Infrastructure Logistics Pvt Ltd v. UOI and Anr

Judgment reserved on:

25.01.2012 % Judgmentdeliveredon:

15.02.2012 + W.P.fC.) Nos. 521/2012 M/S. INPRASTRUCTURELOGISTICSPVT. LTD Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. ElctaKalra,Ms. Linette,Ms. Sriram Krishna& Mr. PrannoyDey, Advocates. versus UNIONOF INDIA&ORS. .....Respondent Through: Ms. SapnaChauhan,Advocatefor the respondent No. 1/UOI. CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICEVIPINSANGHI JUDGMENT

VIPIN SANGHI, J. For detailedorders,see W.P.(C.)No.520/2012 FEBRUARY 15, 2012 VIPIN SA m ,THE HIGH GOURT OF DELHjI. AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on;

25.01.2012 % Judgment deliveredon: 15".02.2012 + W.P.(C.) Nos. 520/2012 & 521/2012 M/S. INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD Petitioner Through: Mr. DhriiJV Mehta, Senior Advocate, with jvis'. El<ta Kaira, Ms. Linette, Ms. Sriram Krishna & Mr. Prannoy Dey, Advocates. versus UNION OF H^DIA & ORS. Respondent Through: Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Advocate for v-? the respondent No. 1/UOI. 'ik CORAM: HO-N'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

¶1These two writ petitions, namely W.P(,C) 520/2012 and 521/2012 have been preferred by M/s. Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd (for short- ' , Infrastructure) to assail the two, orders dated 18.11.2011 passed by the Mines Tribunal, whereby revision applications preferred by M/s. Aakash Universal Limited (for short-Akash-respondeht no.3 in W.P(C) • 520/2012) and M/s Ashapura Minechem Limited (for short-Ashapura.- respondent no.3 in W.P(C) 521/2012) have "been allowed, and the Mines Tribunal has set aside the order dated 29.08.2009, passed by . the State of Maharashtra, recommending the grant of the mining lease W.P.(C.)Nos. 520/2012 & 521/2012 of the area in questionfor bauxiteore admeasuring192.28hectares in flavour of the petitioner. The jviines Tribunal has remanded the case : back to the State Government to decide the applications made by the applicantsfor'obtainingthe mining lease ons.jneritsafresh. - ,2. Learned senior counsel ^for the petitiioner has been heard at length and, as I find no merit in these petitions, I proceed to dispose them of. .

¶3On

12.10.2006, of Maharashtra issued a • . • notification under Section 11(2) (4.) of the Mines Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, the "Act') notifying the areas mentioned in the Schedule as being available for grant of mining leases/prospecting .licenses for bauxite ore calling for applications from general' public'for being considered for such grant. The State extended the period for filing of applications upto 31.01.2007. Apart from the petitioner, various other applicants submitted their applications, including Akash and Ashapura. The Chief Minister of Maharashtra granted hearing to applicants on

07.05.2009 and passed the order dated 29.08.2009 recommending ^ grant of mining lease for bauxite order over an area of 192.28 hectares in favour of the petitioner.

¶4In respect petitioner, details noted by the State in its order dated 29.08.2009 read as follows:-W.I^.(C.)Nos. 520/2012 & 521/2012 *'(10) M/,s. Jnfrastmture Logisl^ic Pvt. Ltd, Goa has applied for grant of ML over an area of 201;.22.10H/R on 18.01.2007."It is observeci ffom their submissions that:-

(i) It is Private Limited Company Promoters are engaged in Iron Ore mining and export.

(ii) Applicant has the expertise in Mining, logistic and Value addition to Mineral ore.' They are expertise to operate across the full value chain and are operating Mines in Karnataka, Maharashtra and Goa and they i,do have experience of Mining.

(iii)' They have qualified technical staff and modern equipment for mining.

(iv) It is proposed to establish a Benefication/value ' addition Plant with investment upto Rs.200.00 crore.

(v) Applicant will participate in local area development like construction of roads, plantation, education, health services,-etc. J'

(vi) Applicant will take adequate care of Environment / Protection."

¶5['may also at this stage itself take notice of the observations made by' the State in respect of Akash and Ashapura which rec|d as follows:-"(15) M/s. Akash Uoiversal Ltd., Mumbai.has applied for grant of ML over an area of 201.22.10 H/R on 24.01.2007. It is revealed from their submissions that:-

(i) It is Limited company is engaged in mining business for last 15 years.

