SHREE CEMENT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners Shree Cement Limited (in short "the petitioner SCL", M/s. Grasim Industries Limited (in short the petitioner GIL) and State of Rajasthan, against the final order No. 73/2009 passed on 29.7.2009 passed by the Tribunal (Mines) under respondent Union of India in the Suo Motu Revision No. 1.3.2008 RC-I, wherein the letters of Intent dated, 22.11.2007, 23.8.2007 and 4.11.2007 (respectively issued in favour of the petitioner GIL, M/s. India Cement Limited (ICL) and the petitioner SCL) issued by the State of Rajasthan, have been set aside. Since the order dated 29.7.2009 of the Union of India has been challenged in all these three writ petitions, they are being disposed by this common order.

(2.) In the writ petition filed by the petitioner SCL, this court issued notice of this petition to the respondents on 18.11.2009 and status quo was directed to be maintained by the parties as it was existed on that date. In the writ petition Smt. Pratibha Singh, Ex. M.L.A. was also impleaded as respondent No. 3. After service of notice on her no reply to the writ petition was filed by her. On June 10, 2010, the petitioner SCL filed an application (Application No. 25927 of 10.6.2010) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for impleading Adani Power Limited through its Deputy General Manager, as respondent No. 5 and 6. Another application (Application No. 25928 of 10.6.2010) was also filed by the petitioner SCL for maintaining status quo by the respondents 5 and 6 also. These applications were allowed by this Court vide its order dated June 11, 2010. Adani Powers Limited through is Managing Director and Deputy General Manager were impleaded as respondents 5 and 6 and further this Court in the interest of justice directed the newly added respondents 5 and 6 to stop its construction on the land in dispute. The respondents 5 and 6 filed detailed reply to the writ petition. The petitioner SCL filed rejoinder to the reply to the writ petition filed by the respondents 5 and 6 and sought directions for removing towers from the petitioner SCL's mining area in terms of Govt. decision in the meeting held on 25.6.2010 and direction for canceling he approval dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure R-5/2) and further direction for canceling the impugned permission letter dated 3.12.2009 (Annexure R-5/4).

(3.) In the writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan, order dated 29.7.2009 passed by the Tribunal was challenged canceling the letter of Intents issued in favour of the petitioner GIL, the petitioner SCL and ICL (who have been impleaded as respondents 3 to 5 in this writ petition). It has been stated in the writ petition that on 16.6.2000 the State declared an area near village Khirod free for Cement grade Limestone in which three applications were received ML No. 14/2000 submitted by GIL was accorded priority and a letter of Intent was issued to the applicant with certain conditions that were required to be fulfilled prior to grant of the Mining Lease, Since the conditions were not fulfilled the LOI was cancelled vide order dated 7.2.2005. Again vide notification dated 2.12.2000 another area of 49 sq. kms. near village Khirod was declared free for Cement Grade Limestone in which two applications were received and ML 6/01 filed by GIL was accorded priority and LOI was issued along with certain conditions. Since the conditions were not fulfilled this LOI was also cancelled vide order dated 7.2.2005. Again vide notification dated 23.3.2003 another area of 8.25 sq. kms. Near Village Khirod was declared free for Cement Grade Limestone in which 5 applications were received. ML No. 12/2003 by ICL was accorded priority and LOI was issued on 23.8.2007 along certain conditions. Vide Notification dated 27.2.2007 another area of 6.24 sq. kms. Near Village Khirod was declared free for Cement Grade Limestone in which 19 applications were received and ML No. 47/2007 filed by SCL was accorded priority and LOI was issued on 23.8.2007 along with certain conditions. GIL challenged both the orders of cancellation of their LOIs dated 7.2.2005 before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 allowed both the revision petitions and set aside the order dated 7.2.2005. The State Government was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to GIL and pass fresh orders within a period of 90 days. GIL was provided opportunity of hearing and vide order dated 22.11.2007 the State issued fresh LOI in favour of GIL. It is stated that LOIs granted to the respondents 3 to 5 were conditional in accordance with Rule 22(4) of Mineral concession Rules, 1960 and in terms of the LOIs, Environmental Clearance as well as getting prepared Mining Plan from Registered Qualified practitioner to fulfill the conditions imposed by he State. The State issued Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 on 17.3.2008 and 20.3.2008. It has been given out in the petition that in an unprecedented move, the respondent UOI took a suo moto cognizance under Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short, MMDR Act) on a petition dated 2.1.2008 filed by Smt. Pratibha Singh, MLA calling in question LOIs granted to GIL, SCI and ICL. Vide impugned order dated 29.7.2009 the Tribunal set aside the LOIs issued by the State in favour of GIL, ICL and SCL. This order of the respondent UOI cannot foray into other statues and pass order prohibiting acquisition of land. In the Notification of Acquisition of land it was specifically mentioned that if any interested person had any objection to the Notification the same should be submitted to the LAO within a period of 30 days. The State in this way submitted that there was an equally efficacious alternative remedy available to them under the Act of 1894. In these circumstances the state prayed for quashing of the order of the Tribunal dated 29.7.2009. It may also be mentioned that in the writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan, M/s. Grasim Industries Limited (GIL), who was impleaded as respondent No. 3, and Shree Cement Limited Beawar who was impleaded as respondent No. 4, filed separate reply to the writ petition. In the reply it was prayed that the petitioner State of Rajasthan is fully entitled to get the reliefs prayed for in the prayer clause and further it was prayed that a further direction may be issued to the respondent No. 1 Union of India to proceed and sanction pending application of State Government for grant of relaxation under Section 6(1)(b) and approve the mining plan for applied area. In the writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan M/s. Adani Power Limited also moved an application for being impleaded as respondents 6 and 7 on July 8, 2010. Along with the application an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India was also filed for vacating the interim order granted by this Court.