Bimaldeep Steel Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur vs The Union of India and Others

Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the point of limitation. The delay in filing this Appeal is condoned as there is delay of 1 day only I.A. No. 1913 of 2011 stands disposed of.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the merit of this case.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the reason for rejection of the application for grant of mining lease were not communicated to the petitioner and therefore, without knowing the reasons, the appellant preferred the Revision application before the Central Government. The appellant has placed on record the copy of the Revision application at Page No. 97. The petitioner''s Revision application was dismissed by the Central Government vide order dated 28th October, 2010 and the petitioner challenged the said order by preferring W.P. (C) No. 5798 of 2010. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 18th May, 2011 with a cost of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence this L.P.A. has been preferred by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that firstly the principles of natural justice has been violated as the reasons for rejection of the petitioner''s application for grant of mining lease has not been communicated and then the Central Government committed serious errors of law by rejecting petitioner''s review application without passing a reasoned order, therefore, the impugned order is a non-speaking order. The learned single Judge also committed error in rejecting petitioner''s writ petition on the basis of a judgment given by the High Court in another case Le., in the case of Brahmi Impex Ltd. v. Union of India and others reported in 2009 (4) JCR 130 (Jhr). It is also submitted that the petitioner is not bound by the reasons given in that judgment in the case of Brami Impex case (supra), as the petitioner''s case is based on the petitioner''s own ground. It is also submitted that the objection made by the learned single Judge in Para 15 of the Appeal, needs to be struck off.

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the contents of the Revision application. The only ground raised by the petitioner-appellant In the Revision application is as under :

Here the Revision applicant would like to bring it to the notice of the Hon''ble Ministry of Mines (Government of India) that we are not being allotted mines even after establishment of plant and making huge investment of approximately 60 crores in the State. Whereas, parties who have long back signed M.O.U. with the State Govt, but are yet to land on the industrial base of Jharkhand have been allowed mines. Iron Ore is the chief raw material in iron and steel Mfg. survival -of the industry is in danger because of non-availability of proper quality and quantity of raw material.

In the entire Revision, the petitioner has not stated that the order passed in favour of the respondent, needs to be set aside on the ground that the reason for rejection of the petitioner''s application has not been communicated to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner-appellant without knowing the reasons for rejection of his application straightaway claimed that he is more meritorious than the respondent No. 7 to whom the mining lease was granted.

The Revisional Authority was therefore, justified in passing the impugned order and the Revisional Authority after careful examination of the reply filed by the respondent-Union of India found that the matter was considered by the authorities on the facts and after going through the document held that the mining lease was granted to the respondent No. 7 on merit and that has been also approved by the State Government u/s 11 (3) of the M.M.R.D. Act. In view of the above, it appears that the petitioner without knowing the grounds for rejection of the case, preferred the Revision application and took a chance, after the another bidder failed to assail the allotment made in favour of the respondent and thereafter tried to become wise by saying that reasons for rejection of his application was not communicated.

In addition to the above, learned single Judge has not rejected the petitioner''s application only on the basis of the rejection of writ petition of Brahmi Impex, but after considering the case of the petitioner on merit as mentioned in Para 13, where it has been observed that from the chart, it is apparent that the respondent No. 7 is much more meritorious in technology, investment and experience than the petitioner. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

However, we are of the considered opinion that the observations made in Para 15 of the impugned judgment, because of the fact that the same counsel had appeared in Brahmi Impex Case (supra) and also in this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner was unwarranted as we do not find any reason for making any comment upon advocate because of the reason that he accepted two cases, challenging the same order, which was passed against the respondent No. 7 because there was no conflict of interest between the parties to whom the learned Advocate was representing, earlier, in Brahmi Impex case (supra) and subsequently in this case, therefore, the observations made in Para 15 are quashed.

So far as awarding of cost of Rs. 25,000/- is concerned, we do not find any just reason for imposition of this cost. Hence, the awarded cost of Rs. 25.000/- is also set aside.

With the above observations and the reliefs to the appellant of quashing the remarks made in Para 15 of the impugned judgment and the imposition of cost of Rs. 25,000/-, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.