Judgment:
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.
1.1. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act engaged in business of carrying mining activity and manufacture of stainless steel, alloy steel and rolling products through blast furnace route, having manufacturing facilities in Karnataka, Maharashtra and Goa and producing 0.8 million tonnes of steel with an annual turnover of Rs. 300 Crore providing employment for 3000 labourers, applied for grant of mining lease over an area of 36.42 Hectares in Tumti village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District for mining Iron ore and Yellow Oxide vide application No. AML 471/06 dated 15.5.2006. The petitioner also intends to invest Rs. 50 Crore with the intention to start Iron & Steel industry in the State of Karnataka which also generates direct employment for another 1000 labourers.
1.2. Considering the merits of the petitioner, in the light of the matters that are required to be considered under Section 11(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'MMDR Act') and giving preferential right to the petitioner as per Rule 35 of the Mineral Concession Rules, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'MC Rules'), the State Government by proceedings dated 4th October 2007 recommended the application of the petitioner for approval of Government of India for grant of mining lease over an area of 36.42 hectares in Tumti village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District in respect of Iron ore and Yellow Oxide for a period of 20 years as per the sketch enclosed therewith.
1.3. Aggrieved by the undue delay and inaction on the part of the 1st respondent-Central Government, the petitioner invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India approached this Court to direct the respondents to pass orders granting mining lease in its favour for carrying on mining activity over an extent of 36.42 hectares in Tumti village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District for mining Iron ore and Yellow Oxide.
2. Mr. Basavaraj Kareddy, learned Principal Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of 2nd and 3rd respondents and Mr. Y. Hariprasad, learned Incharge Assistant Solicitor General accepts notice on behalf of 1st respondent.
3. Heard Mr. D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. Vinay Keerthy, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Basavaraj Karreddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for 2nd and 3rd respondents as well as Mr. Y. Hariprasad, learned Incharge ASG for 1st respondent-Central Government.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents-2 and 3 submits that the petitioner in fact has no grievance against the State Government as nothing is pending before them as they have already recommended the case of the petitioner to the Government of India for grant of mining lease in respect of the impugned area of 36.42 hectares by proceedings dated 4th October 2007. The learned Government Advocate also submits that the matter is pending before the 1st respondent-Central Government since 2007.
5. The learned Incharge Asst. Solicitor General appearing for Central Government seeks 60 days time to pass appropriate orders in the matter.
6. To substantiate the case of the petitioner, our attention was also invited by Mr. D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, to our earlier order dated 11th June 2009 made in Writ Petition No. 5022/2009 (Sathyamoorthy v. The Secretary to the Government of India and Ors.), whereunder this Court expressed the need for the Government to take appropriate decision m the matter of grant of tease for mining iron ore, which would benefit the economic development of country.
7. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the. parties.
8.1. The fact that the case of the petitioner is positively considered in the fight of the matters prescribed under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act read with Rule 35 of the MC Rules and the State Government by proceedings dated 4th October 2007 have also recommended the application, of the petitioner to the Government of India for grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner over an area of 36,42 Hectares for mining Iron ore and, Yellow Oxide is not disputed; and the fact that the matter is still pending before the Central Government for nearly two years inspite of the proceedings dated 4th October 2007 of the State Government, referred to above, recommending the application of the petitioner is also not in dispute.
8.2. The proceedings dated 4th October 2007 of the State Government recommending the application of the petitioner to the Government of India reads thus:
Government of Karnataka
No. CI.37:MMM.2005
Karnataka Government Secretariat
Vikasa Sodha,
Bangalore-1, Dated: 04.10.2007
From,
The Secretary to Government
(Mines, SSI & Textiles)
Commerce & Industries Department,
Bangalore 560 001.
To,
The Secretary to Government of India
Ministry of Mines
Shastry Bhavan
New Delhi 110 001.
Sri,
Sub: Consideration of application filed by
M/s. Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd.,
by its Chairman Mr. Vinod Goyel for grant
of Mining lease over an area of 36.42
Hectares in Tumti village, Sandur Taluk,
Bellary District for Iron Ore and Yellow Oxide.
* * * * *
I am directed to state that in Notification No. CI.16:MMM.2003 dated 15.03.2003 an area of 36.42 hectares in Tumti village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District for Iron Ore and Yellow Oxide was notified for information of mining interested public that the same was available for grant of mining lease under Rule 59(1) of MCRs 1960. In response to this Notification, 24 applications were received for the said area.
All the applications were examined in accordance with Section 11 of MM(D&R;) Act, 1957 and Rule 35 of MCRs 1960 and all the applicants have been given opportunity of being heard under Rule 26(1) of MCRs 1960 on 20.02.2007.
