BALASORE ALLOYS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner no.1-M/s. Balasore Alloys Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, represented through petitioner no.2, who is a shareholder of petitioner no.1-company, has filed this writ petition seeking following prayers:-

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (for short 'TISCO') is the original holder of the subject mineral block over an area of 64.463 hectares, which is a part of larger area of Sukinda Chrome Valley, from the year 1953 till 1993. It had applied to the Raja of Sukinda Block, Odisha for grant of a prospecting licence and the same was granted in the year 1952. Thereafter, on 22/10/1952, TISCO was granted a mining lease over an area of 1813 hectares for mining of Chromite, which was renewed for a period up to 1993 over reduced area of 1261.476 hectares.

(3.) Mr. N. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. N. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the apex Court, vide order dated 19.042023, granted liberty to the petitioner-company to approach this Court. It is further contended that the petitioner-company has fully complied with all the 32 conditions of Stage-I forest clearance and is entitled to be granted formal Stage-II forest clearance expeditiously and in a time-bound manner inasmuch as it has already complied with all the requisite conditions of the Stage-I forest clearance. It is further contended that the petitioner-company, having deposited the NVP, payment of compensatory afforestation and other levies, there is no impediment on the part of the Central Government to grant Stage-II forest clearance. Non-grant of forest clearance is an arbitrary action of the authority. It is further contended that the subject mineral bearing area consists of large stretch of already broken up area and the petitioner-company was allowed to continue its mining operations in the said broken up area. Since the petitioner-company has fully and substantially complied with the requirements of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, it may be allowed to conduct its mining operations till its application is being processed by MoEF and CC for issuance of the formal Stage-II forest clearance. It is further contended that 61.968 hectares out of the total 64.463 hectares is already broken up, as per IBM approved mining plan and worked upon area and, therefore, keeping the same into consideration, the petitioner-company ought to be permitted to resume the mining operations in such worked upon and broken up area till the grant of formal letter of Stage-II forest clearance. It is further contended that the petitioner-company has excavated and stored different grades of Chromite Ore, i.e., approximately 40,000/- MT, which is evident from the closing balance of the month of May, 2022, as per statutory returns filed with IBM. Therefore, it may be allowed to transport and dispose of the said legally excavated minerals for use in its captive plant. It is further contended that the petitioner-company has large number of employees in its plant and mines, who are entirely dependent on the operation of the said plant and the mines for their livelihood. Unless the permission for resumption and to remove and dispatch mineral intended to be used in the Ferro Chrome Plants is granted, the employees engaged and employed by the petitioner-company will be heavily prejudiced. It is further contended that the State Government would receive huge amount of revenue in terms of royalty, District Mineral Fund and State GST in case the petitioner-company is allowed to resume its mining operations. As such, it has already made a total payment of approximate Rs.17,39,88,515.00 for obtaining the required forest clearance. But inaction on the part of the MoEF and CC causes immense difficulties for survival of the industry. It is further contended that in cases where the mining operations were closed due to expiry of lease or due to expiry of statutory clearances, this Court as well as the apex Court has allowed transportation of minerals taking into account the legislative policy enshrined under Rule 12(1)(gg) of the MCR 2016, even where mining operations were closed due to expiry of the mining lease or due to any other reason. It is further contended that as per Rule 12(1)(gg) of the MCR 2016, the lessee may after paying rents, rates and royalties payable under the Act and Rules made thereunder or under lease deed, at the expiry or sooner termination of the lease term or within six calendar months thereafter (unless the lease is terminated for default of the lessee, and in that case at any time not less than three calendar months nor more than six calendar months after such termination) take down and remove for its own benefit, all or any ore mineral excavated during the currency of the lease, engines, machinery, plant, buildings structures, tramways, railways and other works, erections and conveniences which may have been erected, set up or placed by the lessee in or upon the leased lands and which the lessee is not bound to deliver to the State Government or which the State Government does not desire to purchase. To substantiate their contentions, reliance has been placed on Chowgule and Company Private Limited v. Goa Foundation and Others, (2020) 12 SCC 56.