ORDER
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. In this interlocutory application, the applicant-Electrosteel Castings Limited has prayed for its addition as a respondent in the writ petition. It has been stated that the State Government has decided to grant mining lease in favour of the applicant and has forwarded its application to the Central Government for approval.
The writ petitioner has challenged the process of the lease, in question, in which the decision has been taken in favour of the applicant and as such, the applicant is the interested party in the matter and its presence is necessary for proper and effective decision on the Issues involved in the writ petition.
Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, as well as the respondents have not disputed the said position and contention of the applicant.
Considering the above, this interlocutory application is allowed. The applicant M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. is permitted to intervene and is added as respondent No. 6 in the writ petition.
W.P. (C) No. 565 of 2007:
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to pass appropriate order on the application filed by the petitioner dated 6th September, 2003 under Rule 9(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Rules') framed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') for prospecting licence for the purpose of mining iron ore over an area of 690 hectares in village Kodalibad/Saranda Reserve Forest in the district of Singhbhum. The petitioner has further prayed for an order restraining the State Government as well as Central Government form processing the application of any other parties for grant of mining lease over the said area until petitioner's application for grant of prospecting licence/mining lease is considered and disposed of.
2. According to the petitioner, it is a private limited company duly registered with the Registrar of the Companies under the provisions of Companies Act. The petitioner filed an application on 6th September, 2003 before the respondent No. 2 under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 in proper form praying for grant of prospecting licence over an area of 690 hectares of Kodolibad/Saranda Reserve Forest, in the district of Singhbhum. While the said application was still under consideration, the petitioner was advised by the officials of the Mines and Geology Department to also apply for grant of mining lease. The petitioner, accordingly, applied for mining lease by its letter dated 16th February, 2004, though mining lease cannot be granted by the State Government unless there was a prospecting of the area by the persons to whom prospecting licence is granted. It has been submitted that the prospecting of the area had never been done in accordance with the prescribed provisions.
3. The petitioner claimed that it fulfills all the conditions for grant of prospecting licence for the area, in question, but the respondents have not considered the company's application till date. The petitioner has thus preferred this writ petition.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the State-respondents contesting the writ petition. It has been stated, inter alia, that the writ petitioner M/s. Raj Refractories Pvt. Ltd. applied for prospecting licence over an area of 1190 hectares in Kodolibad Reserve Forest. Petitioner-company also applied for lease for mining of iron and manganese ore from an area of 500 hectares in Kodolibad Reserve Forest. Forty such applications were received for mining lease of iron and manganese ore for the said area. The petitioner's contention that there was no prospecting of the area for the said purpose is baseless. The said area was brought on geological map after due investigation and survey of the said minerals by the Geological Survey of India and Indian Bureau of Mines, which are competent authorities for the said purpose under the said. Act and Rules. The bulletins of the Geological Survey of India, Series-A under Economic Geology No. 9- iron ore, iron and steel published by the order of the Government of India clearly mention such evidences. The iron ore deposits in Kodalibad Reserve Forest area were identified and established with Chemical Analysis Report. The deposit of iron ore has been clearly shown in the map with the latitude and longitude in the sad bulletin of the Geological Survey of India. The evidence of deposits was also established by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Ministry of Mines, Nagpur, reported in the official publication named as 'Monograph On Iron Ore.' There also the report has been given with specific latitude and longitude (Annxure-B).
5. The Assistant Director, Geology, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Chaibasa, in his report dated 2nd May, 2005 (Annexure-C) has also confirmed the evidence of Iron ore in the area.
6. It has been stated that if there is established evidence of deposits, the State Government is well within its power to grant mining lease, as envisaged under the amended provisions of Section 5(2)(a) of the said Act.
7. It has been contended that the writ petitioner has also applied for the mining lease and his application was considered. After due consideration and comparison of the financial strength of the applicants/Companies and their investment proposal, the decision has been taken to grant lease in favour of M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd., who proposed investment to the tune of Rs. 1422.00 crores in comparison to Rs. 68.50 crores of the writ petitioner. Petitioner's financial strength is much lower than M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd., as the income tax paid by the said Company during three previous financial year i.e. 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 is Rs. 20.67 crores. Rs. 34.83 crores and Rs. 36.00 crores, respectively, whereas that of the writ petitioner is 0.0231, 0.021 and ML, respectively, during the said three financial year.