Based on the above 'hearing' and after examination of other provisions of M&M;(D&R;) Act, 1957 and MCR 1960, the State Government has decided to recommend the application of M/s. Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd., by its Chairman Mr. Vinod Goyel for grant of Mining lease over an area of 36.42 hectares in Tumti village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District for Iron Ore and Yellow Oxide.
The applicant does not hold any mining lease in Karnataka. He proposes to invest Rs. 11 crores and proposed use of Ore is for captive use and pellatisation plant.
The applied area falls in revenue land. The other relevant records required under Rules and acts will be obtained after getting approval of Government of India.
The following documents are enclosed for sanction of Mining lease in favour of the applicant:
(i) Mining lease application;
(ii) Sketch showing the area recommended;
(iii) Affidavit in respect of Income Tax clearance;
(iv) Affidavit in respect of Mining lease held in State or Country.
The proforma and checklist required for sanction of Mining lease as per Section 5(1) of MM (D&R;) Act, 1957 are enclosed.
In view of the above, I request you to obtain and communicate the approval of Government of India as per Section 5(1) of M & M (D & R) Act, 1957 for grant of mining lease in favour of M/s. Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd., by its Chairman Mr. Vinod Goyel, over an area of 36.42 hectares in Tumti village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District for Iron Ore and Yellow Oxide for a period of 20 years as per sketch enclosed.
Yours faithfully,
(K. Jayachandra)
Under Secretary to Government (Mines)
Commerce & Industries Department.
8.3. This Court under similar matters concerning industralisation and the necessity for prompt decision in grant of lease for mining iron ore for steel industries, which would benefit the economic development of the Country, by order dated 11th June 2009 in Writ Petition No. 5022/2009, held as hereunder:
15.1. Industrialization, which is intended for mass production of goods, changes the way of business and the very lifestyle. While globalization takes over, the local and traditional economy slowly disappears.
15.2. Iron ore comprises naturally occurring iron bearing minerals which can be economically extracted for production of iron and steel. Almost all the iron and steel in this planet have been derived initially from iron ore excepting a few small occurrences of meteorites containing from coming from Space. Iron ore is a major raw material for steel industry. In 21st century, around 85% of iron and steel came from iron ore directly, the rest from recycled steel scrap, which in turn came from iron ores over the last four centuries.
15.3. Iron and steel is the backbone of modern societies and economies. Per capita consumption of steel is a direct index of degree of development of a nation. As per the available statistics, the present per capita steel consumption is SO kg per annum in India. Time has come to compare India's per capita steel consumption with that of 400 kg in developed countries, a world average of 180 kg and Chinese current consumption of 340 kgs. Our country, from a mere domestic per capita steel consumption of 35 kg in 2000, is projected to grow to 150 kg by 2020. This corresponds to the production targeted steel consumption of 200 million tons per annum, after factoring in imports/exports. 60% of the production is expected to come through blast furnace route, 33% through sponge iron - electric arc furnaces and 7% through other routes. This would require an availability of 290 million tones per annum of medium/high grade iron ore, after discounting scrap and re-cycling. Blast furnaces have the flexibility to use medium grades (62-64% Fe) and fines (through sinter and pellets) without loss of productivity and efficiency.
15.4. Iron constitutes 4-5% of earth's crust, but is not evenly distributed. Iron ore reserves are largely distributed in Australia, Brazil, India, Russia and Ukraine. Indian Iron ore is rich in Fe and has moderate silica, alumina and phosphorus. India ranks fifth in terms of iron ore reserves and is a leading producer and exporter of iron ore in the world after Australia, Brazil and CIS Countries and contributes to around 7.6% of world iron ore production. Some iron ores in India are the best naturally occurring grades in the world. With 207 million tones of iron ore production in 2008, iron ore tops the metallic mineral production in the country.
15.5. In the meantime, countries like Japan and China have been importing iron ore from India and value adding/converting it to high end-high priced steel products and also exporting to all other countries, to the benefit of their society. Generally, countries have adopted to the idea of conserving raw materials and other inputs for the purpose of domestic industry and only value added item have been exported, ensuring economic growth right from grassroot level. Ail the economically developed countries have become developed by pursuing this route, excepting Australia who have very large mineral resources and retain very small population. China has adopted a different strategy now, of importing iron (+60% Fe) contributed to 60 MT per year of additional steel inventory there, which is more than India's annual production. This, in turn correspondingly improves the competitiveness of Chinese steel industry for eventual export possibly back to India and this will work against the overall interest of Indian economic growth in the long term.
