- (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. SBCW 14317/2009 (by the petitioner SCL). The State of Rajasthan issued a Notification dated 20.2.2007 (Published on 27.2.2007) inviting application for Mining lease of limestone (cement grade) for an area of 6.24 sq. km. Near Village Parasrampura (Gothra). The petitioner SCL applied on 26.3.2007 in the prescribed form I, with requisite fees and affidavits to Mining engineer, Sikar duly acknowledge on 30.3.2007 by him and allotting reference No. ML-47/2007 and after processing of the applications received from various applicants and comparison of credentials thereof, State Government took in principle a decision to grant mining lease for setting up of the cement plant. The State Government to ensure actual materialization of the investment also took specific undertaking from the petitioner SCL for establishing a Cement Plant with a capacity of 3.0 Million Tonnes of Cement per annum within a period of 18 months from the date of execution of Mining lease at or near village Gothra and issued the Letter of Intent bearing No. F. 2(113) Khan/Group-2/2007 dated 23.8.2007 asking the petitioner SCL to submit the Environment Clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India in terms of MOEF notification dated 14.9.2006 the approved Mining Plan and Progressive Mine closer Plan from Indian bureau of Mines and "No objection" from Forest Department so as to complete for grant of Mining Lease thereafter. As in the case of petitioner SCL the relaxation under Section 6(1)(b) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 was also required, copy of LOI was sent to the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Udaipur for sending proposal for obtaining relaxation from Central Govt. A memorandum of understanding was also executed between the petitioner SCL and State Government on 30.11.2007 on occasion of Resurgent Rajasthan - Partnership Summit. The Forest Department vide letter dated 21.9.2007 confirmed that applied area is not falling inside any forest area. The petitioner SCL applied for Environment Clearance of proposed integrated cement project, captive power plant and limestone mining at village Gothra to the MOEF on 22.10.2007. The MOEF on 22.10.2007. The MOEF conveyed the terms of reference on 12.3.2008 and by following requisite procedures including the Public hearing on 27.2.2009, granted the Environment clearance vide letter dated 15.7.2009. The State Government sent on 2.2.2008 its proposal to Central Govt. seeking relaxation under Section 6(1)(b) of MMDR Act, 1957. The State Government through Industries Department issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short Act of 1894) dated 20.11.2007 for plant land of 142.26 Hectares and another Notification dated 17.3.2008 for 572.26 Hectares of Limestones bearing land. After following the established procedures, notification dated 25.6.2008 under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 had been issued for plant land and another notification dated 15.4.2009 for mines land. Smt. Pratibha Singh, Ex. MLA, (the respondent No. 3), vide her letter/complaint dated 1.3.2008 approached the Secretary (Mines), Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India, New Delhi stating that the State Government of Rajasthan is proposing acquisition of land for 3 cement companies, namely, the petitioner SCL, India Cement Ltd. and the petitioner GSL and sought stay against the Land Acquisition proceedings by the State Government. The Central Govt. forwarded same to the State Government on 5.3.2008 and without waiting for response of State Govt. on the basis of another letter dated 18.3.2008 granted ex parte interim stay on 20.3.2008. The State Government on 9.4.2008 informed the Central Government that only Letters of Intent have been issued and Mining lease is yet to be granted. It was also stated that acquisition of land is being done under the Act of 1894 and further that in respect of Land Acquisition matter, if any one has any grievance, the person should file the objection before Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) for its redressal and that under Act of 1894 the administrative orders cannot be issued for staying the land Acquisition proceedings. A copy of he revision application was also sought and it was requested to vacate the stay so that investment for industrialization of State can be materialized and thereby local population is provided employment. The petitioner SCL also received hearing notice on 25.6.2008 and was provided a copy of the complaint dated 1.3.2008. The petitioner SCL filed its preliminary objections dated 19.9.2008 to the respondent No. 1 inter alia challenging the jurisdiction of Mining Tribunal at Letter of Intent stage-when the mining lease is yet to be sanctioned/agreement is yet to be executed and over the Notification issued under Land Acquisition Act, availability of alternate remedy, maintainability of complaint-without disclosing extent, nature characterizes and ownership of the land of aggrieved persons to tell whether land falls within the purview of Mining lease to be executed. The Central Government (Tribunal) finally vide order dated 29.7.2009, set aside the impugned order i.e. letter of intent dated 22.11.2007, 4.11.2006, and 23.8.2007 issued by he State of Rajasthan in favour of the petitioner GIL, ICL and the petitioner SCL. The crux of the order passed by the Central government is that the consent of the land owners was not obtained before issuing the letters of intent. It was observed that in accordance with Rule 22(3)(h) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 the applicants are required to give the description of the areas with particular reference to the fact as to whether the applicant has surface rights over the area in which he is making an application for grant of mining lease. Even in the mining lease application form there is specific column to this effect and the mining lease applicant has to give it in writing as to whether he is the owner of the surface rights of the land applied for mining lease and if not, the consent of the owners and occupier land owners be obtained in writing and filed. Against this order of the Central Government the petitioner SCL filed the writ petition mentioned above.
(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). SBCW 13006/2009 (by the State of Rajasthan)
(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.;