Supreme Court of India
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LIMITEDversusMR. S.L. SEAL ADDL. SECRETARY (STEEL & MINES) GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 1150
- Decided
- 15 December 2016
- Disposal
- Directions issued
- Bench
- A K SIKRI
Holding
The State Government had complied with the Court’s earlier direction, the 2014 letter was not a "Letter of Intent" under the Act, and the petitioner's pre‑2015 application is ineligible, so the contempt petition is dismissed.
Summary
Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. sought a mining lease for iron ore to feed its steel plant. The State of Odisha had earlier agreed, under an MoU, to recommend the petitioner's case to the Central Government, but the Supreme Court found that the State had complied by sending its recommendation. The petitioner argued that a 2014 letter from the State was a "Letter of Intent" saving its application under Section 10A(2)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as amended in 2015, and that the Central Government’s refusal should constitute contempt. The Court held that the letter was merely recommendatory, not a Letter of Intent, and that the amendment rendered the petitioner's pre‑2015 application ineligible. Consequently, the contempt petition was closed.
Issues considered
- Whether the State Government complied with the Supreme Court's direction to recommend the petitioner's mining lease application to the Central Government.
- Whether the 2014 letter issued by the State Government qualifies as a "Letter of Intent" under Section 10A(2)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
- Whether the petitioner's application is rendered ineligible by Section 1OA(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015.
- Whether the Central Government’s refusal to grant the lease can give rise to contempt of the Supreme Court.
- Interpretation of the saving provisions in Section 1OA(2) of the amended Act.
Legislation cited
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957s. 10A(2)(c), s. 11, s. 5(1)
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015s. 11, s. 1OA(1), s. 1OA(2)
Subjects
mining leaseletter of intentcontempt of courtMines and Minerals Actauctioncentral governmentstate governmenteligibilitysection 10Asection 1OAinter partes contempt
Judgment
(2016] 11 S.C.R. 149
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LIMITED A
v.
MR. S.L. SEAL ADDL. SECRETARY (STEEL & MINES)
GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA & ORS.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 275 of2016)
B
IN
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 374 of2012)
IN
(Civil Appeal No. 2790 of2012)
DECEMBER 15, 2016 c
[A. K. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.)
Contempt of Court - Petitioner-Company applied for grant
of lease for mining iron ore for use in its proposed steel plant -
Application disallowed by the State Government - Petitioner-
Company filed writ petition, which was dismissed - Petitioner filed D
SLP against the dismissal, which was allowed - Supreme Court vide
iudgment dated 14.03.2012 directed the State Government to
recommend the case of petitioner to the Central Government -
Direction not implemented - Contempt petition filed by petitioner-
company against the State - Supreme Court vide order dated
E
22.04.2014 directed the State Government to comply with the earlier
direction in terms of MoU entered between the parties - Instant
contempt petition filed by the petitioner-company pleading that the
State Government did not purge the contempt - Held: As per the
law prevailing at that time, the role of the State Government was
·only to send the recommendations to the Central Government for F
allotting· mining areas -,. Ultimate authority/power was vested with
the Central Government to take a decision on the said request of
the State Government - Since the State Government had sent the
necessary letter of request to the Central Government, direction
contained in the judgment dated 14.03.2012 stood compliedwith -
As Central Government was not party in the contempt proceeding, G
no direction was ever given by Supreme Court to the Central
Government - On contrary, it was observed in order dated
22.04.2014 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 H
149
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r2o 161 11 s.c.R.
A Government, it cannot be subject 111atter of the instant Conte111pt
Petition, which is accordingly closed - Mines and Minerals
(Develop111ent and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015.
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
B 1957 - ss. 5(1), 10A{2J(c), 11 and JJA - Mines and Minerals
(Develop111ent and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 - Petitioner-
Co111pany applied for grant of lease for 111ining iron ore for use in
the proposed plant - Its application recommended to the Central
Govern111ent by the Stale Government - Central Government look
the view that granting of lease has to be dealt with in accordance
c with new provisions of the Ame11d111e//f Act, 2015 and under new
scheme, the petitioner '.I· request stood invalidated - Plea of
Petitioner-Company that the State Government had issued 'Letter
of Intent', therefore, its application was protected u/s. JOA(2){c) of
the amended Act - Held: Previous approval of the Central
D Government was essential for the State Govern111ent to enter into
any lease agreement/contract with the prospecting licensee - Without
such approval, the State Government could not co111111unicate to the
prospecting licensee/lessee its intention to enter into any contract -
Jn instant case, Letter issued to the Central Government by the State
Government was only reco111111endatory in nature and ultimate
E decision rested with the Central Government - Therefore, letter issued
was not 'Letter of Intent' and application of Petitioner not covered
by clause (c) of section 10A(2) of the Act.