(ii) Applicant does not hold any ML/PL. Technical experts wi|l be appointed. ' However, , Group Companies do have experience of mining. . ,

(iii) Their share capital is Rs.2.00 crores. V

(iv) They have submitted audit Report as on 31.03.2007. (vj Company will invest Rs.500.00 crores for mining.

(vi) Applicant intends to set up Alumina Plant. But project report is not given." "(1) M/s. Ashapura Mirjechem Ltd., fslumbai has applied for grant of ML over an area of

201.22.10 HR on

12.09.2003. It is seen from their submissions that:- fV.P.(C.)Nos. 520/2012 .cfe 521/2012 ' - Page 3 of21

(i). It. is Private Limited company engaged in mining, processing of the minerals.

(ii) They do hold ML/PL in Maharashtra and have pretty good experience of mining activities. They are well equipped with technically qualified personnel.

(iii) It is proposed to make investment of Rs.30/- lakhs for mining. Their financial position is sound;

(iv), So far they have made investment of Rs.641.00 lakhs in the State. It is also proposed to set-up Alumina Refinery/Smelter Plant with investment of Rs.4232.00 crores and project'report is submitted."

¶6The observations made by the State Government in its order dated 29.08.2009 read'as follows:-"1, After going through records taking into consideration the oral' and written submissions of applicants ^ going through the provisionsof the Act and Rules, I have made the following observations:-

(i) At . Muaze Ambivali Mauze Kante area ' available to be recommended for grant of M.L is

192.2a.10 H/R only.

(ii) In all 17 applicants have made 23 applications for. grant of mining lease.

¶2The said area has been notified under Section.11(2)

(4) of the Act. Hence selection of applicant/s to be recommended for grant of P.L. will be governed as per relevant Rules and Regulations.

¶3The inter-^se-Merit Chart is enclosed herewith as Exhibit 'A', it may be noted that it is a vital part of this Order. It also indicates reasons for acceptance/rejection of the application.

¶4This order' is restricted to the compartment number and'area thereof already notified only. However, some of the applicants have applied over other areas also. It may be noted that such area is not the subject matter of this order, ; W.P.(C.) Nos. 520/2012 & 521/2012 w. 'jf'

¶5Applicants who do have experience of nriining operations, well equipped with technical expertise and are financially sound are as follows:-

(i) M/s. Ashapura Minechem Ltd., Mumbai.

(ii) M/s. Ramgad Minerals, and Mining Pvt. Ltd., Hospet.

(iii) M/s. P.Z. Gawade, Vengurla. •

(iv) M/s. Gimpex Metal Ltd., Chennai.

(v) M/s. Core Minerals, Chennai.

(vi) Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Ltd., Magpur.

(vii) M/s. Infrastructure Logistic Pvt. Ltd., Goa. Rest applicants either intends to set-up mineral based industry or utilize the mineral for trading."

¶7The inter se merit of Ashapura, the petitioner and Akash noted in the merit chart, Ex. 'A' to the order dated 29.08.2009 reads as follows:- fer. Name of Date of Areas • applied(in Special Financial The Proposed Reasons for No. applicatio Hec.) Knowledge resources of Nature & Investmen Acceptance/ applicant n or experience possessed by applicant the applicants quality of technical staff employe d or to be employe d by the applicant t for mines or Industry based on Minerals Rejection S.No Area in Hect. • M/s 12/09/03 Ambiva

42.35 Holding Share Capital Technical Rs.4232.0 Application is Ashapura ML Ii 13 to mining Rs.6,38,27,000/ Staff rejected for reasons Minochem 16,50,6 leases in - available mentioned in para 2 Ltd, 3,65 Maharashtr

(a) of the Conclusion Mumbai. Kante 3,4,10 to 15,18 to 25,28 a & Gujarat. of this Order. M/s 18/01/07 Kante

158.87.1 NIL Share Capital Technical Rs.lO Application is Infrastructu ML Rs.l crore Staff crore accepted for reasons re Logistics

42.35 available mentioned in para 3 Pvt. Ltd, Goa.

