- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 7640 of 2006, whereby the writ petition challenging the grant of mining lease in favour of the respondent No. 7 - M/s Balmukund Sponge & Iron Ltd. by order of the Government of India, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi dated 24th August, 2006 was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner -appellant was heard at length and in substance he had submitted before the learned Single and also before this Court that the grant of mining lease in favour of the respondent No. 7 was fit to be quashed and set aside as the Central Government had passed the order without assessing the comparative merits and demerits of the petitioner -appellant and respondent No. 7. The Counsel also stated that a Memorandum of Understanding has initially been signed with the petitioner -appellant on 1.6.2004 and yet the Central Government ignored the Memorandum of Understanding and granted the lease in favour of the respondent No. 7 which gave a cause to the petitioner -appellant to assail the grant of lease. The learned Single Judge was pleased to meticulously examine the contesting claim of the parties in the light of the submission of the State Government and was finally pleased to hold that the respondent No. 7 had applied for the grant of mining lease earlier in point of time than the petitioner -appellant and as per the provisions of Section 11(3) of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 any applicant who applies first for the grant of mining lease, he would be eligible to secure the lease deed in his favour. Admittedly, the respondent No. 7 had applied earlier than the petitioner -appellant and thus fulfilled the provisions of Section 11(3) of the Act. Equivalent Citation:2009 -JX(Jhar) -0 -1154
(3.) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent -State also wherein the respondent -State supported the case of the respondent No. 7 and has stated that the State of Jharkhand notified its mining policy in tune with the Industrial Policy of the State Government with special reference to grant of mining lease etc. by the Department of Mines & Geology Notification dated 29.12.2001, which gives preference to person who establishes mineral based Industry within the State of Jharkhand. It was stated that in terms of the said policy, respondent No. 7 stands on a much better footing as they have already an existing Plant in the State of Jharkhand and the investment proposed to be made by the respondent No. 7 is rupees five hundred Crores which is much in excess of the proposed investment by the petitioner -appellant which had offered rupees two hundred Crores only.;