Closing the contempt petition, the Court
F HELD: 1. In the instant case, direction was given to the
State Government to send the recommendation for grant of mining
lease to the petitioner. As per the law prevailing at that time, the
role of the State Government was only to send the
recommendation to the Central Government for allotting mining
areas. Ultimate authority/power was vested with the Central
G Government to take a decision on the said request of the State
Government. Since the Sta~e Government had even refused to
send such a request, this Court was of the view that the act of the
State Government in refusing to send recommendation was
contrary to the MoU and direction was issued to do the needful.
H In the order passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 374 of 2012,
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. MR. S.L. SEAL ADDL. 151
SECY. (STEEL & MINES) GOVT. OF ODISHA
this was made clear by observing that insofar as the State A
Government is concerned, it is obliged to comply therewith and
such matters, along with other relevant considerations, can be
left to the Central Government while taking a decision on the
recommendation of the State Government. That since the Union
of India was not a party, no direction was given to it. On the
8
contrary, it was left to the Central Government to take an
appropriate decision on the recommendation'of the State
Government. This was made clear in the judgment in Contempt
Petition (Civil) No. 374 of 2012 by observing that it would be for
the Central Government to consider the said recommendations
on its own merits and in accordance with law. Since the State c
Government had sent the necessary letter of request to the
Central Government, direction contained in the judgment dated
March 14, 2012 stands complied with. (Paras 14, 15)[164-F-H;
165-A-C)
Whether the application of the petitioner is rendered ineligible D
in view of Section lOA of the Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957 or whether it still survives.
2.1 As per sub-section (1) of Section lOA of the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, all
applications received prior to coming into force of the E
Amendment Act, 2015, become ineligible. Before the passing
of the Amendment Act, 2015, it was the Central Government
which had the ultimate control over the grant of licenses
insofar as mining of major minerals is concerned. As per the
procedure then existing, State Government could recommend
the application submitted by any applicant for grant of mining F
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. G
Shortcomings of this procedure were noticed by Supreme Court
in its judgment 'CPIL case'. Susequently, Mining Ordinance,
2015 was passed which was ultimately replaced when the
Parliament enacted the Amendment Act, 2015. [Paras 15, 16)(165-
C, E-G; 166-,\-BJ
H
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R.
A 2.2 Amended Section 11 now makes it clear that the mining
leases arc to be granted by auction. It is for this reason that sub-
section (1) of Section lOA mandates that all applications received
prior to January 12, 2015 shall become ineligible.
Notwithstanding, sub-section (2) thereof carves out exceptions
by saving certain categories of applications even filed before the
B
Amendment Act, 2015 came into operation. Three kinds of
applications are saved. [Para 21](167-C-D]
2.3 First, applications received under Section llA of the
Act. Section UA empowers the Central Government to select
certain kinds of companies mentioned in the said Section, through
c auction by competitive bidding on such terms and conditions, as
may be prescribed, for the purpose of granting reconnaissance
permit, prospecting license or mining lease in respect of any area
containing coal or lignite. Second category of applications, which
are kept eligible under the new provision, are those where the
D reconnaissance, permit or prospecting license had been granted
and the permit holder or the licensee, as the case may be, had
undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations.
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
E
Government had issued Letter of Intent to grant a mining lease
before coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015. Here
again, the raison d'etre is that certain right had accrued to these
applicants inasmuch as all the necessary procedures and
formalities were complied with under the unamended provisions
F and only formal lease deed remained to be executed. Herc, 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'. [Paras 21 to 23](167-E, G-H; 168-B-
D]
G 2.4 In the present case, the petitioner is treating letter,
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'. However, it is substantive nature of the letter in question
that would determine as to whether it can be treated as the Letter
H
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. MR. S.L. SEAL ADDL. 153
SECY. (STEEL & MINES) GOVT. OF ODISHA
of Intent. As per legal dictionary, Letter of Intent is a document A
that describe the preliminary understanding between the parties
who intend to make a contract or join together in another action.
Further, this Court has held that Letter of Intent merely indicates
a party's intention to enter into contract with other party in future.
Applying the aforesaid meaning, it cannot be said that letter dated
B
May 24, 2014 of the State Government would constitute a Letter
of Intent. [Paras 23, 24 and 25][168-E, G; 170-C-F, HJ
2.5 In order to enable the State Government to enter into
any lease agreement/contract with the prospecting licensee,
'previous approval' of the Central Government was essential.
