- (1.) In view of a technical plea raised by Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the State of Jharkhand, on the oral prayer of Mr. Maninder Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, the Jharkhand State Election Commission, Ranchi through its Secretary, is added as a proforma party-respondent in the present proceeding. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Election Commission has been requested to remain present during hearing of the case.
(2.) The Steel Authority of India Limited, claiming itself the largest producer of iron and steel in India has approached this Court for the following reliefs: (i) An appropriate writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith pass an order in terms of Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 in respect of the petitioner's Durgaiburu Captive Mining Lease and upon grant/passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner be permitted to resume its mining operations of Durgaiburu Mining Lease of Gua Ore Mines; (ii) A further writ/order/direction for quashing the orders dated 03.09.2014 and 04.09.2014 issued by the State of Jharkhand on the basis of amendment in Rule 24A(6) of MCR, 1960 whereby mining operations were stopped in the leases where on the basis of deemed extension of leases under second and subsequent renewals, mining was being done; (iii) Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner. FACTS:
(3.) The petitioner is a Public Sector Undertaking duly registered under the Companies Act. It was granted mining lease for Durgaiburu Mining Lease of Gua Ore Mines for 30 years on 22.02.1949 and it was renewed for a period of 30 years which expired on 21.02.2009. It submitted its application for renewal of Durgaiburu Mining Lease of Gua Ore Mines in Form-J on 08.02.2008, seeking second renewal of the lease-deed for Durgaiburu Mining Lease of Gua Ore Mines, along with all necessary statutory clearances. A report from the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) in terms of Rule 24A(3) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 was sought and a favourable recommendation was given by Indian Bureau of Mines vide letter dated 28.08.2014 as corrected by letter dated 01.09.2014. The State Government also wrote a letter to the Central Government on 20.08.2014 seeking exemption with respect to certain conditions however, vide letter dated 04.09.2014, the petitioner-Company was directed to stop mining operation in Durgaiburu Mining Lease of Gua Ore Mines, which compelled the petitioner-Company to approach this Court. The petitioner-Company has employed more than 18,000 employees who and their families are dependent on the operation of the plant. Due to closure of the Durgaiburu Mining Lease of Gua Ore Mines, a critical condition has arisen in which the Bokaro Steel Plant may have to be shut down. If the petitioner-Company has to suspend production, it would incur huge financial and operational loss to the Company. In the last five years, the petitioner-Company has paid about Rs. 2,000/- crores to the State of Jharkhand on account of royalty, cess, value added tax and other taxes. The application dated 08.02.2008 while remained pending, the petitioner-Company was permitted to continue mining in the Durgaiburu Mining Lease of Gua Ore Mines however, vide letter dated 04.09.2014, the respondent-State of Jharkhand directed the petitioner-Company to suspend the mining operations, a direction which cannot be sustained in law.;