be allowed. The ordinary rule of litigation is that
the rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of
commencement of litigation and the right to relief should be
decided by reference to the date on which the petitioner entered
the portals of the court. A petitioner, though entitled to relief in law,
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 75 of 85
Rules, 2016 was in vogue at the relevant point. By virtue
of the Minerals (Other Than Atomic and Hydro Carbon
Energy Mineral) Conservation (Fourth Amendment)
Rules, 2021 Rule 8 stood omitted with effect from
02.11.2021. It is submitted that in absence of specific
provisions saving the actions under Rule 8, Section 6 of
the General Clauses Act, 1897 cannot come to rescue of
the petitioner. What is essentially submitted by the
learned Additional Government Advocate is that in
absence of saving clause in said Amendment Rules of
2021, all the rights, privileges, applications or liability
acquired or accrued under the enactment so repealedmay yet be denied relief in equity because of subsequent or intervening
events i.e. the events between the commencement of litigation and the
date of decision. The relief to which the petitioner is held entitled
may have been rendered redundant by lapse of time or may have
been rendered incapable of being granted by change in law. There
may be other circumstances which render it inequitable to grant the
petitioner any relief over the respondents because of the balance tilting
against the petitioner on weighing inequities pitted against equities on the
date of judgment. Third-party interests may have been created or
allowing relief to the claimant may result in unjust enrichment on
account of events happening in-between. Else the relief may not be
denied solely on account of time lost in prosecuting proceedings in
judicial or quasi-judicial forum and for no fault of the petitioner. A
plaintiff or petitioner having been found entitled to a right to relief, the
court would as an ordinary rule try to place the successful party in the
same position in which he would have been if the wrong complained
against would not have been done to him. The present one is such a case.
The delay in final decision cannot, in any manner, be attributed to the
appellant. No auction has taken place. No third-party interest has been
created. The sand mine has remained unoperated for the period for which
the period of operation falls short of three years. The operation had to be
stopped because of the order of the State Government intervening which
order has been found unsustainable in accordance with stipulations
contained in the mining lease consistently with GO issued by the State of
Uttar Pradesh. Merely because a little higher revenue can be earned by
the State Government that cannot be a ground for not enforcing the
obligation of the State Government which it has incurred in accordance
with its own policy decision.”
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 76 of 85
stood continued to operate in view of Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897.
14.1. This Court on perusal of written note of submission
dated 11.12.2025 furnished by the learned Additional
Government Advocate finds the following stand taken by
the opposite parties:
“4. *** Cummulative reading of the statutory provisions
basically Section 10A and Section 10A(2)(c) of the
MMDR Act read with the provisions of sub-rule (4) of
Rule 8 of the MC Rules, 2016 and Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act, it is the clear mandate of law
that the lease deed has to be executed between the
parties (lessor and lessee) on or before 11.01.2017
after having fulfilled all the conditions by the lessee
as per the exception carved out under Section
10A(2)(c).
In this regard the law is well settled by the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in case of Sangram Spinners Vrs.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner reported in
(2008) 1 SCC 391 where in the Hon‟ble apex court
held as follows:
„It is the cardinal principle of construction that every
statute is prima facie prospective unless it is
expressly or by necessary implication made to have
retrospective operation. The absence of a saving
clause in a new enactment preserving the
rights and liabilities under the repealed law is
neither material nor decisive of the question. In
terms of Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act,
1897 unless a different intention appears the repealW.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 77 of 85
shall not affect any right, privilege or liability
acquired, accrued or incurred under the enactment
repealed. The appellant would be entitled to the
protection for the period of three years starting from
the date the establishment was set up irrespective of
the repeal of the provision for such infancy
protection.‟
5. The plea taken by the petitioner during the course of
argument that the said rule having been amended
and repealed by virtue of the Notification
dt.02.11.2021, cannot be placed into operation to
deny the benefits to the petitioner as carved out in
the exception in 10A(2)(c) does not hold good in view
of the provision of Section 6 of the General Clauses
Act. Admittedly, in the present case in hand,
though the petitioner complied with all the
statutory requirements and submitted
compliance on 10.01.2015 before the
authorities, but as there was no time to execute
th lease deed within a short span of time.