Unless such approval came, the State Government could not c
communicate to the prospecting licensee/lessee its intention to
enter into any contract as the pre-requisite prior approval. woulil
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 D
letter been issued after receiving previous approval ofthe 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 ma/a /ides or does not take into E
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 seekjudicial review of such an action. However, F
that situation is not being dealt in the instant case. The letter
dated May 24, 2014 cannot be termed as 'Letter oflntent'. The
application of the petitioner, therefore, would not be covered by
clause (e) of Section 10A(2) of the Act. [Para 25)(170-D-G; 171-
A)
G
2.6 The petitioner herein had originally succeeded in the
appeal inasmuch as judgment dated March 14, 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
H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f20 I 61 I I S.C.R.
A decision was reiterated in orders dated April 22, 2014 passed in
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 374 of 2012. It is possible that bad
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
B 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 April 22, 2014 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 374 of 2012
that it would be for the Central Government to consider the
recommendations of the State Government on its own merits and
C in accordance with law. If that bas not been done by the Central
Government, it cannot be the subject matter of present Contempt
Petition. [Para 26] [171-B-D]
Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited v. Board of Ti-ustees
of Kand/a Port Trust and Others (2015) 13 SCC 233 :
D 2015 (5) SCR 411; Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy
Federation Ltd. v. Maha Laxmi Mingrate Marketing
Service Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (1996) 10 SCC 405 : 1996
(6) Suppl. SCR 368 - relied on.
Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. v. State ofOrissa (2012) 4
SCC 246: 2012 (5) SCR 16; Bhushan Power and Steel
E Limited and Ors. v. Rajesh Verma and Ors. (2014) 5
SCC 551: 2014 (5) SCR 493; Sandur Manganese and
Iron Ores Limited i: State of Karnataka & Ors. (2010)
13 SCC 1: 2010 (11) SCR 240; Centre for Public
Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1
F : 2012 (3) SCR 147; Re.: Sp!. Ref No. I of 2012 (2012)
10 SCC :2012 (9) SCR 311 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2012 (5) SCR 16 referred to Para 2
2014 (~) SCR 493 referred to Para 3
70JO (11) SCR 240 referred to Para3
G 2012 (3) SCR 147 referred to Para 16
2()12 (9) SCR 311 referred to Para 16
2015 (~) SCR 411 relied on Para 24
1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 368 relied on Para 24
•
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil)
H No. 275of2016 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 374 of2012 in Civil
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. S. L. SEAL ADDL. SECY. 155
(STEEL & MINES) GOVT. OF ODISHA
Appeal No. 2790 of2012. A
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2007 of the High Com1
ofOrissa at Cuttack in W. ~- (C) No. 6646 of2006.
Maninder Singh, ASG., Kap ii Sibal, P. Chidambram, Sr. Advs., R.
Balasubramanian, Prabhas Bajaj, Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Aarti Sharma,
Gurmeet Singh Makker,Mahesh Agarwal, Ms. Radhika Gautam, B
Ms. Sadapurna Mukharjee, E. C. Agrawala, Ashish Kumar Sinha,
Shibashish Misra, Ad vs., with them for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. K. SIKRI, J. I. The erstwhile Bhushan Ltd. (predecessor-
in-interest of the petitioner) had proposed setting up of plant in some c
identified villages in the district ofSambalpur, Odisha. Forth is purpose,
it had made a request for acquisition of land, measuring 1250 acres,
which was acquired for Bhushan Ltd. It had also applied for grant of
lease of mining of iron ore for use in the proposed plant. These applications
were favourably considered by the State ofOdisha (hereinafter referred
D
to as the 'State Government') which agreed to accord due priority to
Bhushan Ltd. for grant of suitable iron ore areas and also agreed to
recommend the proposal to the Government oflndia for grant of a coal
block. Even a MoU was entered into between the State Government
and Bhushan Ltd. containing the commitment of the State Government
to recommend to the Central Government, grant of iron ore mines for its E
use in the proposed plant. For this purpose, area earmarked for
recommendation were Thakurani area with 96 million tonnes iron ore
reserves and Keora area, District Sundargarh for additional 128 million
tonnes of iron ore; both for 50 years' requirement of the plant. Though
various statutory and other permissions required for setting up of the
plant were granted and the plant was also set up, but due to some in-
F
fight between the family members who owned Bhushan Ltd., it faced
difficulties in getting the grant of iron ore lease.