(c) of Conclusion of this Order. M/s Akash 24/01/07 Ambiva

201.22.1 NIL Solvency Technical Rs.50 Application is Universal Ltd.Mumbai M.L Kante Certificate of Rs.50 Lakh. Staff not available. Propose to appoint. crore rejected for reasons mentioned In para 3

(d) of the Conclusion of this Order. 1V.P.(C.) Nos. 520/2012 & 521/2012 ' - r

¶8The conclusion drawn by the State Government in its order read ^sfollows:- "1. Bauxite Ore reserves in Maharashtra are limited that too concentrated in Kolhapur district and two coastal districts viz. Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg. It is also pertinent to note that the available Bauxite reserves are meagre and . • it is'not sufficient to establish a major industry like Alumina Refinery. Further the Bauxite Ore available in the area is in the form of boulders and is of Float type.

¶2ln:the light of prevailing circumstances, it is evident tht applicant's mentioned in para under caption "Observations" prevails over all other applicants. This means that there are' number or"" eligible applicants. Therefore, it has become difficult to choose one of them, in; such case I have taken Into consideration ' contentions made in para 8.8 of Guidelines issued by the of India, Ministry of Mines vide their letter N0.F.N0.7/6O/2OO6-MIV, dated

24.06.2009. wherein it is alsi stated that section 11(3) mentions various criteria for selection from amongst applications received on same day (actual or deemed) but the inter-se-weightage of these criteria is not defined. Thus, applicants having adequate technical support and financial capacity to implement mining operations (RP/PL/ML) and who comply the other paramsters laid down in Guidelines, dt. 24.06.2009 issued by Govt. of India do come in consideration zone for to be I recommended for mineral concession. V

¶3In view of above, the eligible applicant's are analysed as follows:- . , (a) As regards applicants mentioned in "Para-5 . "Observation" of this Order, following applicants have been granted/recommended for grant of mineral concession so far. Thus their cases has been considered to the extent possible on the basis of their merits. Further they can procure mineral from other sources. Therefore, I do hot recommend them for grant of ML over the area under consideration. ' , • • , \ ' • • ; ,

(i) M/s. Ashapura Minechem Ltd.

(ii) M/s. P.Z. Gawade. W.P.(C.)Nos. 520/2012 &521/2012 Page 6of21 @

(iii) M/s. Gimpex Metal Ltd.

(iv) M/s. Core Mineral.

(V) Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Ltd.

(b) As regards M/s. Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt. . Ltd., it seems that they will utilize the mineral for trading. However, State prefer captive use of ' , mineral, hence I reject their application.

(c)^'' As regard M/s. Infrastruture Logistic Pvt. Ltd., Goa, they are eligible in all respects as per Rules and Regulations. Qualified technical staff is available. , They will execute Mining in scientific manner utilizing modern techniques and equipments. Their financial position is strong. They will take adequate care of , Environment Protection. Applicant will also participate in social-economic development of local area. In view of this, I am satisfied that they are X. most eligible applicant to be recommended for grant of M.L. for Bauxite Ore over the area applied by •them.

(d) Rest of the applicants are also otherwise eligible. But since better option is available as mentioned above hence I reject their application. 4, • In view of above 1 pass the following Order in the matter:- , , Order Under Section. ll(2) 11(4) of Act I j recommend to grant Minipg Lease lior Bauxite Ore over an area .of

192.28 H/R situated at Mauze , Ambivali Kahte, Tal, Madangad, District Ratnagiri to M/s. Infrastructure Logistic Pvt,. Ltd, Goa as per MAP , . (Annexure 'B') appended herewith. All NOC's from Z? ' • central Government, State Local Authorities be obtained by the applicant."

¶9Akash Ashapura preferred revision applications under Section,

30., of the Act read with Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'MCR') before the Mines Tribunal. W.P:(€.)Nos. 520/2012 & 521/2012 I I.

¶10The grievance of the revision applicants Akash and Ashapura was • that their applications were not considered on merits, and on comparisonwith the petitioner, they were more deserving candidates for grant of mining leasing over the area of 192.28 hectares of land situated at Mauze, Ambivali & Kante villages in Mandangad Taluk, Ratnagiri District upon application of the criteria prescribed under Section 11(3) of the Act.

