INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the proposal made by the Government of Orissa, Department of Steel and Mines by letter No. 550/SM/III (G) SM-36/97 dated 23-1-1999 sent by the Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi and seeking the following reliefs.

(2.) A few facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are indicated hereinbelow : Petitioner No.1, namely, M/s. Indian Charge chrome Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Bomikhal, P.O. Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar, District Khurda, Orissa. M/s. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'IMFA') a shareholder of M/s Indian Charge Chrome Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'ICCL'), is also a company incorporated under the Compaqnies Act, 1956. Petitioner No.1 is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of High Carbon Ferro Chrome/Charge Chrome having its factory at Choudwar in the district of Cuttack which is a 100% Export Oriented Unit. IMFA is an instrumentality of petitioner No.1. It is also carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of Charge Chrome having its factory at Therubali, district Rayagada, Orissa. The need of chrome ore has been assessed for both ICCL and IMFA together, as they constitute groups of companies. Petitioner No. 1 requires the chrome ore as a basic raw-material for manufacture of charge chrome. The capacity of petitioner's plant is 62,500 MT per annum on the basis of which the minimum requirement of chromite ore of petitioner is about two lakhs MT per annum. IMFA's requirement is 90,000MT per annum. It requires about four lakhs tonnes of chrome ore per annum which includes the requirement for making chrome ore pellets for export. The total requirement of IMFA is 5,28,427 tonnes or 6 lakhs tonnes per annum. The requirement of IMFA is based on Sharma Committee Report dated 16-8-1995 and the Central Government approved the same on 17-8-1995. Same was also accepted by the State Government (opposite party No. 2). The working mines available with ICCL and IMFA are hardly 5% of their needs.

(3.) Originally Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'TISCO') was granted mining lease over an area of 1812.993 hectares in Sukinda Valley in the year 1953. In the year 1973 after expiry of the lease period in respect of the mining lease granted to TISCO same was renewed by opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 restricting the area to 1261.476 hectares. As the period of lease was to expire on 12-1-1993, TISCO made an application to opposite party No. 2 for renewal of the mining lease which was duly recommended on 28-11-1992 to opposite party No. 1 by opposite party No. 2 in exercise of power conferred under S. 8 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). According to the petitioner the said recommendation was contrary to the report submitted by B.K. Rao Committee, and also the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India : AIR 1991 SC 818. Opposite party No. 1 though initially reviewed the question of grant renewal of lease in respect of the area allotted to TISCO on 3-6-1993, by its subsequent order dated 5-10-1993 the renewal was ordered only to the extent of 651 hectares, and the remaining area was made available to other industries. The order passed by opposite party No. 1 on 5-10-1993 was challenged by TISCO in this Court by filing O.J.C. No. 7729 of 1993. ICCL - petitioner No.1 also challenged the said order by filing O.J.C. No.5422 of 1994. Petitioner No. 1 main contention was that renewal of 451 hectares in favour of TISCO was quite arbitrary. Likewise, three other parties, namely, IMFA, M/s. Jindal Strips Ltd. and TISCO filed separate writ petitions challenging the order dated 5-10-1993 passed by opposite party No.1. JINDAL filed OJC No. 7054 of 1994 in this Court seeking similar relief including FACOR as an opposite party. This Court by order dated 4-4-1995 set aside the order of renewal passed on 5-10-1993 and directed the Central Government to consider the renewal application of TISCO afresh. During this period opposite party No. 1 appointed a Committee known as Sharma Committee to submit report to it after giving the opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The Sharma Committee in its report dated 16-8-1995 recommended the name of TISCO over an area of 406 hectares. In case of other four parties it suggested that the balance area of 855.476 hectares should be granted in proportion to their needs as given below :