2. Insofar as granting of mining lease of iron ore reserves in the
aforesaid areas is concerned, it fell into rough weather. It resulted into
show-cause notice dated January 18, 2006 by the State Government G
which led to the decision that mining lease over the Thakurani area
could not be allowed on various grounds and the application made by
Bhushan Ltd. was premature. Thereafter, the Government of Orissa
made a recommendation to the Central Government on February 09,
2006 to grant mining lease in favour of one Mis Neepaz Metallics (P) H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f20161 11 S.C.R.
A Ltd. in relaxation of Rule 59( I) of the Mining Rules, for a period of 30
years. Challenging these orders, Bhushan Ltd. filed Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 6646 of2006 in the High Court on May 08, 2006. This writ petition
was dismissed by the High Court on December 14, 2007 and challenging
this decision a special leave petition was filed in which leave was granted,
thereby converting the special leave petition into Civil Appeal No. 2790
B
of2012. This appeal was allowed by this Court videjudgment dated
March 14, 2012, which was reported as Bllus/um Power & Steel Ltd.
v. St"te ofOriss"' ·with the following directions: (SCC p. 256, paras 41-
42)
"41 ... Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment
c and order of the High Court ofOrissa and also the decision of
the State Government dated 9-2-2006, rejecting the appellant's
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
D appellants can also be accommodated. We, accordingly, direct
the State of Orissa to take appropriate steps to act in terms of
the MoU dated 15-5-2002, 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.l'
E
3. It would be pertinent to mention that the State ofOdisha had
filed a review petition seeking review of this judgment but the same was
rejected vide order dated September 11, 2012. Pursuant to the aforesaid
directions, though Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. has been given Thakurani
Block A, the order was not implemented qua Keora, District Sundargarh.
F The petitioner treated the aforesaid inaction on the part of the State
Government' as ~ontemptuous and filed Contempt Petition (Civil) No.
374 of2012=. This petition was contested by the respondents on various
grounds. Main contention raised was that the direction given by this
Court in its judgment dated March 14, 2012 was incapable of
G enforcement. Forth is purpose, the State Government had placed reliance
upon the subsequent judgment of this Court in S"ndur M"ng"nese "nd
Iron Ores Limited·v. St"te of K"rn"t"k" & Ors.3 and submitted that
• (2012) 4 sec 246 -
2
Bhushan Power and Steel Limited & Ors. v. Rajesh Verma & Ors., (2014) 5 ~C
551 .
H ' (2010) 13.SCC I
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. S. L. SEAL ADDL. SECY. 157
(STEEL & MINES) GOVT. OF ODISHA [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
in view of the law laid down in the said judgment, it was not possible to A
carry out the directions contained in the judgment rendered on Mar.ch
14, 2012 passed in the case of the petitioner herein.
4. Without going' into the niceties by stating the bas-is of the said
plea taken by the State Government, suffice is to state that the aforesaid
stand did not find favour with this Court. It was found that the contemnors/ B
officials of the State Government were in contempt of the orders dated
March 14, 2012. In these circumstances, one more opportunity was
given to the State Government to send requisite recommendation to the
Central Government. However, for a better understanding of the nature
of directions which were given, we reproduce following extracts from
the judgment dated April 22, 2014 in the said Contempt Petition: c
"21. We cannot lose sight of the fact that there is a judgment,
inter parties. 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 D
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 in Sandur Manganese E
case, cannot be a ground to undo the directions contained in the
judgment dated 14-3-2012. 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 gua F
the petitioner whose rights have been i:ystal Ii zed by the judgment
rendered in its favour. It cannot be reopened, that too at the
stage of implementation of the said judgment.
22. We would like to place on record the arguments of the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the total area under
G
notification is 731.67 sq km and out of this 406 sq km is yet to be
allotted. The area which comes to the share of the petitioner
underMoU is 13.91 sq km which is barely 3%of 406 sq km and,
therefore recommendation by the State Government in favour
of the petitioner cannot be stalled or put to naught only on the
H
158. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R.
A basis of inchoate applications, fate whereof is yet to be decided.
It is also pointed out that insofar as the petitioners in other writ
petitions are concerned area claimed by them is not overlapping
with the petitioner's area. However, it may not even be necessary
to go into these contentions in detail. Once we hold that the
respondents are bound to implement the direction contained in
B
the judgment dated 14-3-2012, 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.
c Xx xx xx
24. As a consequence, we hold that the respondents/contemnors
are in contempt oforders dated 14-3-2012 passed by this Court
in not complying with the directions in respect of Keora area.
However, we are giving one final opportunity to them to purge
D 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
E propose not to take any further action and the respondents/
contemnors shall stand 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."
