V.V. MINERAL Vs. INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review application came to be filed against the order dated 21.04.2017 in WP(MD). No 4690 of 2017. The Order in the Writ Petition allowed relief to 1REL in respect of their mining entitlement under (i) GOM No 3707 dated 01.11.1968 renewed by GO 3 (D) 6 dated 28.01.2000 and (ii) GOMs No 1114, dated 12.08.1981. The petitioner seeks to grant leave to review the Order on the following grounds.

(2.) The review petitioner avers in the petition that they were not made party to the writ petition, but their valuable rights are vitally affected by the order in the Writ Petition. In the process, they allege that the Order was obtained by the Writ Petitioner by suppressing facts. They further state that IREL had in Para 11 of the affidavit stated that the CRZ clearance in respect of leases in G.O. Ms. No. 1114 dated 108.1981 and G.0.3(D)6 dated 28.01.2000 were rejected since the owners of the surface rights have refused to give consent for mining operation. They further aver that IREL had also stated that the review petitioner had opposed the grant of CRZ clearance to IREL and accordingly the applications were rejected. The IREL appeal against the rejection of CRZ clearance was also failed before the Hon'ble NGT and the Civil Appeal No 5824-25 of 2014 preferred by them is now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The review petitioner points out that TREL had not mentioned that there is no stay in the above Civil Appeal. They state that TREL do not have CRZ clearances to carry out its activities.

(3.) They allege that when the very same leases were denied environmental clearances on the objections of the review petitioners, IREL is at wrong to seek relief through a Writ Petition without impleading the review petitioner. They contended that the act of IREL will amount to bypassing the Order of NGT on the same subject. They further allege that IREL, having failed to obtain stay against the Orders of NGT, through their reprehensible acts, managed to get a final Order in the impugned writ petition, which has the effect of setting aside the NGT order. They contended that IREL cannot get environmental clearances without the consent of the review petitioner as they are the owner of the lands. They further allege that for this reason and to succeed in their diabolic intent, they had not impleaded the review petitioner. The review petitioner emphasise that there is currently a lis pending on the very same lands and the very same issue, that is established by the NGT Order and the affidavit filed by IREL in the Civil Appeal and therefore, the review petitioner has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the Writ Petition.