HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged legality of constitution of the Committee vide letter dtd. 11/1/2018.

(2.) Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised two fold contentions inter alia on the following grounds that : (i) Committee was constituted in contravention of Sec. 26 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short, MMDR Act) inasmuch as the powers in relation to Sec. 21(5) of the Act can be delegated only by the State Government and, that too, notified through a Gazette Notification, and (ii) the directions contained in the letter dtd. 11/1/2018 was issued in teeth of and to scuttle the interim order dtd. 4/1/2018 passed by the writ Court.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings before the Committee constituted pursuant to the letter dtd. 11/1/2018. On that count, the stand of the petitioner is that its appearance before the Committee would have been taken as if it submitted itself to jurisdiction of the Committee. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the purported post decisional hearing in the matter which is indicated in the letter dtd. 11/1/2018 would not serve any purpose and hearing by the Committee has no meaning because a demand without hearing the lease holders like the petitioner was already issued by the State.