F
5. According to the petitioner, the respondent State Government
has not purged the contempt and, therefore, in view of the opportunity
granted in the judgment dated April 22, 2014, as contained in paragraph
24 extracted above, the petitioner has moved the instant Contempt Petition
in which we have heard Mis. Kapil Sibal and P. Chidambaram, learned
G senior counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Maninder Singh, learned
Additional Solicitor General for the Union oflndia, and Mr. Ashish Kumar
Sinha, Advocate for the State Government.
6. We may mention at the outset that it is not disputed by the
petitioner that after the directions dated April 22, 2014 given in the earlier
H Contempt Petition, the State Government had sent requisite
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. S. L. SEAL ADDL. SECY. 159
(STEEL & MINES) GOVT. OF ODISHA [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
recommendation to the Central Government for grant of mining lease in A
the area in question. The Central Government has, however, taken the
view that having regard to the amendments in the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, the 'Act'), vide
Mine and Minerals (Development and Regulation)AmendmentAct, 2015
(hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act, 20 I 5) dated March 26,
8
2015, the grant of mining lease has to be dealt with in accordance with
the new provisions introduced by the Amendment Act, 2015 and under
the new scheme, the petitioner's earlier request stands invalidated. This
view of the Central Government is contained in its letters dated May 13,
2015 and May 29, 2015 addressed to the State Government, with copies
to the petitioner. The State Government has in turn written to the petitioner c
vide Jetter dated July 09, 2016 on the same lines. The petitioner has,
however, taken the position that the amended sections have a saving
provision, in which category the case of the petitioner falls, and in view
thereof the approval of the Central Government is not even required
and, therefore, the State Government was competent to grant the mining
D
lease itself. It is for this reason the petitioner has impleaded Union of
India as well, as respondent in the present proceedings and one of the
prayers is to quash the letters dated May 13, 2015 and May 29, 2015
issued by the Central Government, as well as the communication dated
July 09, 2015 issued by the State Government.
7. At this stage, we may reproduce the exact prayers made by the E
petitioner in this Contempt Petition:
"{a) Initiate contempt of court proceedings against the
Respondents/Contemnors and after hearing them, punish them
for willfully flouting and deliberately disobeying the judgments
and orders dated 14.3.2012 and 22.4.2014 passed by this Hon'ble F
Court in Civil Appeal No. 2790 of2012 and Contempt Petition
(Civil)No. 374/2012 respectively.
(b) Hold that the letters dated 13/05/2015 and 29/05/2015 issued
by the Central Government (Annexure 9 & I 0) and letter dated
09/07/2015 (Annexure 12) issued by the State Government are G
in breach and contempt of Judgments and Orders of this Hon 'ble
Court and are thus of no legal consequence and effect.
(c) Pass appropriate directions, directing the Respondents to
comply with and implement the judgments of this Hon 'ble Court
dated 14.3.2012 and 22.4.2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court in H
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R.
A Civil Appeal No. 2790 of2012 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No.
374/2012 respectively and within two weeks ofreceipt ofnotice,
to execute mining leases as recommended in Annexure Nos. P-
S and P-6.
(d) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court
B may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case."
8. As pointed out above, the petitioner accepts the fact that the
State Government had in fact made the recommendation dated May 24,
2014 to the Central Government for grant of mining lease over an area
c of 1063 .633 hectares in village Rakina, Marsuan, Tibira and in Khajurdihi
RF (Keora Sector) in the districts of Keonjhar and Sundergarh. It is
further stated that despite this recommendation, the Central Government
did not take any action to grant the approval. In the meantime, on January
12, 2015, the Central Government promulgated an Ordinance amending
the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. This
D Ordinance was made into an Act of Parliament on March 26, 2015 with
effect from January 12, 2015. On May 13, 2015, the Central Government
has issued a letter to the State Government, a copy whereof was also
marked to the petitioner, stating that:
"3. As per details available with the Ministry, this proposal for
E accord of prior approval for grant of mineral concession becomes
ineligible as per the provisions of Section 1OA(l) of the
Amendment Act. Accordingly, the proposal should be treated
as closed and necessary order may be ssued. The State
Government may also ascertain whether the proposal is saved
F from ineligibility under the provisions of Section 1OA of the
Amendment Act, 2015 before communicating the same to the
applicant and take fol lowing action in this matter:
(i) if the proposal is ineligible, it may be treated as closed and
necessary order may be issued; and
G (ii) ifthe proposal remain eligible, the State Government (sic)
bring it to the notice of the Ministry so that necessary action as
per provisions of the Amended Act may be taken."