¶11The case of Akash was that it had entered into and executed an agreement in respect of ^ mega project of integrated steel plant and aluminium refinery with captive power plant of 25 MW with the of Maharashtra. The of Maharashtra had- \ already granted approval in respect of the said project. The value of project was 2200 crores. Loan of Rs.300 crores had been sanctioned by Dena Bank. The land in respect of the said project had been purchased/acquired, The company had acquired mining rights in respect of bauxite in Maharashtra. Akash produced with its revision application, documents in support of the aforesaid claims. It was also claimed that Akash had already appointed a team of technical staff consisting of 2 Geologists, 1 Plant Consultant and 1 Mining Engineer and it had experience in mining business for the last 15 years. It had been carrying on mining operation in Orissa for the last two years. Akash also pointed out that it had submitted solvency certificate of Rs. crores at the time of hearing, but the State had W.P.(C.)Nos. 520/2012 & 521/2012 ; c erroneously considered the solvency certificate of Rs. 50 lal<hs which was submitted at the time of application. It was contended that the petitionerInfrastructurehad share capital of only Rs.l crore. It did not hold any mining lease or. prospective licence in any State, whereas Aakash had already acquired a, good reputation in the mineral industry. It was claimed that as opposed to the plan of the petitioner to establish a benification/value additional plant with an investment of upto 200 crores, Akash was in the process of installing an integrated steel plant of 1 lakh MT capacity and aluminium refinery and manufacturing plant with a capacity of 2 lakhs MT at Ratnagiri, Maharashtra. The proposed investment to be made by Infrastructure of Rs.200 crores was miniscule as compared to the investment of Rs.2200 crores proposed by Akash.

¶12Akash also claimed that since bauxite ore was available in limited and scarce quantities in the State of Maharashtra, the claims of all persons involved in, and concerned with the business relating to the I industry should have been considered, where the raw material may be required by them. Akash also contended that over a span of three days, the State Government had prepared three different comparison charts with different investment valuation. These charts contradicted each other. It was claimed that, whereas, others had no plant established or developed in the State of Maharashtra, the revisionist Akash had already undertaken process of installation i W.P.(C.)Nos. '520/2012 & 521/2012 integrated, steel plant of Rs. I1al<h |VIT, and aluminium refinery . manufaGturing plan of capacity of 2 lal<li |V1T at Ratnagiri, jviaharashtra. It was claimed that Akash's said plant would not survive without the raw material; . ]l3. Aakash claimed-that on the one hand, the Govt. of jviaharashtra had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for a mega project 'with it of the value of Rs.2,200 crores, on the other hand, the entire area measuring

192.21 hectares had been solely awarded to Infrastructure for the purposes of mining. Aakash contended that, V-whereas, it has already appointed a team of technical staff consisting of two geologists, plant consultant mining engineer. Infrastructure had merely stated that they had qualified technical staff without furnishing details of the same.

¶14Ashapura in its revision petition submitted that State had ignored the fact that it had 30 years of extensive experience in mining, processing and marketing on industrial 'minerals. - j- , Ashapura claimed itself to be the world's largest producers bentonite, and also the largest producer, processoV and exporter of bauxite in I India. It claimed to have significant presence in the field of various '1 I minerals including barite, feldspar, bleaching clay and kaolin. - Ashapura also claimed that it had been awarded various awards by the Organisations/Corporations including Export Promotion Gouncir and Ministry of Commerce, of India. Ashapura W.P.(C.)Nos:520/2012&521/2012 • Page10of21 ; . also claimed that it had plans of investing Rs.4500 crores in a mega project already sanctioned by the of Maharashtra for setting up an Alumni Refinery and Smelter Plant of 0.5 million tonnes in ' Ratnagiri District.

¶15• Ashapura contended that .it has vast experience of mining operations its financial position was acknowledged by the State in the' impugned order itself. The applicant had a share capital of over 4.38 crores, available technical staff and it proposed investment of Rs.4232 crores. In all parameters, Ashapura claimed ^ • that it was superiorto Infrastructure.Ashapuraclaimedthat the order of the State Government was not based on the guidelines issued by , of India, Ministry of Mines in their letter dated

24.06.2009, and it was arbitrary and subjective. Ashapura contended that "there was no bar in considering its application for grant of further leases merely because it had earlier been granted bauxite leases. It claimed that selection petitioner was not done in . a y * transparent manner. Ashapura-also claimed that no special reason was disclosed to favour the petitioner for grant of mining lease, j prior approval of the Central Government was not sought for the said purpose. The order of the State was attacked on the ground of it being patently perverse, arbitrary and discriminatory.

