S. B. Majmudar, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal and accordingly, this appeal is being disposed of by this judgment. The short question requiring a long answer in this appeal is whether the writ petition filed by the appellant Corporation before the Orissa High Court was maintainable. The High Court in the impugned judgment has taken the view that it was not maintainable being barred by the principle of res judicata. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant against the impugned judgment, it is necessary to note a few relevant introductory facts. INTRODUCTORY FACTS:
(3.) The appellant put forward its claim for grant of mining lease for extracting an important mineral-chromite in Sukinda Valley situated in the State of Orissa. The State of Orissa is having substantial reserves of the aforesaid mineral. Originally, Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (for short. 'TISCO') was granted mining lease for 50 square kilometres of area in Sukinda Valley by order of the Collector, Cuttack sometime in September, 1952. Originally, mining lease over 1813 hectares of area was granted to TISCO for chromite extraction after preliminary exploration for a period of 20 years on 12-1-1953. After the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (for short the 'O.E.A. Act') came into force, the rights of erstwhile Zamindar (Raja of Sukinda) were vested in the State which granted the lease to TISCO. In 1973, renewal was granted for an area of 1261.476 hectares subject to the condition that TISCO will establish a beneficiating plant as to the friable and lean ore in the leasehold area for the purpose of improving the quality for use in the indigenous plants, namely, Ferro-Chrome and Refractories. Before the aforesaid lease could expire by efflux of time on 3rd October, 1991 TISCO applied to the State authorities for second renewal of the mining lease for 20 more years under Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short the 'MMRD Act'). The State Government of Orissa recommended to the Central Govt. for approval of the said second renewal for the entire area in which TISCO was having earlier lease. The aforesaid recommendation was made in compliance with the requirement prescribed under the MMRD Act read with Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules'). It may be noted that the said recommendation was for grant of mining lease for 10 years to TISCO for the entire area of 1261.476 hectares though the demand of TISCO for second renewal of this lease was for 20 years. It was suggested by the State Govt. to grant lease for a period of 10 years with effect from 12-1-1993 subject to certain conditions mentioned in the recommendatory letter. On 3rd June, 1993, the Government of India with reference to the recommendation of the State Government dated 28-11-1992 conveyed its approval under Section 8(3) in relaxation of Section 6(1)(b) of the MMRD Act. On 11-6-1993, a Member of Parliament complained to the Ministry that during the last fifty years, TISCO had not done much for the industrialisation of the State of Orissa and the mining areas granted to it were hardly exploited for more than three decades. He indicated that renewal of lease of the entire chromite mining area in favour of TISCO once again would not be in the interest of development of the State and also would not be in national interest. The matter was looked into by the Central Govt. afresh. It reviewed its earlier order of 3rd June, 1993 and granted approval for renewal of lease to TISCO confining it to only half the area i.e. 650 hectares. The said order dated 5-10-1993 further directed that rest of the area of approximately 600 hectares be deleted from the existing lease of TISCO and made available to other industries by the State Government as per the MMRD Act and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 in the interest of mineral and industrial development in the country. The aforesaid order of the Central Government was challenged by TISCO before the Orissa High Court in Writ Petition OJC No. 7729/93 filed on 19-10-1993. The rival claimants, Jindal Strips Limited and Jindal Ferro Alloys Limited, Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 respectively, herein, filed a cross petition being OJC No. 7054/94 in the Orissa High Court praying for a suitable writ or order directing the authorities concerned not to grant renewal of lease to TISCO. It may be mentioned that in the aforesaid writ petition of TISCO, the present appellant M/s. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. (for short 'FACOR') was made a party Respondent on its request for intervention. Indian Charge Chrome Limited (for short ('ICCL') and Indian Metals Ferro Alloys Limited (for short 'IMFA') Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 respectively herein, in their turn also filed Writ Petition OJC No. 5422/94 in the Orissa High Court opposing the grant of renewal of mining lease to TISCO. The present Respondent No. 7 M/s. Ispat Alloys (for short 'ISPAT') had not filed any Writ Petition in the Orissa High Court though it is also a claimant for mining lease for the very same mineral.;