(1.) The aforesaid batch of writ applications have come to be heard together on the consent of the parties since, the essential prayers and challenges made therein are common in nature. For the sake of convenience, this Court takes up the case of Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as 'IMFA'). In this writ application, the IMFA have made the following prayers :
(2.) Mr. P.C. Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner-IMFA confined his submissions to prayer-(a) as noted hereinabove and has sought for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the State of Odisha to grant an opportunity of hearing to IMFA and consequently the other relief sought for in the writ application have not been pressed.
(3.) The proposition advanced by Mr. Chidambaram is to the effect that, IMFA is entitled to be heard by the State Government while it considers the application of Tata Steel Ltd.-Opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'TATAS') for renewal of its mining lease for chromite ore over 406 hectares under Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'MMDR Act'). The foundation of the aforesaid prayer is based on the earlier judgment passed by this Court the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 82 CLT 797 (hereinafter referred to as 'TISCO (HC)'] and in particular paragraphs-64, 67, 68, 87, 88, 90, 91 and 92 as well as in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 9 SCC 709 [hereinafter referred to as TISCO (SC)'] and in particular paragraphs-41 to 48 thereof.