TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>State Government held in contempt for non-compliance in Keora mining lease case. Final judgment reiterated.</h1> <h3>Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd Versus Rajesh Verma & Ors</h3> Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd Versus Rajesh Verma & Ors - 2014 (5) SCC 551, 2014 (5) JT 557, 2014 (5) SCALE 458 Issues Involved:1. Grant of mining lease to Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (BPSL) in Thakurani and Keora areas.2. Contempt Petition filed by BPSL for non-compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment.3. State of Orissa's application expressing difficulties in implementing the judgment.4. Writ petitions filed by Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL), Jindal Steel and Power Limited, and Shri Mahavir Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. seeking similar relief as BPSL.Detailed Analysis:1. Grant of Mining Lease to BPSL:The Supreme Court reviewed the case of BPSL, which had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the State Government for the grant of iron ore mines in Thakurani and Keora areas for its steel plant. The High Court had dismissed BPSL's writ petition, but the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the State Government to recommend BPSL's case to the Central Government for the grant of adequate iron ore reserves. The Review Petition filed by the State was rejected, making the Supreme Court's judgment final.2. Contempt Petition by BPSL:BPSL filed a Contempt Petition (CCP No. 374 of 2012) due to non-implementation of the Supreme Court's judgment concerning the Keora area. The State Government had complied partially by granting Thakurani Block A but did not implement the order regarding Keora. The State cited various difficulties, including overlapping applications and the legal position changed by the Sandur Manganese case, which required simultaneous consideration of all applications under Section 11(4) of the MMDR Act.3. State of Orissa's Application (I.A. No. 14 of 2013):The State of Orissa filed an application highlighting subsequent developments and legal proceedings that made it difficult to implement the Supreme Court's judgment. The State mentioned overlapping applications, pending cases, and the requirement for simultaneous consideration of applications as per the Sandur Manganese case. The State sought directions regarding the implementation of the judgment in relation to the Keora area.4. Writ Petitions by Other Companies:- Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL): BSL filed a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 60 of 2013) seeking the same benefits as BPSL, claiming it was similarly situated due to a family settlement and a subsequent MOU with the State Government.- Jindal Steel and Power Limited: Jindal Steel filed a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 194 of 2013) asserting its entitlement to a mining lease based on an MOU with the State Government and its pending applications. Jindal Steel argued that its case was on a better footing than BPSL.- Shri Mahavir Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.: This company filed a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 837 of 2013) claiming similar relief as BPSL, stating that its application for a mining lease had been pending for over ten years due to the status quo order in BPSL's case.Supreme Court's Judgment:The Supreme Court held that the State Government was in contempt for not complying with the directions regarding the Keora area. The Court emphasized that the judgment in favor of BPSL had attained finality and must be implemented. The State Government was given one final opportunity to purge the contempt by making the necessary recommendations to the Central Government within one month. Failure to do so would result in further contempt proceedings.The Court dismissed the intervention applications by Tata and Larsen & Toubro as non-maintainable. Regarding the writ petitions filed by BSL, Jindal Steel, and Shri Mahavir Ferro Alloys, the Court dismissed them on the grounds that they could not directly approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners were given liberty to approach the High Court or any other appropriate forum to seek relief.In conclusion, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier judgment in favor of BPSL and directed the State Government to comply with the order. The writ petitions by other companies were dismissed with the option to seek redressal in other forums.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