Admittedly the lease deed could not be
executed between the parties on or before
11.01.2017 and as such by operation of sub-
rule (4) of Rule 8 of MC Rules, 2016, the right of
the applicant (petitioner) under clause (c) of
sub-section (2) of Section-10A for grant of
mining lease stood forfeited and therefore,
there was no requirement for the State
Government to issue any further order in this
regard.
***
7. That the plea taken by the petitioner in the Rejoinder
Affidavit that a discrimination has been caused to it
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 78 of 85
as in similar circumstances, lease deed has been
executed in respect of Sree Metaliks Limited. In this
regard, it is humbly submitted that Article 14 of the
Constitution of India which emphasises equality
before law puts also certain reasonable restrictions
to such fundamental right. In other words, all
fundamental rights are subject to reasonable
restrictions. The reasonable restrictions are apparent
under the provisions prescribed under Section
10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Act read with Rule 8(4) of the
MC Rules and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.
The petitioner cannot claim equity over and above
the operation of law as prescribed under sub-rule (4)
of Rule 8 of the MC Rules, 2016. The claim of the
petitioner is hit by negative equality merely because
the lease deed could be timely executed with Sree
Metaliks Ltd. on or before 10.01.2015 (sic.,
11.01.2017) does not cast an obligation on the State
Government to execute the lease deed in favour of
the petitioner contrary to the condition stipulated
under sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 of the MC Rules, 2016.”
14.2. This Court on examination of rival contentions and
submissions in this respect finds that there is no
material put forth by the opposite parties to show that
by efflux of time third-party interests have been created
or allowing relief to the petitioner would result in unjust
enrichment on account of events happening in between.
Hence, this Court is in a position to say that the relief
may not be denied solely on account of time lost in
prosecuting proceedings in judicial or quasi judicial
forum and for no fault of the petitioner.
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 79 of 85
14.3. It may be fruitful to repeat that this Court in Order
dated 16.01.2017 while entertaining the instant writ
petition as an interim measure directed that the
provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 of the MC Rules,
2016 shall not be made applicable in the case of the
petitioners.
14.4. Nothing is argued on behalf of the opposite parties to
indicate that Sree Metaliks Limited could comply with
the conditions attached to the approval under Section
2(iii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 much prior
to the compliance being made by the petitioner. The
counter affidavit and the written note of submission are
silent in this regard. Nothing is put forth by the learned
Additional Government Advocate to demonstrate that
Sree Metaliks Limited was in an advantageous position
than the petitioner and nothing is spelt out by the
opposite parties to show that the circumstances which
led to consider the applications of Sree Metaliks Limited
and fifteen others in preference to the petitioner.
14.5. This Court vide Order dated 24.04.2018 in the instant
writ petition passed the following in consideration of
Misc. Case No.17260 of 2017:
“The primary prayer of the petitioners in this Misc.
Case is for a direction to the Forest Advisory
Committee to consider the application of the
petitioners for grant of forest clearance under SectionW.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 80 of 85
2(ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and,
during the pendency of this writ petition, the result
of the same be kept in sealed cover, which would be
subject to further order passed in this writ petition.
To such application, a counter affidavit has been
filed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change, Government of India, to which
rejoinder affidavit has also been filed.
2. Shri A. Mohanty, learned Central Government
Counsel for the opposite party-Ministry of Forest has
submitted that a decision was taken by Forest
Advisory Committee on 16th May 2017, while
dealing with Agenda No.1, wherein the Forest
Advisory Committee has opined that
permission to the State Government will not be
granted for considering the application of the
petitioners for forest clearance because of
pendency of this writ petition in which this
Court had passed interim order on 11.01.2017.
After quoting the interim order, the Forest Advisory
Committee opined that the State Government may
not consider the application of the petitioners for
forest clearance.
3. In our view, in our order dated 11.01.2017 there
was no direction with regard to the consideration of
the application of the petitioners for forest clearance.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners
is that this Court may not issue a direction to give
the order/decision to the petitioners on their
application for grant of forest clearance, but the
application for grant of forest clearance filed by the
petitioners may be considered in accordance with
law and the decision on the same be kept in sealedW.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 81 of 85
cover, so that in case this writ petition is allowed,
there may not be any further delay.