9. A few days later, the Central Government wrote another letter
dated May 29, 2015 regarding proposal for grant of ML for iron ore over
H an area of 1390.663 hectares in village Rakma, Marsuan and Triba of
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. S. L. SEAL ADDL. SECY. 161
(STEEL & MINES) GOVT. OF ODISHA [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
Keonjhardistrict and Khajuridihi ofSundargah district stating as follows: A
"As per details available with the Ministry, this proposal for accord
of prior approval for grant of mineral concession becomes
ineligible as per the provisions of Section lOA(I) of the
Amendment Act. The matter may be treated as closed.
However, the State Government is advised to examine the B
proposal and in case there is strong case for the concession to
be saved from ineligibility under the provision of Section 1O(a) of
the Amendment Act then this Ministry may be informed
accordingly for further necessary action."
10. Letter dated July 09, 2015 sent by the State Government to c
the petitioner rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of mining
lease reads as under:
"And whereas, as per section- I OA( I) of MMDR Amendment
Act, 2015, all applications received prior to the date of
commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and D
Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, shall become ineligible.
And whereas, both the ML application No. 775 dated 04.12.2001
and ML application No. 780 dated 01.03.2002 of the applicant
company are the fresh applications seeking grant of mining leases,
which have been recommended to Government oflndia prior to E
the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015.
Therefore, after careful consideration of the facts &
circumstances and materials on record, the State Government is
pleased to reject the ML application No. 775 dated 04.12.200 I F
and ML application No. 780, dated 01.03.2002 of the applicant
company being ineligible as per the provisions of section-I OA( 1)
of the Amendment Act, 2015 ."
11. It is in the aforesaid background, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner argued that the aforesaid approach of the
G
Central Government as well as the State Government contained in their
respective communications is totally misconceived inasmuch as direction
of this Court, which is inter parties, still remain binding, notwithstanding
the introduction of Section 1OA by the Amendment Act, 2015. It is also
argued that even if the said Amendment Act applies, case of the petitioner
is preserved and protected under Section I OA(2)(C) of the Act. Section H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f20161 11 S.C.R.
A I OA makes the following reading:
"lOA. Rights of existing concession-holders and
applicants. - (I) All applications received prior to the date of
commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, shall become
B ineligible.
(2) Without prejudice to sub-secion (I), the following shall remain
eligible on and from the date of commencement of the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,
2015-
c (a) applications received under section I IA 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
Iicensee shall have a right for obtaining a prospecting Iicence
D
followed by a mining lease, or a mining lease, as the case may
be, in respect of that mineral in that land, ifthe State Government
is satisfied that the permit-holder or the licensee, as the case
may be,-
(i) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting
E 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;
(ii) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions
of the reconnaissance permit or the prospecting licence;
F (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 ofreconnaissance permit or prospecting
G 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 (I} of section 5 for grant
of a mining lease, or if a letter of intent (by whatever name
H
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. S. L. SEAL ADDL. SECY. 163
(STEEL & MINES) GOVT. OF ODISHA [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
called) has been issued by the State Government to grant a mining A
lease, before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation)AmendmentAct, 2015, the mining
lease shall be granted subject to ulfillment of the conditions of
the previous approval or of the letter ofintent within a period of
two years from the date of commencement of the said Act:
B
Provided that in respect of any mineral specified in the First
Schedule, no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted
under clause (b) of this sub-section except with the previous
approval of the Central Government."
12. It was argued with vehemence that even when under sub-
c
section. (1) of Section 1OA, 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©
thereof is invoked by the petitioner to submit that in the instant case
since 'Letter of Intent' had been issued by the State Government to
grant a mining lease, the petitioner's application stands protected. For D
this purpose, recommendation dated May 24, 2014 is treated as Letter
of Intent by the petitioner, laying emphasis on the words 'fetter ofintent
(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 May 24, 2014 of the State
E
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 I OA, approval of the Central Government was not even required
and the State Government could have proceeded further and granted F
the lease.
13. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General,
submitted, on the other hand, that the view taken by the Central
Government in its communications dated May 24, 2014 and May 29,
2015 is in accordance with the provisions of Section I OA of the Act. It G
was argued that letter dated May 24, 2014 cannot be treated as Letter
of Intent as on the date of writing this letter, the State Government had
no such power to give Letter oflntent without the prior approval of the
Central Government. Therefore, it was only a request to the Central
Government for considering the case of the petitioner favourably. It is
H
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R.