¶16; The .Mines Tribunal in its order dated 18.11.2011 passed in the revision preferred by Aakash has observed that on an examination of W.P.(C.)Nos. 520/2012 &521/2012 Page11of21 inter se merit chart enclosed with, forming part impugned order passed by the State Government, it is seen that in the inter se merit chart the proposed investment of Aakash has been I shown as Rs.50 crores, whereas in the body of the order the same had been noted as Rs.500 crores. This, apparently, shows non application of mind on behalf State Government. In comparison, petitioner had proposed investment of Rs.lO crores (as noted in the inter se merit chart), whereas in the body of the order of State Government, the same had been noted as Rs.200 crores, which, again jif-- showed non application of mind by the State Government. . ,17. The Tribunal also observes that some other applicants have proposed more investment than both Aakash and the petitioner, there were other applicants with stronger credentials, who scored over the petitioner on the basis of parameters contained in Section 11(3) of Act, namely, special knowledge experience, financial resources, availability of technical staff and proposed investment. The ; Tribunal holds that the argument that .more deserving applicants had been considered to the extent possible, and that they can procure ; mineral from other resources, could not be sustained in the facts of the • V • case. The Tribunal concluded that State had not made proper analysis of the case with reference to the provision of Section 11(3) of the Act. W.P.(C.)Nos. 520/2012 & 521/2012 Page 12 of21

¶18. In the~ impugned order dated 18.11.2011 passed in the revision • preferred by Ashapura, the Tribunal observes that Ashapura had shown : financial resources of more than Rs.6. crores, and proposed irivestment of Rs.4232 crores towards setting up of Alumina Refinery/Smelter Plant for which it had submitted a project report. In comparison, petitioner had shown financial resources of Rs.l crore share capital proposed investment of Rs.lO crores. Though petitioners proposed investment had been shown as Rs.200 crores in applicant wise details (which was noted as Rs.lO crores in the inter se merit chart prepared by the State Government), it was less meritorious in comparison with Ashapura. Ashapura had stronger credentials scored over the petitioner on the basis of parameters contained in Section 11(3) of the Act, nan^ely, special knowledge and experience, financial resources, availability of technical staff proposed investment. In this case as well, it was observed that the ground taken by the State Government that the requirement of Ashapura had been considered to the extent possible, and that it can procure material from other resources, do not stand scrutiny in the facts of the case, and that the State hadi not made a proper analysis of provision of Section 11(3) of tjie Act in; the impugned order. .-;L9. At the outset, 1 may note tihat while exercising the extraordinary / writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Mines Tribunal. All that JV.P.fC)Nos. 520/2012 &521/2012 Page13of21 is being undertakenis judicial review of the said decisions. Therefore, unless the petitionercan show either the breach of the procedural requirements,or establish that the impugned orders passed by the Mines Tribunal are illegal and contraryto the provisions,inter alia, of the Act, or otherwiseperverse,this Court would normallynot interfere with the decision of the Mines Tribunal. ' 20. The tt-ibunal, in both thfe cases, takes note of the serious discrepancyin the noting of the materialfacts and figures by the State Government. These have already been noted herein above. For .r . . instance, in the body of the otder passed by the State Government in relation to Aakash, it is noticed that they proposed to invest Rs.500 crores for mining. Whereas, in the inter se merit chart, which forms an integral part of the order, the proposed investment for mines or industries based on th^ minerals is to the tune of Rs.SO crores only. i Similarly, the State Government has proceeded on the basis that Aakash had submitted solvency certificate of Rs.SO lacs, whereas they had supplied solvency certificate of Rs.15 crores.

¶21The tribunal has .(held that the scale of investment proposed by Aakash was to the tune of Rs^SOO crores as opposed to the investment proposedby the petitionerInfrastructureof Rs.200 crores. There were other applicants who had proposed more investment than the Infrastructure and Aakash, such as Ashapura. The tribunal holds that there were other applicants who had stronger credentials and scored JV.P.(C.)Nos. 520/2012 &521/2012 ^ Page14of21 /•f V \lo over and above Infrastructure, on the basis of parameters contained in Section 11(3) of the Act, namely, special knowledge and experience, financial resources, availability of technical staff proposed investment. Consequently,the tribunal has con.cl:ljdedthat the State has not made proper analysis of the case with reference to provision of Section 11(3) of the Act in its order dated 29.08.2009. 2t- . The submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, firstly, is that the State Government had duly applied its mind and evaluated all the applications on the basis of the criteria set out in the Act. He submits that equitable distribution of the resources weighed heavily with the State Government while passing the order dated 29.08.2009, and since both Aakash and Ashapura had.be^ granted mining leases within the State for the same ore, the State Governme^ observed that their cases had been considered to the extent possible on the basis of their merit. He submits that the Supreme Court in Tata Sron & Steel Company Limited v. Union of Sndia & Another,

(1996) SCC 709, has upheld policy of equitable distribution of the mineral resources.

