NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) WHEN the case is taken up today, learned Counsel for the petitioner informed that they have already set up their industry and they have commenced production since April 2006. They applied for mining lease of iron ore in the year 2005 -2006. Iron -ore is the essential raw material for the purpose of the petitioner's steel industry. However, the respondents have not taken any decision even after lapse of more than two years.
(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating, inter alia, that the petitioner has filed several applications for different Blocks. Applications are still under consideration. One of the petitioner's applications has been disposed of by the Hearing Committee by recommending settlement of Tatiburu Block in favour of the petitioner and one M/s. Adhunik Alloys and Power Ltd., jointly. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the statements made in paragraph 5(E) of the supplementary counter -affidavit wherein it has been stated that the said Tatiburu Block is under litigation and interim order has also been passed in respect thereof that any settlement made with respect to that area shall be subject to the decision of that case. Learned counsel submitted that the said recommendation is merely an eye wash. Fate of the settlement would depend upon the result of the case which is in the womb of future. The respondents having full knowledge of the said situation in respect of Tatiburu Block have maliciously acted in showing the said Block recommended in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) THE respondents have also not come with any specific statement as to what is the difficulty in not considering the other applications of the petitioner regarding the other Blocks, which are pending since 2005 -2006.;