15.6. The Steel industry is the engine that drives manufacturers in industries such as automobile, machinery, white goods, appliances and constructions. Steel Industry is the back bone of 'Economic Development of the Nation' and wherefore, it is imperative that special concern should be taken to develop the indigenous Steel industry by making special concessions and placing the Industry in a preferential position vis-a-vis procurement of iron ore.
15.7. Undoubtedly, the Steel industry generates more income to the State exchequer besides generating far more employment than the mining industry. As rightly pointed out, the Steel industry contributes around Rupees 200 Crore annually to the State and Central exchequer for every million tonne of iron ore converted into Steel, as compared to Rs. 1.5 Crore in the case of iron ore exported, besides providing permanent employment and livelihood to millions of citizens. Even though the Government of India has formulated a national mineral policy with the objective of granting preferential mining leases to steel industries/no concrete steps have been taken in that regard. Nothing concrete has been done by the State of Karnataka to control the growing money power of the mining industry and Steel industries have not been granted any iron ore mining lease in the State.
15.8.1. Karnataka has total iron ore resources of 9.03 billion tons out of total 23.59 billion tons, which is 38.28% of total Indian iron ore resources. In spite of higher resources in the State, the total iron and steel making capacity in the State is only a dismal 6.5 million tons, which is only 11.8% of the total Indian iron and steel production capacity of India.
15.8.2. The biggest fall back of very low steel production is that all these producers who have set up industry in the state do not have any iron ore mines, in spite of the assurance by the State Government and provisions of MMDR Act and National Mineral Policy and the Karnataka State Mineral Policy. These companies have already made an investment of over Rs. 25,000/- crore in the state and have generated direct and indirect employment to atleast 25000 people.
15.8.3. All other mineral-rich states viz., Orissa, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh which signed maximum number of MOUs, have clear policy to give iron ore mining lease only to the existing iron and steel producers or the proposed steel plants, who make substantial investment in the state in iron and steel plant before the recommendation.
15.8.4. Although mineral wealth vests with State Governments, yet the subject of regulation of mines and mineral development is covered by entry 54 of the Union List under Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. By virtue of this, the Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to regulation of mines and mineral development But still greater role by State Governments is the need of the hour.
15.9. While ratifying the value addition criteria adopted by certain mineral-rich Indian States, utmost priority for granting of mining lease shall be given to those companies who have set up steel plants to the benefit of the society at large.
15.10. Prudent pre-qualifications followed by allocation of mining leases, within a reasonable time, to those steel companies who have invested and operating, could be the appropriate route to trigger higher growth rate in steel sector, thereby ensuring value addition, employment generation, infrastructure development - a pre-requisite to become a developed and balanced society.
8.4. That apart, emphasis is also made as to the need for prompt exercise of power by the State and Central Government in clearing the applications for approval contemplated under Section 5 of the MMDR Act and Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act within a reasonable time limit in said judgment dated 11th June 2009 made in Writ Petition No. 5022/2009 which reads as hereunder:
18. While mining as a stand-alone industry cannot be ignored, the contention of the petitioner based on the policy decision of the Central and State Government that preference should be given to captive mining while granting mining lease, also deserves due consideration. The schedule of time prescribed under Rule 63A of the MC Rules is also required to be strictly adhered to, as the State is bound by such time schedule in deciding the applications for grant of mining lease. It is true that no specific time limitation is given for granting approval by the Central Government, but that does not mean that the Central Government could take its own sweet time, which in our considered opinion would be unreasonable and arbitrary, because any such delay would affect the economic growth of the State.
19.1. Even though it is not proper for this Court to prescribe any time schedule, which is not provided under the statute, we are of the considered opinion that the Central Government should themselves come forward to exercise their power for clearing the applications for the approval contemplated under Section 5 of the MMDR Act and Section 2 of the FC Act within a reasonable time limit, which should not, in our considered opinion, be more than six months from the date of receipt of the application for such approval.
19.2. Mere want of provision as on date for passing orders in respect of the approval of the Central Government contemplated under Section 5 of the MMDR Act and Section 2 of the FC Act, would not be an excuse for the Central Government to take indefinite time for passing orders on the application for such approval and to cause undue delay in the matter, as it would defeat the very policy of the Central Government and the State Government in the matter of industrialization and economic development. Of course, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that it may not be proper for this Court to interfere with the policy decision of the Government But we are unable to appreciate the said contention, because in the instant public interest litigation, the petitioner is neither making any allegation against the policy decision nor challenging the same, but all that the petitioner seeks is, only to give effect to the policy decision of the State which is admittedly implemented by the State.