A further submitted that Letter oflntent mentioned in clause (c) deals with
the situations where sanction from the Central Government is received
and Letter oflntent is issued but no formal lease executed. Only those
cases are protected with. It was further submitted that after coming
into effect the amended provision, the very methodology of grant of
mining lease has tindergone a significant change inasmuch as now the
B
leases are to be granted through auction, which is so specifically pr01 ided
in the amended Section 11 of the Amendment Act, 20 I 5. It is for this
reason, requirement of prior approval of the Central Government is
dispense~ with. Learned Additional Solicitor General further submitted
that there is no contempt of the orders of this Court inasmuch as the
C only direction given in the impugned judgment dated March 14, 2012
was to the State Government to send the recommendation, which direction
was reiterated in the judgment dated April 22, 2014 passed in the Contempt
Petition as well. The State Government complied with this direction by
sending such a recommendation to the Central Government. Therefore,
the present contempt petition was not even maintainable. Counsel for
0
the State Government supported the aforesaid stand taken by the learned
Additional Solicitor General.
14. We have to bear in mind that the matter is being dealt with in
a Contempt Petition. Therefore, what is to be seen is as to whether
directions contained in the judgment are complied with or not. In the
E main appeal which was filed by the petitioner against the judgment of
the Orissa High Court, it was allowed vide judgment dated March 14,
2012. Direction was given to the State Government to send the
recommendation for grant of mining lease to the petitioner. As per the
law prevailing at that time, the role of the State Government was only to
F send the recommendation to the Central Government for allotting mining
areas. Ultimate authority/power was vested with the Central Government
to take a decision on the said request of the State Government. Since
the State Government had even refused to send such a request, this
Court- was of the view that the act of the State Government in refusing
to send recommendation was contrary to the MoU dated May 15, 2002
G and direction was issued to do the needful. In the order dated April 22,
2014, passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 374 of2012, this was
made clear by observing that 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 Central Government
H while taking a decision on the recommendation of the State Government.
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. S. L. SEAL ADDL. SECY. 165
(STEEL & MINES) GOVT. OF ODISHA [A. K,SIKRI, J.]
We state at the cost of repetition that since the Union of India was not a A
party, no direction was given to it. On the contrary, it was left to the
Central Government to take an appropriate decision on the
recommendation of the State Government. This was made clear in para
24 of the judgment dated April 22, 2014 by observing that it would be for
the Central Government to consider the said recommendations on its
B
own merits and in accordance with law.
15. Since the State Government had sent the necessary letter of
request to the Central Government, direction contained in the judgment
dated March 14, 2012 stands complied with. The issue now raised, as
reflected and discussed in the earlier portion of th is judgment, is whether
the application of the petitioner is rendered ineligible in view of Section
c
I OA 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 1OA(2) and further that since no approval of the Central
Government is required now, the State Government could itself grant D
the lease. It is argued that failure of the State Government amounts to
contempt of the orders of this Court.
16. Undoubtedly, as per sub-section (I) of Section IOA, all
applications received prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act,
2015, become ineligible. Reason for interpreting such a provision is not E
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
licenses insofar as mining of major minerals is concerned. As per the
procedure then existing, State Government could rec.ommend the
application submitted by any applicant for grant of mining,.lease to the
Central Government and the Central Government was given the power F
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/or Public G
Interest Litigation Vs. Union of Jndi~ (for short, 'CPIL case') and
also in Re.: Sp/. Ref. No. I of 2012·'. In these judgments, this Court
expressed that allocation of natural resources should normally be by
auction. Judgment in CPIL case had a direct relevance to the grant of
• (2012)3sec1
' (2012) 10 sec 1 H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016) 11 S.C.R.
A mineral concessions as the Government found that it was resulting in
multipurpose litigation which was becoming counter productive. Mining
Ordinance, 2015 was passed on January 12, 2015 which was ultimately
replaced when the Parliament enacted the Amendment Act, 2015. ·
17. The exhaustive Statement of Objects and Reasons reveals
8 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
c will improve; 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.
18. The Amendment Act, 2015, as is evident from the objects,
D 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
E mineral resources; and (vi) attracting private investment and the latest·
technology.
19. The Amendment Act, 2015 ushered in the amendment of
Sections 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6, 13, 15, 21 and First Schedule; substitution of new
sections for Sections 8, 11 and 13; and, insertion of new sections 8A, 98,
p 9C, JOA, IOC, 11 B, 11 C, I 2A, I 5A, 17A, 20A, 308, 30C and Fourth
Schedule.