4. Since we are of the view that our order dated
11.01.2017 can in no way be interpreted as if we
have expressed any opinion with regard to
consideration of the application of the petitioners for
grant of forest clearance, the opinion given by the
Forest Advisory Committee while dealing with
Agenda No.1 on 18.09.2017 regarding not granting
permission to the State Government to consider the
application of the petitioners for grant of forest
clearance is not justified, as there was no such
observation even made in our order dated
11.01.2017.
5. As such, we allow this application and direct the
opposite parties to consider the application of
the petitioners for grant of forest clearance
under Section 2(ii) of the Forest Conservation
Act, 1980 expeditiously and in accordance
with law, and the same be kept in sealed cover
to be opened as per the direction of this Court
in this writ petition. We make it clear that we
have not expressed any opinion with regard to
merits of the application of the petitioners, which
shall be considered by the concerned authority while
considering the application of the petitioners.
The Misc. Case stands disposed of.”
Despite such clear direction, there has been non-
compliance of such order by the concerned authority.
14.6. On the contrary, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner in his fairness could establish that whereas
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 82 of 85
the petitioner got the approval under Section 2(iii) of the
Forest (Conservation) Act on 09.01.2017 and deposited
Net Present Value on 10.01.2017 and also submitted
compliance on the said date itself, record reveals that
Sree Metaliks Ltd. having obtained approval on
10.01.2017 and there is nothing forthcoming from the
side of the opposite parties to show that Net Present
Value could be deposited prior to the petitioner. It is un-
understandable that if the time could be given for Sree
Metaliks Limited for consideration of its application who
could submit compliance report on the same date when
the petitioner submitted, no explanation is proffered by
the opposite parties in their counter affidavit nor could
any reply be offered in this regard by the learned
Additional Government Advocate.
14.7. In such view of the matter, the stance of the learned
Additional Government Advocate taken that the case of
the petitioner could not be considered inasmuch as it
stood unequally circumstanced in comparison to Sree
Metaliks Limited is repelled.
Conclusion:
15. Having diligently considered each aspect of arguments
advanced by the counsel for the respective parties and
on the afore-discussed factual matrix, in consideration
of provisions embedded in Article 14 of the Constitution
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 83 of 85
of India, this Court finds no other scope than to hold
that the State Government treated the petitioner with
discrimination. As the learned Senior Advocate
representing the petitioner confined his arguments to
invoke doctrine of equality inviting consideration of this
Court for parity in treatment with other entities whose
cases were considered by the State Government with
alacrity on the last date specified in Section 10A(2)(c) of
the MMDR Act read with Rule 8(4) of the MC Rules,
2016 for execution and registration of lease deed, this
Court, hence, holds that the State Government having
admitted that the petitioner has “complied with all the
statutory requirements and submitted compliance
on 10.01.2017”, it could not single out the petitioner.
Therefore, the submission of the learned Additional
Government Advocate is negatived and it is, hence, to be
held that the petitioner being identically circumstanced
with the other entities more particularly in comparison
with the case of Sree Metaliks Limited, the action of the
functionaries of the State Government is tainted with
arbitrariness, whims and it does attract vice of Article 14
of the Constitution of India.
16. Under the above premise, it is felt expedient to issue writ
of mandamus to the opposite parties particularly the
opposite party No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner
as the opposite parties in the written note of submission
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 84 of 85
dated 11.12.2025 admitted that it has complied with all
statutory requirements on 10.01.2017 prior to the cut-
off date envisaged under Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR
Act read with Rule 8(4) of the MC Rules, 2016. Such
exercise and follow up action is required to be completed
within a period of eight weeks from date.
17. With the above observations and directions, the writ
petition including pending Interlocutory Application(s), if
any, stands disposed of; but in the circumstances, there
shall be no order as to costs.
I agree.
(HARISH TANDON) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal
Assistant (Secretary in
Charge)
Reason: Authentication High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Location: ORISSA HIGH The 28th July, 2026//Aswini/Laxmikant
COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 28-Jul-2026 18:24:17
W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017 Page 85 of 85