8. It Has been submitted that the petitioner having taken part in the said lease process and remained unsuccessful has filed this writ petition for a direction on the respondents to decide its application for prospecting licence, by supporting the material facts and developments aforesaid. The petitioner-company could not complete with the successful company in whose favour decision has been taken to grant lease, which is in sole discretion of the Government to choose the persons on the basis of their financial and technical strength and soundness with other relevant consideration. The writ petition is frivolous and is fit to be dismissed.
9. The petitioner had not impleaded M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. as a party in whose favour the decision has been taken by the State Government to grant lease. The said M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. having learnt about the writ petition filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1733 of 2007) praying for its addition as respondent. The application has been allowed and the said company has been made as respondent No. 6 in this writ petition.
10. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 6-M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd., submitted that the writ petition is wholly frivolous, malicious and not maintainable. The petitioner has suppressed material facts and has not approached this Court with clean hands. There is no violation of Rule 5 or any other provisions of the said Act and Rules in taking decision by the Government to grant lease in favour of respondent No. 6.
11. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner having taken part in the selection process for mining lease and being unsuccessful cannot now challenge the said process or the decision of the State Government covertly. Moreover, there is absolutely no ground for making prayers for prospecting licence by the petitioner, as his said application was succeeded by the application for lease.
12. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered their submissions and materials on record as well as provisions of the said Act and Rules, I find that the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction on the respondents to dispose of the application filed by him for prospecting licence. According to the petitioner, applications for mining lease of the area can be considered only after prospecting the areas whereas there was no due prospecting of the area, in question. The petitioner though applied for the lease, he had done so on he instructions of the concerned authorities.
13. It is evident from the record that the petitioner could not compete with the said respondent No. 6 when compared and considered in view of the financial strength, technical soundness and other relevant aspects, as discussed above, and the petitioner could not succeed in presence of the respondent No. 6.
14. When the petitioner filed this writ petition for the said relief, he did not disclose the said material facts, which are relevant for consideration, as also did not implead M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. as party to the writ petition. The said conduct of the petitioner goes to show its malicious intention to suppress the material facts. The writ petitioner has, thus, not approached this Court with clean hands and the writ petition suffers from the vice of suppresio veri suggestio falsi.
15. Secondly, the petitioner has sought relief on the basis of the provision made in Section 5 of the said Act, which runs as follows:
5. (1) A State Government shall not grant a [reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] to any person unless such person-
(a) is an Indian national, or a company as defined in Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956; and
(b) satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed:
Provided that in respect of any mineral specified in the First Schedule, no [reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] shall be granted except with the previous approval of the Central Government.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, a person shall b deemed to be an Indian national,-
(a) in the case of a firm or other association of individuals, only if all the members of the firm or members of the association are citizens of India; and
(b) in the case of an individual, only if he is a citizen of India.
(2) No mining lease shall be granted by the State Government unless it is satisfied that:
2.(a) there is evidence to show that the area for which the lease is applied for has been prospected earlier or the existence of mineral contents therein has been established otherwise than by means of prospecting such area; and
(b) there is a mining plan duly approved by the Central Government or by the State Government, in respect of such category of mines as may be specified by the Central Government, for the development of mineral deposits in the area concerned.
16. From a bare reading of the provisions of Sub-section 2(a), it is clear that the mining lease can be granted by the State Government, if it is satisfied that there is evidence to show that the area for which the lease is applied for has been prospected or existence of mineral contents therein has been established otherwise than by means of prospecting such area.
17. In view thereof, it cannot be said that prospecting of such area is a condition precedent even if the State Government is satisfied on the basis of other evidence(s) that the area applied for has got existence of mineral deposits. The writ petition has, thus, been filed on frivolous grounds and by suppressing the material facts, as aforesaid.
18. Considering the above, this 'Writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. Out of the said amount of the cost, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- shall be deposited with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority within two weeks and balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to respondent No. 6-M/s. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. within the said period.
19. A copy of this order be sent to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi for the needful.