¶23He further submits so far as Aakash is concerned, the State had noted that though it had proposed investment of Rs.500 crores for mining, and it had also proposed setting up of an Alumina Plant, but no project report had been given.^ For this reason, Aakash was not even considered as an eligible applicant in para 3 of JV.P.(C.)Nos. 520/2012 521/2012 Page X5 of 21 (?) the order,passedby the StateGovernmentand in the conclusiondrawn by it in its order.

24.- Aperusal of the order of the State Governmentdoes not reveal that the submission project report, according to the State was an eligibility requirement, without which the applicationof an applicantwas liable to.be rejected at the threshold. There is no observation made in its order by the State Government, • that Aakash cannot be considered to be eligible, because it has not submitted the project report with regard to the setting up of the V Alumina Plant. If the contentionof Aakash -that it was in the process of installing an integrated steel plant of 1 lakh MT capacity and aluminium refinery and manufacturing plant with a capacity of 2 lakhs MT at Ratnagiri, Maharashtra,, for which the Govt. of State of Maharashtra had already approved a captive power plant of 25 MW, is correct, then that may be an even more credible information than what a project report hnay provide to the State Government for assessing the seriousness of commitment of Aaksh to make the investrrients in future, as proposed by it. Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn that • ^ the Governmentdid not considerAakash becauseit did not providethe project report. The fact that the project report has not been supplied by Aakash is noted in the order of the State Government as a matter of •; fact, but there is no observation that, for that reason Aakash is being considered ineligible. W.R(C.jNos. 520/2012 &521/2012 PageX6 of21 i •So far as reliance placed on Tata Iron & Steel Co. (supra) is concerned,that decisionwas renderedin a completelydifferentset of circulnstances.That was a case relatingto renewal of a mining lease I overs large area which was held by TISCO, whose needs were limited, while several needy manufacturerswere deprived of.adequate raw material. It had, therefore,been observed^y a committeereferredto as "Rao Committee"that the grant of renewal of mining lease over an area as large as that held by TISCO, in favour of a single applicant whose own needs are limited, while several needy manufacturers were i deprived of adequate sources of raw material, would be to promote monopolistictendencieswhich cannotbe allowed. This committeewas of the view, that the concept of "mineral development" under Section 8(3) of the Act requires the assessment of the captive mining requirement of different industries as also the application of the •principle of equitabledistributionof mining leases. After perusingthe reportof the Rao Committee,the Supreme'Courtobservedthat: "53 On the issue of the application principleof equitabledistribution,we are of the view that .Committee had, after having taken note prevailing siiuation and the problems faced by needy manufacturers, taken the correct view in recommending its implementation. ,64. We are, therefore, of the view that the Committee had correctly interpreted relevant material for appreciating the concept of "mi§eraj development" and kdopiing the •stance that it encompassedthe concept of captive mining as well as the principle of equitable distribution". W.P.(C.)Nos. S20/2012 &521/2012 Page17of21 " 2'6-The concept of equitable distribution, jn my view, cannot become a tool in the hands of the State Government to give a go to the criteria statutorily provided in Section 11(3) of the Act. The State Government cannot override said criteria in name of "equitable distribution". Equitable distribution in Tata Iron & Steel Co. (supra) was approved in the context of the renewal of the mining lease of a very large area in favour of TISCO, when their need was small , compared to others, and others were facing problems of shortage. The j-argument of equitable distribution was, therefore, advanced to say ' that the concept of mineral development would not be advanced by creation of such unequal monopolistic distribution. I do not appreciate how the concept of equitable distribution approved in the context of the facts in T^ta Iron & Steel Co. (supra) can be applied in the facts of the present case, which are entirely different.

¶27The observation State that case of Ashapura and other eligible applicants has been considered to the extent possible, that they could procure mineral from other -sources, isIn the teeth of the provisions of the Act, as the Act does not seek to prioritize those,applicants who have not been granted mining leases, vis-a-vis, those who have earlier being granted mining,leases.