19.3. The Apex Court, in Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of Uttar Pradesh : (1991) 1 SCC 212 held that:
27. Unlike a private party whose acts uninformed by reason and influenced by personal predilections in contractual matters may result in adverse consequences to it alone without affecting the public interest, any such act of the State or a public body even in this field would adversely affect the public interest. Every holder of a public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of the State or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in whom the sovereignty vests. As such, all powers so vested in him are meant to be exercised for public good and promoting the public interest. This is equally true of all actions even in the field of contract. Thus, every holder of a public office is a trustee whose highest duty is to the people of the country and, therefore, every act of the holder of a public office, irrespective of the label classifying that act, is in discharge of public duty meant ultimately for public good. With the diversification of State activity in a Welfare State requiring the State to discharge its wide ranging functions even through its several instrumentalities, which requires entering into contracts also, it would be unreal and not pragmatic, apart from being unjustified to exclude contractual matters from the sphere of State actions required to be non-arbitrary and justified on the touchstone of Article 14.19.5. Again, the Apex Court, in Food Corporation of India v. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries reported in : (1993) 1 SCC 71 has observed as hereunder:
7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is 'fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision-making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non-arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but provides for control of its exercise by judicial review.
8. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of taw. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision-making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent.
(emphasis supplied)
19.6. In the case of Official Liquidator v. Dayanand reported in : (2008) 10 SCC 1, the Apex Court while dealing with the doctrine of legitimate expectation observed that:
102. The concept of 'due process of law' has played a major role in the development of administrative law. It ensures fairness in public administration. The administrative authorities who are entrusted with the task of deciding lis between the parties or adjudicating upon the rights of the individuals are duty-bound to comply with the rules of natural justice, which are multifaceted. The absence of bias in the decision-making process and compliance with audi alteram partem are two of these facets. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a nascent addition to the rules of natural justice. It goes beyond statutory rights by serving as another device for rendering justice. At the root of the principle of legitimate expectation is the constitutional principle of rule of law, which requires regularity, predictability and certainty in Government's dealings with the public-- J. Raz, The Authority of Law [(1979) Chapter 11]. The 'legal certainty' is also a basic principle of European community. European law is based upon the concept of vertrauensschutz (the honouring of a trust or confidence). It is for these reasons that the existence of a legitimate expectation may even in the absence of a right of private law, justify its recognition in public law.
103. In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.), the doctrine of legitimate expectation has been described in the following words:
A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied representation, or from consistent past practice.104. A formal statement on the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be found in the judgment of the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service. In that case the Government tried to forbid trade unionism among civil service. For this, the Civil Service Order in the 1982 Council was issued. The Court of Appeal declared that the Minister had acted unlawfully in abridging the fundamental right of a citizen to become a member of the trade union. The House of Lords approved the judgment of the Court of Appeal and held that such a right could not be taken away without consulting the civil servant concerned.
105. In India, the courts have gradually recognised that while administering the affairs of the State, the Government and its departments are expected to honour the policy statements and treat the citizens without any discrimination. The theory of legitimate expectation first found its mention in Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India. In that case the right of a housing society for right to priority in the matter of registration was recognised in the following words: (SCC pp. 494-95, paras 15-16)
15. In the aforesaid facts, the Group Housing Societies were entitled to 'legitimate expectation' of following consistent past practice in the matter of allotment, even though they may not have any legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The existence of 'legitimate expectation' may have a number of different consequences and one of such consequences is that the authority ought not to act to defeat the 'legitimate expectation' without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so. In a case of 'legitimate expectation' if the authority proposes to defeat a person's 'legitimate expectation' it should afford him an opportunity to make representations in the matter. In this connection reference may be made to the discussions on 'legitimate expectation' at p. 151 of Vol. 1(1). of Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn. (re-issue). We may also refer to a decision of the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service. It has been held in the said decision that an aggrieved person was entitled to judicial review if he could show that a decision of the public authority affected him of some benefit or advantage which in the past he had been permitted to enjoy and which he legitimately expected to be permitted to continue to enjoy either until he was given reasons for withdrawal and the opportunity to comment on such reasons.
16. It may be indicated here that the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such legitimate expectation'. Within the conspectus of fair dealing in case of 'legitimate expectation', the reasonable opportunities to make representation by the parties likely to be affected by any change of consistent past policy, come in. We have not been shown any compelling reasons taken into consideration by the Central Government to make a departure from the existing policy of allotment with reference to seniority in registration by introducing a new guideline.