20. 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 March 31, 2030 (in the case of captive
G mines) and till March 31, 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
H cledicated fund for encouraging exploration and investment; (v) removal
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. S. L. SEAL ADDL. SECY. 167
(STEEL & MINES) GOVT. OF ODISHA [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
of the provisions requiring 'previous approval' from the Central A
Government for grant of mineral concessions in case ofimportant minerals
like iron ore, bauxite, manganese etc. thereby makingthe process simpler
and quicker; (vi) introduction of stringent penal provisions to check illegal
mining prescribing higher penalties up to ' 5 lakhs per hectare and
imprisonment up to 5 years; and (vii) further empowering the State
B
Government to set up Special Courts for trial of offences under the Act.
2 LNewly 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 c
for this reason that sub-section (I) of Section I OA mandates that all
applications received prior to January 12, 2015 shall become ineligible.
Notwithstanding, 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. D
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 license combining lease through auction in respect
of minerals, other than notified minerals. Section ·I IA empowers the·
Central Government to select certain kinds of companies mentioned in E
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 license 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 F
which were mentioned in the old provision. It is for this reason, if
applications were received even under unamended Section I IA, they
are saved and protected, which means that these applications can be ·
processed under Section I IA of the Act.
Second category of applications, which are kept eligible under the G
new provision, are those where the reconnaissance, permit o~ prospecting
license had been granted and the permit holder or the licensee, as the
case inay 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 license, had altered their H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f20 I61 I I S.C.R.
A position by spending lot of money on reconnaissance operations or
prospecting operations. This category, therefore, respects the. principle
oflegitimate expectation.
22. Third category is that category of applicants where the Central
Government had already communicated previous approval under Section
B 5( I) of the Act for grant of mining lease or the State Government had
issued Letter oflntent to grant a mining lease before coming into force
of the Amendment Act, 2015. Here again, the raison d'etre 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.
c
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
the Parliament to make such a provision saving those rights, and
understandably so.
D 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
May 24, 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 lntel1f '. It is in this
E hue, submission is that the intention behind the said letter is to be seen
even ifit is not termed as 'Letter ofIntent' 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 ofIntent' is to be given wider connotation.
F It ~1eans that nomenclature of the Jetter 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,
G Letteroflntent 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. In Rislli Kinm Logistics Private Limited v. Boanl
of Trustees ofKa,,dla Port Trust and Otllers6, relying upon an eaflier
H 6(201si 13 sec 233
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. S. L. SEAL ADDL. SECY. 169
(STEEL & MINES) GOVT. OF ODISHA [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
decision, this Court held that a Letter oflntent merely indicates a party's A
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, wh110.: 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 B
Kandla Port Trust. As per Clause 12 thereof the Po11 Trust had
reserved with itself right of acceptance or rejection of any bid
with specific stipulation that mere payment of EMO and offering
of premium will not confer any right or interest in favour of the
bidder for allotment ofland, Such a right to reject the bid could
be exercised "at any time without assigning any reasons thereto".
c
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 D
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. v. Bindal Agro
Chem Ltd. would be squarely available in the present case,
wherein the Court held that: (SCC p. 773, paras 39-40)
E
"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 F
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 G
be termed as a letter of intent, it may amount to acceptance of
the offer resulting in a concluded contract between the parties.
But the question whether the letter ofintent 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 H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . f2016] 11 S.C.R.
A 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
8 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 ofland, in the interregnum, shot
up sharply, the respondent had a right to cancel the process
which had not resulted in a concluded contract."
c
{See also Raj(lstltan Cooperative D"iry Federation Ltd. v.
Malza Laxmi Mingrate M"rketing Service Pvt. Ltd. "nd
Ors. 7 }.
25. Applying the aforesaid meaning, can it be said that letter dated
D May 24, 2014 of the State Government wou Id 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 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
E the prospecting licensee/lessee its intention to enter into any contract as
the pre-requisite 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 May 24, 2014 been issued after receiving
F 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 ma/a fides or does not take into consideration
relevant factors/material while rejecting the application, which may fonn
G 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
H
1
(1996) 10 sec 405
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. S. L. SEAL ADDL. SECY. 171
(STEEL & MINES) GOVT. OF ODISHA [A. K. SIKRI, J.J
dated May 24, 2014 can be termed as 'Letter ofIntent'. For the reasons A
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 I OA of the Act.
26. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioner herein had
originally succeeded in the appeal inasmuch as judgment dated March B
14, 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 April 22, 2014 passed in
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 374 of2012. It is possible that had the
State Govenunent acted promptly and sent the recommendations earlier, c
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 April 22, 20 I 4 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 374 of D
20 I 2 that it would be for the Central Government to consider the
recomn1endations 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.
27. This Contempt Petition, thus, stands closed with the aforesaid E
observations.
Ankit Gyan Contempt petition closed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "mining lease"Sign in to search