SOMADARSAN MOHANTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been styled as a Public Interest Litigation. We have heard the petitioner in person, learned counsel for Union of India, learned Advocate General for the State of Orissa, Mr. S. Pal for the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred as TISCO and also Ms. Indira Jayasingh for opposite party Nos. 6 and 7). By this petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the CBI to investigate into allegations of kick-back of crores of rupees for withdrawing the condition of captive use of ore extracted from the lease hold mine and for quashing letter dated 23.7.97 issued by the Government of Orissa withdrawing such condition and also for an order of injunction restraining inter alia, TISCO from selling chrome ore extracted from the said lease hold mine at Sukinda Valley etc.

(2.) At the very outset Mr. S. Pal appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 3 being TISCO contended that the instant petition is not maintainable as a public interest litigation at the instance of the petitioner. It is contended that none of the personal rights of the petitioner, whether fundamental or legal, has been infringed. This petition has nothing to do with writ of habeas corpus or writ of quo warranto. In the petition, nothing could be stated for which it can be treated as a public interest litigation also. Hence it has been contended by Mr. S. Pal on behalf of TISCO that this petition should be dismissed at the threshold without entering into the question of merit. This case was fixed for hearing today for disposal, if possible, at the admission stage. After this question of preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition was raised, we have decided to hear the matter on this question first and accordingly, we heard the petitioner in person apart from aforesaid other counsel appearing for the respective parties. However, it needs to be mentioned at the very outset that no notice was issued to some of the opposite parties as the question of maintainability has been raised in this petition at the admission stage itself and accordingly we felt it necessary to decide this question first before issuing any notice to those opposite parties who have not entered appearance on their own. Though some of the opposite parties, as already stated above, have already entered appearance on their own, and accordingly, we heard them.

(3.) The case of the petitioner in brief is that by profession he is an advocate practising law in this Court for the last 14 years. He is a public spirited citizen. He takes up the causes where substantial public interest is involved. Basic facts of the case have been culled out by the petitioner from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2462, and some local newspaper reports and the same have been set out in the petition. It appears therefrom that in or about 1952 said TISCO obtained mining lease over an area of 1813 hectares of land for a period of 20 years from the Raja of Sukinda for mining operation to extract chrome. Subsequently, after enactment of Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952, all the rights and interest of the Raja in or over the said leased out land have been vested in the State Government. However, State of Orissa recognized the lease granted in favour of the TISCO for a period of 20 years with effect from 12.1.1953. Since the said lease was due to expire on 12.1.1973, TISCO applied for renewal of the lease which was duly granted under Section 8(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 for an area of 1261.467 hactares for a period of 20 years till 1 1.1.1993 subject to the condition that it would set up beneficiation plant. On October 3, 1991 little more than a year before expiry of the aforesaid lease. TISCO again applied for a second renewal of the said lease for a further period of 20 years. The State of Orissa forwarded its recommendation in favour of the TISCO to the Central Government for renewal for a further period of 10 years. On 3.6.1993, Government of India approved renewal of the lease over the entire area of 1261.467 hectares. However, due to a complaint of G.C. Munda, Member of Parliament, the said lease could not be executed by the Central Government and accordingly, the Central Government directed execution of the lease deed to be kept in abeyance. By an order dated 5.10.1993 in supersession of its aforesaid earlier approval dated 3.6.1993 the Central Government directed renewal of lease in favour of TISCO for an area of 651 hectares. As the area of lease was reduced by the said order of approval, TISCO preferred a writ petition in this Court being OJC No. 7729 of 1993. During pendency of the said writ petition in this Court, some of the companies being Indian Charge Chrome Limited and Jindal Strips Limited also preferred two writ petitions in this Court being OJC No. 5422 of 1994 and OJC No. 7054 of 1994 respectively challenging both the orders of the Central Government. This Court by a common judgment dated 4.4.1995 disposed of all those writ petitions striking down the orders of the Central Government. It further directed the Central Government. It further directed the Central Government to reconsider TISCO's application for renewal of lease, in accordance with law. In compliance with the aforesaid decision of this Court, Central Government constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of one S.D. Sharma for rehearing and reconsidering those questions with regard to the prayer of TISCO for renewal of its mining lease. On 16.8.1995, the said Committee under the Chairmanship of S.D. Sharma submitted its report recommending renewal of the lease for a reduced area in favour of TISCO. Acting on that report, the Central Government by an order dated 17.8.1995 approved renewal of TISCO's lease over a reduced area of 406 hectares of land. It is the case of the petitioner that if the mining lease is granted in respect of 406 hectares in favour of the TISCO, it would meet TISCO's captive requirement and accordingly the Central Government directed the State Government to issue orders for the same. Simultaneously, the Central Government further directed the State Government to grant mining lease to four other parties namely, Indian Charge Chrome Limited, Jindal Strips Limited, Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys and Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited for the balance area of 855.476 hectares. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of approval of the Central Government reducing the area of lease to 406 hectares, TISCO preferred an S.L.P. before the Supreme Court challenging the said common judgment dated 4.4.1995 of this Court and also against the aforesaid order of approval issued by the Central Government reducing the leasing right to 406 hectares. Further case of the petitioner is that Supreme Court by its judgment in the aforesaid case as reported in AIR 1996 SC 2462 disposed of the said S.L.P. The Supreme Court formulated as many as five issues for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The petitioner in particular referred to issue Nos. IV and V so framed by the Supreme Court. According to him those issues are relevant for due disposal of the present petition. Those two issues read as under :