(emphasis supplied)
19.7. The Apex Court in Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in : (1996) 9 SCC 709, approving the view of the Committee appointed by the Central Government pursuant to the directions to the High Court of Orissa, consisting of senior officers from the Ministry of Mines, the Indian Bureau of Mines and the Geological Survey of India, that the National Mineral Policy having been tabled before both the Houses of Parliament, is a guiding factor in the decision-making process of the Government and, both in the National Mineral Policy as well as the Industrial Policy of the State of Orissa, captive mining has been recognized as a fundamental guideline in determining the criteria for granting mining lease, held that the Committee made an estimate of the captive mining requirement of each of the parties appearing before it, after coming to the conclusion that captive mining is a fundamental guideline to be kept in mind while renewing the lease.
20. In that view of the matter, we do not see any error or illegality on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court for seeking appropriate direction to both Central and State Government to process the applications in accordance with the policy decision taken by them, as the petitioner is entitled to seek such relief based on legitimate expectation.
21. therefore, we are convinced that the petitioner is bonafide in approaching this Court with the above public interest litigation laying his hands on the very National Mineral Policy, 2006 and 2008 as well as the Karnataka Mineral Policy, 2008, which itself provide for promoting and encouraging scientific mining methods by employing advanced mining equipment and machineries with skilled and non-skilled manpower and actively encouraging value addition which should go hand-in-hand with the growth of the mineral sector as a stand-alone industrial activity and to give priority to the applicants, who propose to establish industries based on value addition making it clear that mining as a stand-alone industry needs to be encouraged as It provides large scale employment; new mineral based industries should be set up to match the available raw material resources; existing and new industries should set up facilities to bring the available raw materials up to the required specifications by processes like beneficiation, pelletisation and sintering; and these industries will generate more employment and spawn auxiliary industries.
22. In the circumstances, we direct:
(i) the State Government to strictly adhere to the time schedule prescribed under Rule 63A of the MC Rules in disposing the applications for grant of mining iron ore within the State of Karnataka;
(ii) to consider the matters specified under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act read with Rule 35 of the MC Rules strictly in the matter of grant of mining lease of iron ore in the State of Karnataka;
(iii) to give preference for the captive consumption of iron ore for their existing iron and steel industries, of course, without causing any harm to the existing mining as a stand-alone industry as it would go in line with the National Mineral Policy, 2008 and the Karnataka Mineral Policy, 2008 to generate more employment in the State and also provide for value addition and satisfy the end-use of minerals by such applicants;
(iv) direct the Central Government to dispose of the applications for the approval of mining lease as contemplated under Section 5 of the MMDR Act and/or Section 2 of the FC Act, as the case may be, within the reasonable time, not exceeding six months from the date of receipt of applications for such approval, so that, there would not be any financial strain on the investments that may be made by the industrialists as well as financial aid that may be extended by the State or state-owned Corporation or the Nationalised Banks in this regard; and
(v) the Central Government to dispose of the applications for the approval of mining lease as contemplated under Section 5 of the MMDR Act and/or Section 2 of the FC Act, as the case may be) within the reasonable time, not exceeding six months from the date of receipt of applications for such approval, so that, there would not be any financial strain on the investments that may be made by the industrialists as well as financial aid that may be extended by the State or state-owned Corporation or the Nationalised Banks in this regard.
9. Following the decision dated 11th June 2009 rendered in Writ Petition No. 5022/2009, this Court, under similar facts and circumstances, in Writ Petition No. 9261-63/2009 & 9264-66/2009 by order dated 8th July 2009, directed the State and Central Government to expeditiously process, scrutinize and consider through single window the applications, approve and to take appropriate decision in granting mining lease without undue and protracted delay.
10. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that respondents-2 and 3 by proceedings dated 4th October 2007 have recommended to the 1st respondent Central Government for grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner over an area of 36.42 hectares in Tumti village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District and the learned ASG appearing for the Central Government fairly concedes that there is an undue delay on the part of the Central Government in passing appropriate further orders as contemplated under Section 5 of the MMDR Act. Though the learned ASG appearing for the Central Government seeks 60 days time to take necessary action and to pass appropriate further orders in that regard, however, for the reason which weighed this Court in Writ Petition No. 5022/2009 and Writ Petition Nos. 9261-63/2009 & 9264-66/2009 and as we are satisfied that the case of the petitioner is stronger than those referred to above, that is, in the order made in Writ Petition No. 5022/2009 and Writ Petition Nos.9261-63/2009 & 9264-66/2009, as the State Government had already recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of mining tease over an extent of 36, 42 Hectares in Tumti village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District for mining Iron ore and Yellow Oxide to the Central Government as early as on 4th October 2007, and the matter is still pending since then before the Central Government, we are, of the considered opinion, suffice it to direct the first respondent to pass appropriate further orders as required under Section 5 of the MMDR Act In the matter within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ petition is ordered accordingly.