JAYASWAL NECOM INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for issuance of direction for quashing, (i) the letter dtd. 22/8/2008 issued by the respondent No.4/Steel Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred as "SAIL"), (ii) the letter dtd. 31/10/2008 issued by the Respondent No.3 / Ministry of Steel, Government of India (hereinafter referred "Ministry of Steel") D.O. no. 14/8/88/S-CIP-Vol.X and (iii) the letter dtd. 12/11/2008 issued by the Ministry of Steel to the petitioner whereby the respondents have turned back on their promises and denied supply of iron ore to the petitioner. The petitioner has made the following prayers:-

(2.) The factual background of the case is that the Government of Madhya Pradesh (as was then, before creation of Chhattisgarh as an independent State) on 27/6/1992 announced special incentive scheme for establishment of new Integrated Steel Plants with an investment of more than Rs.1000.00crores. The State Government on 20/1/1993 in consultation with the Central Government constituted a Task Force to identify suitable locations of captive iron ore mines for the proposed steel plants to be setup inter alia by the petitioner and registered under the Promotional Scheme. The respondent no.1/Ministry of Mines, Government of India on 5/3/1993 announced the National Mineral Policy, 1993 which reflects the decision of the Government of India to do away with the present restrictive policy of reservation of certain minerals for exclusive exploitation by the public sector undertaking.

(3.) The Respondent No.1/ Ministry of Mines, has submitted that the issuance of Notification dtd. 20/7/2006 in supersession of Notification dtd. 3/12/2004, reserving an area of 2028.797 hect. covering seven sub blocks of ,,F Block Deposit of Rowghat was based on the letter dtd. 27/4/2006 received from the State Government giving no objection and the Reservation was done over an area over which Prospecting license or Mining Lease was not held by any anyone before. The Respondent No.1 further submits that the commitment if made between two commercial parties if not part of the mining lease deed is not covered under the MMDR Act. The Respondent No.1 further submits that the commercial agreements lie between two commercial parties and the Respondent No.1 is agreeable to any directions passed by this Court.