¶28The limitation with regard to grant of mining leases is contained in Section 6 which, inter alia, provides that no person shall acquire in respect of any mineral or prescribed group of associated minerals in a '•5 ^ . W.P.(C.)Nos. 520/2012 &521/2012 ^ ' Page18of21 -~:r-state, one or more mining leases covering a total area of more than 10 . sq. kms. It is not the case of the ipetitioher that, either Aakash, or Ashapura,^ have been granted mining leases by State of Maharashtra for bauxite ore to the extent of 10 sq. kms. Rejection of application of Ashapura on this basis is clearly beyond provisions of the Act.

¶29The submissiion of Mr. Mehta that others had not even apprbacheql the Mines Tribunal by filing a revision and, therefore^ order dated 29.08,2009 could not be disturbed by the tribunal on the strength case of other applicants has no merit, since petitioners case, on merits, prima facie, does not appear to match up with the case,of either Akash or Ashapura. In Sandlur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnats^a & ors., JT 2010 (10) SC 157, the Supreme Court has held that "It is not open to the State Government to justify grant based on criteria that are de hors to I^MDR Act and MC Rules. The " ' • I i" exercise has to be done strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions and if there is any deviatiph, the same cannot be sustained. It is the normal rule of construction that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself This principle has been reiterated in C.i.T. i^umbai v. Anjum M:H. Ghaswala & Ors.,. [JT 2001 (9) SC 61 : (2002) 1 SCC 633] at W.P.(C.)Nos. 520/2012 & pl/2012 f •Ti' . 644, Captian Sube Singh & Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. IJT2004 (Suppl.D.SC 413: (2004) 6 5CC 440] and State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh .& Ors. [1964 (4) SCR 485]."

¶31It is not for tinis Court to assess the conriparative merit of the various applicants. The petitioner has not been able to show as to how the observations of the Mines Tribunal, that the cases of Aakash Ashapura stand on a stronger wicket, on the basis of the parameters prescribed in Section 11(3) of the Act, namely, special knowledge .experience, financial resources, availability of technical staff proposed investment, are ex-facie erroneous. The observation made by the tribunal that State has hot made proper analysis of the case with reference to the provisions of Section 11(3) of the Act, therefore, appears to be well founded.

¶32Reliance placed by learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the guidelines regarding submission of mineral concession proposals under Section 5(1) of the' Act dated

24.06.2009, in particular clause 8.8 thereof, does not advance the case of the petitioner either. Clause 8.8 of these guidelines reads as follows: "8.8 Section 11(3) mentions various criteria for selection from amongst applications received on same day (actual or deemed) but the inter-se weightage of these criteria is not defined. Further, if more than one applicant has capabilities as mentioned in Section 11(3) choice of applicant becomes difficult. Since all the eligible applicants are co-equal in terms of chronology, the choice has to be made on objective selection criteria in a transparent manner. Normally, the recommendation of a State Government m this regard is acceptable if W.P.(C.)Nos. 5X0/2012 &. 521/2012 1- •I •' -1 ••r . ._v (3 a comparative chart (as per proforma attached) of all the applScamts on the criteria enumerated in Section 11(3) of MMDR Act is available and the State has passed reasoned orders on file for recommending acceptance of case of a particular applicant and for not recommending the acceptance of the remaining applicants. The State Goverhments should, therefore,, while sending proposal to Ministry, not only enclose the comparative chart based on the provisions,of^ction 11(3) ofthe MMDR Act butshould furnish a self<ontpined speaking order duly signed by the competent authority." (emphasis supplied)

¶33Even though t^^e State Government has referred to the said guidelines in its order dated 29.08.2009, it appears that, it has rendered lip service to the aforesaid guidelines, as it has not prepared a comparative chart on the basis^ofthe criteria enumerated in Section 11(3) of the Act, and the reasons adopted by it in its order do not have relevance to the said criteria contained in Section 11(3) of the Act.

¶34For, all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in these petitions and dismiss the same.

¶35However, I may observe that observations made by me in this order have been made only for the purpose of consideration petitioner's present writ petitions, and the same shall not come in the way of the petitioner in the remanded proceedings before the State Government or any subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, if any.

¶36Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. FEBRUARY /C, 2012 srI'BSR' W.P.(C.) Nos. 520/2012 <& 521/2012 VIPIN SANGHI, J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI