Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CONMT. PET. (C) No. 374 of 2012 In C.A. No. 2790 of 2012

Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. ..... Appellant(s)

Versus

Rajesh Verma & Ors.. ..... Respondent (s)

WITH

W.P. (C) No. 60 of 2013

W.P. (C) No. 194 of 2013

W.P. (C) No. 837 of 2013

I.A. No. 14 & I.A. NO. 2 IN I.A. No. 14

IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2790 OF 2012

J U D G M E N T

A.K SIKRI, J.

1.All the aforesaid matters were heard analogously as they are

inter-connected. In fact, it is the judgment dated 14.3.2012

passed in C.A. No. 2790 of 2012 which has become the trigger

point of all other cases. C.A. No. 2790 of 2012 was filed by M/s.

Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (formerly known as Bhushan

Limited) (hereinafter referred to as 'BPSL'). That was an appeal

against the judgment passed by High Court of Orissa whereby the

1

Page 2 High Court had dismissed the writ petition of the BPSL. Before

proceeding further, we would like to narrate the nature of different

cases and the background in which they came to be filed.

CCP No. 374 of 2012

2.The erstwhile Bhushan Limited had proposed setting up of plant

in some identified villages in the District of Sambalpur, Orissa. For

this purpose it had made a request for acquisition of land,

measuring 1250 acres, which was acquired for Bhushan Limited. It

had also applied for grant of lease of mining of iron ore for use in

the proposed plant. These applications were favourably

considered by the State Government which agreed to accord due

priority to Bhushan Limited for grant of suitable iron ore areas and

also agreed to recommend the proposal to the Government of

India for grant of a Coal Block. Even a MOU was entered into

between the State Government and Bhushan Limited containing

the commitment of the State Government to recommend to the

Central Government, grant of iron ore mines for its use in the

proposed plant. For this purpose area earmarked for

recommendation were Thakurani area with 96 million tonnes iron

ore reserves and Keora Area, District Sundargarh for additional

2

Page 3 128 million tonnes of iron ore; both for 50 years requirement of

the plant. Though various statutory and other permissions

required for setting up of the plant were granted and the plant

was also set up, but due to some in-fight between the family

members who owned Bhushan Limited, it faced difficulties in

getting the grant of iron ore lease.

3.In so far as granting of mining lease of iron ore reserves in the

aforesaid areas is concerned, it fell into rough weather. It resulted

into show cause notice dated 18.1..2006 by the State Government

which led to the decision that mining lease over the Thakurani

area could not be allowed on various grounds and the application

made by Bhushan Limited was premature. Thereafter, the

Government of Orissa made a recommendation to the Central

Government on 9.2.2006 to grant mining lease in favour of one

M/s Neepaz Metallics (P) Ltd. in relaxation of Rule 59(1) of the

Mining Rules, for a period of 30 years. Challenging these orders,

Bhushan Limited filed the writ petition in the High Court on

8.5.2006. This Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court on

14.12.2007 and challenging this decision Special Leave Petition

was filed which was granted converting the SLP into C.A. No.

3

Page 4 2790/2012. This appeal was allowed by this Court vide judgment

dated 14.3.2012 with the following directions:

“Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the

judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa and

also the decision of the State Government dated

9.2.2006, rejecting the Appellant's claim for grant of

mining lease. During the course of hearing, we have

been informed that Thakurani Block A has large

reserves of iron ore, in which the Appellants can also

be accommodated. We, accordingly, direct the State

of Orissa to take appropriate steps to act in terms of

the MOU dated 15.5.2002, as also its earlier

commitments to recommend the case of the

Appellants to the Central Government for grant of

adequate iron ore reserves to meet the requirements

of the Appellants in their steel plant at Lapanga”.

4.It would be pertinent to mention that State of Orissa had filed

Review Petition seeking review of this judgment but the same was

rejected. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, though the BPSL

has been given Thakurani Block A, the order has not been

implemented qua Keora, District Sundargarh. That is precisely the

cause for filing Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 374 of 2012 by BPSL.

I.A. No. 14 of 2013

5.The State of Orissa and its officials who are impleaded as

Contemners in the CCP have filed their replies to the CCP

expressing certain difficulties because of which they claim that

4

Page 5 the directions given in the judgment are incapable of

enforcement. Simultaneously, Respondent No. 1/ State of Orissa

has filed instant I.A. No. 14 of 2013 as well, in which certain

subsequent developments which have taken place after the

passing of the judgment dated 12.3.2012 are traversed. It is

highlighted that there are certain other and legal proceedings

filed by them are pending at various stages in the High Court or in

this Court and the area claimed by them in those legal

proceedings overlap with the area which is the subject matter of

grant to BPSL. A reference is also made to subsequent judgment

in the case of Sandur Manganese & Iron Ore v. State of Karnataka;

(2010) 13 SCC 1 which has changed the legal position thereby

making it difficult for the State to recommend the case of the

petitioner. It is also stated that the issue which is dealt with by

this Court in Sandur Manganese (Supra) was not raised in the Writ

proceedings/ Civil Appeal of the BPSL. On the basis of the

aforesaid averment prayer made in the I.A. reads as under:-

“Pass appropriate directions with regard to

implementation of the directions contained in final

order and judgment dated 14.3.2012 passed by this

Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 2790 of 2012 in so

far as it relates to the mining lease applications of the

5

Page 6 petitioner for an additional 128 million tonnes of iron

ore over lands in Keora area of Sundergarh District”.

I.A. NO. 2 OF 2013 IN I.A. NO. 14 OF 2013

6.In I.A. No. 14 of 2013, this I.A. is preferred by M/s. Shri

Mahavir Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. The grievance of this applicant is

against the status quo order dated 21.4.2008 passed in the

applications filed by the BPSL. It is alleged that the applicant has

filed 9 applications for grant of Iron Ore Mining Lease of different

areas, notified as well as non-notified, including the Thakurani

area. However, because of the status quo order the applications

of the applicant not being considered by the State Government

which is adversely affecting the interest of the applicant.

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 60 OF 2013

7.While narrating the facts of C.A. No. 2790 of 2012 in brief,

we had mentioned about the inter se disputes between the family

members of erstwhile Bhushan Limited because of which BPSL

faced difficulties in getting the grant of iron ore lease. It so

happened that during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the

family members resolved their disputes. On 28.2.2006, Bhushan

Limited altered its name to BPSL. Other group got incorporated a

6

Page 7 company named as M/s. Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL). BSL is the

petitioner in the instant petition. This significant development was

taken note of in the judgment dated 14.3.2012 in the following

manner:-

“As indicated hereinbefore, on 21st April, 2008, this

Court passed an interim order in the Special Leave

Petition filed by Bhushan Limited directing the parties

to maintain status quo with regard to the lands

indicated in the application filed by the appellants for

grant of mining lease. However, one of the most

significant developments that subsequently took

place was that on 25th November, 2011, Shri B.B.

Singhal and Shri Neeraj Singhal, Vice-Chairman and

Managing Director of Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd.

filed affidavits withdrawing all their claims and rights

in the MOU dated 15th May, 2002, executed between

the State Government and Bhushan Limited and

declaring that the said MOU was and had always been

in favour of Bhushan power & Steel Ltd. The above

named persons also prayed for deletion of their

names from the array of parties.”

XXXXXXX

The mutual settlement of the disputes between the

members of the Bhushan Group has altered the

situation considerably, since BSSL has withdrawn its

claim under the MOU dated 15th May, 2002 and has

declared that the said MOU was and had always been

executed by the State Government in favour of

Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., which had set up its steel

plant at Lapanga. As indicated hereinbefore, although,

the MOU was entered into by the State Government

with the Bhushan Group for setting up a steel plant at

Lapanga, at a later stage, BSSL also laid claim under

the MOU for setting up a separate steel plant at

7

Page 8 Mehramandali and a suggestion was also made for

execution of a fresh MOU between the State

Government and BSSL to this effect.”

8.It is the case of the BSL in the present Writ Petition that BSL

was a part of the then Bhushan Group. It executed a MOU dated

15.5.2002 with the State of Orissa. Consequent to a family

settlement, M/s. Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. (BSSL) executed a

separate MOA dated 3.11.2005 in which the State of Orissa had

identical duties and obligations as those contained in 2002 MOU.

On 12.4.2007, BSSL was re-named as BSL herein. It is thus

claimed that BSL is identically situated as BPSL and, therefore, the

benefit given to BPSL vide judgment dated 14.3.2012 needs to be

extended to the BSL as well. The direction in the nature of

mandamus is sought to implement the decision of 12th IIAC

Meeting dated 27.8.2003 and terms of MOA dated 3.11.2005

against the State Government by making appropriate

recommendation to the Central Government for allotment of the

remaining portion in Thakurani RF Block A, District Keonjhar i.e.

601.500 hectares applied while ML Application No. 882 and the

areas applied vide ML Application No. 1079 i.e. 722.30 hectares

approximately in village Kadalia, Kuriyakudar, Mithirda etc. under

8

Page 9 Bonai sub-division, District Sundegarh to meet the captive

requirements of BSL plants.

9.In essence, the petitioner wants same treatment as is given

to BPSL and, therefore, has prayed for the extension of the benefit

of judgment dated 12.3.2012 to BSL as well.

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 194 OF 2013

10.This Writ Petition is filed by Jindal Steel and Power Limited

(hereinafter referred to as 'Jindal Steel'). It had entered into MOU

with the State of Orissa on 8.5.2002. It is stated in the writ

petition that this petitioner became an intervenor in C.A. No. 2790

of 2012 to protect its interest which has been duly taken note of in

the judgment dated 14.3.2012 in the following manner:-

“Appearing for the Intervener, M/s. Jindal Steels Ltd.,

Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate,

submitted that so long as any allotment made in

favour of the Appellants did not impinge on the

allotment made in favour of M/s. Jindal Steels Ltd;, it

could have no grievance against a separate allotment

being made in favour of the Appellants.”

11.It is pleaded that the case of Jindal Steel is even on a better

footing for grant of mining lease, application for which purpose

are pending with the State of Orissa. It had also signed the MOU

9

Page 10 for setting up an integrated Steel Plant wherein similar promise

was made by the State Government for grant of a mining lease.

Additionally, Jindal Steel had the advantage of being an earlier

applicant for the mining lease in regard to Thakurani RF Block A

area which was also a part of an MOU by BPSL. It is further

mentioned that 16 mining lease applications were received in

respect of the said area and the Director of Mines vide his report

dated 8.11.2002 rejected all other applications except that of

Jindal Steel herein, BPSL and three other applicants. In the case of

Jindal Steel, recommendation was for 264 hectares in Thakurani

RF Block A as against 383 Hectare in respect of BPSL. It is also

stated that even when recommendation in respect of BPSL in

Thakurani area is made by the State Government and approved

by the Union of India, recommendation of Jindal Steel is still

pending with the State Government. It is thus, pleaded that the

case of the petitioner, Jindal Steel, is squarely covered by

judgment dated 14.3.2012 passed in C.A. NO. 2790 of 2012 and

benefit thereof be extended to this petitioner as well.

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 837 OF 2013

12.This Writ Petition is filed by Shri Mahavir Ferro Alloys Pvt.

10

Page 11 Ltd. It has also proposed to set up a0.35 MTPA Captive Integrated

Steel Plant with additional facilities and 60 MW Captive Power

Plant in Sundargarh district had an overall investment of Rs. 435

crores. This petitioner claims that pursuant to MOU entered into

with the State Government for grant of mining leases, it had

submitted its application in this behalf. However, more than 10

years have elapsed but the State Government has not

recommended its case, primarily because of status quo orders

passed by this Court in C.A. NO. 2790 of 2012. It is pointed out

that for this reason this petitioner has already filed I.A. No. 2 in I.A.

NO. 14 of 2013 in C.A. NO. 290 of 2012. Case of this petitioner,

again, is that it is equally circumscribed and placed as BPSL as

well as Jindal Steel and, therefore, entitled to the grant of mining

lease as done in favour of BPSL by this Court vide judgment dated

14.3.2012.

13.We have reproduced, hereinabove gist of the cases filed by

different parties to get the favour of the proceedings. It becomes

obvious and can be readily understood that in so far as BPSL is

concerned, by means of Contempt Petition, it is seeking the

enforcement of the directions contained in its favour in the

11

Page 12 judgment dated 14.3.2012 passed in C.A. NO. 2790 of 2012. Three

other parties namely BSL, Jindal Steel and Mahavir Ferro Alloys (P)

Ltd. have filed Writ Petitions claiming same relief as given to the

BPSL vide judgment dated 14.3.2012 on the ground that they are

placed in the similar or even better position than BPSL and,

therefore, entitled to same treatment. Further, as already pointed

out above, the State Government has ventured to exhibit its

helplessness in carrying out the directions contained in the

judgment dated 14.3.2012 even qua the beneficiary of the said

judgment namely BPSL. In so far as other three writ petitioners

are concerned, not only same difficulties are sought to be

projected, it is also mentioned that are precluded from seeking

same relief as given to BPSL for various reasons. That apart, even

the maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 32 of the

Constitution filed by these petitioners is questioned. In such a

scenario it is apposite to first deal with the CCP filed by BPSL.

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 374 OF 2012 In

C.A. No. 2790 OF 2012

14.We have already narrated the gist of factual background in

which BPSL approached the High Court and thereafter this Court

12

Page 13 for grant of mining leases of iron ore. As already mentioned, in the

MOU entered into between the parties, the State Government had

committed to recommend to the Central Government, for grant of

iron ore mines to the BPSL for its use in the plant to be set up at

Lapanga. In this behalf it was agreed to make the following

recommendations to the Central Government:-

(a)For grant of 96 million tonnes iron ore reserves in

Joda Barbil Sector of Keonjhar (Thakurani area)

for 50 years requirement of the plant.

(b)For additional 128 million tonnes of iron ore

reserves in Keora, District Sundergarh, to meet a

requirement of 1.6. million tonnes for 50 years.

15.It is not necessary to set out the detailed facts which have

been noted in judgment dated 14.3.2012, pertaining to the grant

of permissions by various authorities enabling BPSL to get the

land, electricity, permission for installation of a Captive Power

Plant etc. etc. Armed with those permission, the BPSL set up the

plant in Lapanga in the district of Sambalpur, Orissa. BPSL claims

that is has invested Rs. 25,000 crores in this project. It is further

mentioned that for running of this steel plant, uninterrupted

supply of iron ore is essential. This plant was set up in a backward

area of Orissa persuant to the scheme of the State Government. It

13

Page 14 is for this reason that the State Government agreed to grant

mining rights of iron ore reserves, keeping in view a total

requirement of 200 million tonnes over a period of 50 years for

the smooth running of the said plant. For this reason MOU dated

15.5.2002 was entered into. Since the grant of mining lease is by

the Central Government under the Mining Act, State Government

which is a recommendatory authority had agreed to recommend

the case of the BPSL. There was deadlock for some period

because of infight within Bhushan family. However, this impasse

came to be resolved. Taking note of these developments the Court

was of the opinion that there were two issues which arose for

considerations namely:

(a)Whether the Memorandum of Understanding

dated 15th May, 2002 continues to subsist in

favour of the appellants?

(b)Whether the State Government is obliged to

make recommendations for the grant of iron ore

mines in terms of the stipulations contained in the

aforesaid MOU dated 15th May, 2002 and

whether in respect of the areas which had not

been notified under Rule 59(1), the State

Government can make a recommendation for

relaxation of Rule 59(1) under Rule 59(2).

16.The Court deliberated at length on these issues and decided

in favour of BPSL holding that MOU dated 15.5.2002 still subsisted

14

Page 15 in favour of the BPSL and also that State Government was under

obligation to make recommendations as per the said MOU. The

most relevant part of discussion, in this behalf, reads as under:

“Pursuant to the MOU with Bhushan Limited, the

State Government had not only allotted land for the

setting up of the steel plant at Lapanga, it had even

extended all help for the commissioning of the plant,

which, in fact, had already started functioning.

However, it is the claim made by BSSL under the MOU

executed on 15th May, 2002, that had created

obstructions in the setting up of the steel plant at

Lapanga. Despite having allotted land and granted

sanction to Bhushan Limited to take steps for

construction of the said plant, it was subsequently

contended that the application filed by Bhushan

Limited was premature and could not, therefore, be

acted upon. Specific instances have been mentioned

hereinabove of the steps taken by the various

departments in extending cooperation to Bhushan

Limited to set up its steel plant at Lapanga. To now

turn around and take a stand that the application

made by Bhushan Limited was premature, is not only

unreasonable, but completely unfair to Bhushan

Limited, who have already invested large sums of

money in setting up the plant. The State Government

had, on its own , entered into the MOU with

Bhushan Limited on 15th May, 2002, and had even

agreed to request the Central Government to allot

mining areas and coal blocks for operating the steel

plant. Whatever differences that may have resulted

on account of the dispute within the Bhushan Group,

which could have led to the rethinking on the part of

the State Government, have now been laid to rest by

virtue of the settlement arrived at between the

Bhushan Limited (now BPSL) and BSSL. The State

Government has also accepted the said position. In

15

Page 16 addition to the above, the action taken by the State

Government appears to us to be highly unreasonable

and arbitrary and also attracts the doctrine of

legitimate expectation. There is no denying the fact

that the Appellants have altered their position to their

detriment in accordance with the MOU dated 15th

May, 2002. whatever may have been the

arrangement subsequently arrived at between the

State Government and BSSL, the original MOU dated

15th May, 2002, continued to be in existence and

remained operative”.

17.In so far as reserve of 96 million tonnes of iron ore in

Thakurani mines are concerned, the State Government had made

the recommendation to the Central Government, which has also

approved the same in favour of the BPSL. The dispute now relates

to Keora mines for a reserve of 128 million tonnes.

18.Respondents/ Contemners do not dispute (and in fact there

is no scope for any dispute) that the aforesaid directions

contained in the judgment have become final. Review Petition was

filed by the State Government but unsuccessfully. One would,

therefore, command for obeying these directions. However, the

State Government/ Contemners have pleaded their helplessness

by narrating certain circumstances which are captured herein

below.

“(a)These areas fall almost entirely within the areas

16

Page 17 notified on 23.8.1991 under Rule 59(1) of the

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The validity of

the notification dated 23.8.1991 is an issue in

SLP(c)No. 31593 of 2010 and connected cases which

are now listed for hearing on 17.01.2013 before

another Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court.

(b)Further, it is seen that the applied area is

overlapping with the applied area of several other

applicants, including M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited and

M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited.

(c)It is also pointed out that earlier on 21.10.1997

an area of 998.93 hectares overlapping with applied

area of the BPSL, was recommended in favour of

M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. in puruance with the said

company. However, thisrecommendation was

withdrawn for certain reasons. Thereafter, even

revised ML/ PL application of M/s. Larsen and Toubro

Ltd. Were rejected. The said company challenged the

order of rejection before the Revisional Authority i.e.

Central Government which passed orders dated

10.7.2003 wherein direction is given to consider

application of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Alongwith

about 196 applications for grant of mining lease and

after granting an opportunity of hearing to all the

applicants. However, BPSL is outside the 196

applications that were to be considered afresh.

(d)M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd has challenged the

aforesaid orders of the Central Government by filing

Writ Petition in the High Court which was dismissed by

the Single Judge of Delhi High Court. Appeal

thereagainst was dismissed by the Division Bench on

3.7.2012. Order of the Division Bench of the High

Court is challenged by filing SLP (C) NO.33812 of

2012 in which notice has been issued and as the

matter is sub-judice in those proceedings it is difficult

to pass any orders quaBPSL at this stage.

17

Page 18 (e)It is further pointed out that in the case of

Sandur Mangnese (Supra) this Court has considered

the provisions of Section 11(4) of the MMDR Act and

has concluded that all applications filed over

areas notified under Rule 59(1) of the Mineral

Concession Rules, 1960 deserve simultaneous

consideration. As per the mandate of Section 11(4)

of the MMDR Act, the State Government may

grant a mining lease over a notified area to such one

of the simultaneous applicants after considering the

matters specified in sub-section(3) of Section 11.

The process of simultaneous consideration of the

applications filed over Khajhurdihi R.F. In Sundergarh

and Rakma, Marsuanand Tiriba of Keonjhar district

hadremained stalled due to the various stay orders

passed in litigations concerning such area. Subject

to the orders, if any, passed by this Hon'ble

Court in this application, the process of

simultaneousconsideration of applications will take

considerable time in view of the large number of

overlapping applications over the areas in question.

Each of these applicants is required to be given an

opportunity of personal hearing and credentials of

these applicants are required to be evaluated for

assessment of relative merits interms of Section

11(3) of the MMDR Act.”

19.It is thus, argued that the developments narrated above and

the statutory mandate embodied in Section 11(4) of the MMDR

Act, 1957 have come in the way of the Respondent State in

implementing the final order and judgment dated 14.3.2012 in so

far it relates to the Keora area of Sundergarh district. It is also

sought to be argued that the question of entitlement of the

petitioner to the recommendation of mines in the Keora area,

18

Page 19 which are almost entirely covered under notification issued under

Rule 59(1) of MC Rules, 1960 with specific reference to Sections

11(4) and 11(3) of the MMDR Act was not raised in the Writ

Proceedings/ Civil Appeal. During the course of the

implementation of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 14.3.2012

passed in Civil Appeal No. 2790 of 2012, the Respondent No. 1 is

faced with the difficulties with regard to the Keora area as

enumerated above. Hence, this application for appropriate

directions.

20.The question is as to whether such a plea can be raised to

avoid implementation of the directions contained in the judgment?

Our answer is in the negative, having regard to the categorical

and authoritative principle of law enunciated by various

judgments of this Court. From the reading of these judgments one

can comfortably get a complete answer to the so-called difficulties

feigned by the State Government/ Contemners.

21.First judgment which needs to be noticed is in the case of

T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan; (1995) 5 SCC 619. The

following discussion contained in the said judgment squarely

19

Page 20 applies here:-

“10.When this order was passed, what remained for

the respondent was only implementation of the order

passed by this Court in furtherance of the action taken

thereunder by the Corporation. It is now clear that

instead of implementing the order, an attempt has

been made to circumvent the same and deny the

benefits to the petitioner. As stated earlier, the

petitioner is a Corporation employee and the stand of

the Government appears to be to give benefit to their

employees. So, an attempt has now been made to get

into the rule position and to find whether the

petitioner is eligible to be considered for promotion to

the post of Executive Engineer, Superintending

Engineer and Chief Engineer. It is now stated that

according to the rules the petitioner would be eligible

only as superintending engineer and not as Chief

Engineer. When direction was given in LA. 3 of 1993,

Government was a party to the proceedings and it was

never brought to our notice that the petitioner was not

eligible. On the other hand, the Division Bench of

Karnataka High Court upheld the right of the petitioner

which became final.

11.Question is whether it is open to the respondent

to take at this stage this volte-face step. It is seen that

all through Government was a party, when the

direction was given in LA. No. 3 filed by the petitioner,

it was not brought to out notice that the petitioner was

not eligible for promotion, in contradiction with

Dasegowda, or any other. When the claim inter se had

been adjudicated and the claim of the petitioner had

become final and that of Dasegowda was negatived, it

is no longer open to the Government to go behind the

order and truncate the effect of the orders passed by

this Court by hovering over the rules to get round the

result, to legitimise legal alibi to circumvent the orders

passed by this Court. Thus, it is clear that the

20

Page 21 concerned officers have deliberately made concerted

effort to disobey the orders passed by this court to

deny the benefits to the petitioner. So, we are left with

no option but to hold that the respondent has

deliberately and wilfully, with an intention to defeat

the orders of this Court, passed the impugned order.”

22.Another judgment cited at the bar is Prithawi Nath Ram v.

State of Jharkhand and Others; (2004) 7 SCC 261. Para 8 of the

said judgment makes the following reading:

“8.If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order

which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its

implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it

should always either approach the court that passed

the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court.

Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be

urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong,

the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of

the court would render the party liable for

contempt. While dealing with an application for

contempt the court cannot traverse beyond the

order, non-compliance with which is alleged. In

other words, it cannot say what should not have been

done or what should have been done. In cannot

traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness

or otherwise of the order or give additional direction

or delete any direction. That would be exercising

review jurisdiction while dealing with an application

for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same

would be impermissible and indefensible. In that view

of the matter, the order of the High Court is set aside

and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration. It

shall deal with the application in its proper

perspective in accordance with law afresh. We make it

clear that we have not expressed any opinion

regarding acceptability or otherwise of the application

21

Page 22 for initiation of contempt proceedings”.

23.This very principle has been reiterated by in Bihar Finance

Service H.C. Coop. Soc. Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami and Ors. ; (2008)

5 SCC 339 in the following words:

“32. While exercising the said jurisdiction this

Court does not intend to re-open the issues which

could have been raised in the original proceeding nor

shall it embark upon other questions including the

plea of equities which could fall for consideration only

in the original proceedings. The Court is not

concerned with as to whether the original order was

right or wrong. The court must not take a different

view or traverse beyond the same. It cannot

ordinarily give an additional direction or delete a

direction issued. In short, it will not do anything which

would amount to exercise of its review jurisdiction”.

24.We cannot lose sight of the fact that there is a judgment,

inter parties, which has become final. Even when the Civil Appeal

was being heard, certain other parties claiming their interest in

these very lands had moved intervention applications which were

dismissed. At that time also it was mentioned that there are 195

applicants. However, notwithstanding the same, this Court issued

firm directions to the State Government to recommend the case

of the petitioners for mining lease in both the areas. In view of

such categorical and unambiguous directions given in the

judgment which has attained finality, merely because another

22

Page 23 judgment has been delivered by this Court in Sandur Manganese

case, cannot be a ground to undo the directions contained in the

judgment dated 14.3.2012. In so far as law laid down in Sandur

Manganese (Supra) is concerned, that may be applied and

followed by the State Government in respect of other applications

which are still pending. However, that cannot be pressed into

service qua the petitioner whose rights have been crystallised by

the judgment rendered in its favour. It cannot be re-opened, that

too at the stage of implementation of the said judgment.

25.We would like to place on record the arguments of learned

Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the total area under

notification is 731.67 sq. kms. and out of this 406 sq. km. is yet to

be allotted. The area which comes to the share of the petitioner

under MOU is 13.91 sq. km. which is barely 3 percent of 406 sq.

km and, therefore recommendation by the State Government in

favour of the petitioner cannot be stalled or put to naught only on

the basis of inchoate applications, fate whereof is yet to be

decided. It is also pointed out that in so far as the petitioners in

other writ petitions are concerned area claimed by them is not

overlapping with the petitioner's area. However, it may not even

23

Page 24 be necessary to go into these contentions in detail. Once we hold

that the respondents are bound to implement the direction

contained in judgment dated 14.3.2012, in so far as the State

Government is concerned, it is obliged to comply therewith and

such matters, alongwith other relevant considerations, can be left

to the wisdom of the Central Government while taking a decision

on the recommendation of the State Government.

26.In so far as intervention applications by Tatas and LNT are

concerned these are dismissed as non maintainable, in view of

law laid down in by this Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v.

Union of India & Anr.; (1998) 4 SCC 409;

“42.The contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to

be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an

act adversely affects the administration of justice or

which tends to impede its course or tends to shake

public confidence in the judicial institutions. This

jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act

complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or

dignity of the courts. The purpose of contempt

jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the

courts of law. It is an unusual type of jurisdiction

combining “the jury, the judge and the hangman” and

it is so because the court is not adjudicating upon any

claim between litigating parties. This jurisdiction is

not exercised to protect the dignity of an individual

judge but to protect the administration of justice from

being maligned. In the general interest of the

24

Page 25 community it is imperative that the authority of courts

should not be imperilled and there should be no

unjustifiable interference in the administration of

justice. It is a matter between the court and the

contemner and third parties cannot intervene. It is

exercised in a summary manner in aid of the

administration of justice, the majesty of law and the

dignity of the courts. No such act can be permitted

which may have the tendency to shake the public

confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the

administration of justice”.

27.As a consequence, we hold that the Respondents/

Contemners are in contempt of orders dated 14.3.2012 passed by

this Court in not complying with the directions in respect of Keora

area. However, we are giving one final opportunity to them to

purge the contempt by transmitting requisite recommendations to

the Central Government. It would be for the Central Government

to consider the said recommendations on its own merits and in

accordance with law. In case the recommendation is sent within

one month from the date of copy of receipt of this order, we

propose not to take any further action and the respondents/

contemners shall stand discharged from this Contempt Petition.

However, in case the respondents do not purge in the manner

mentioned above, it would be open to the petitioners to point out

25

Page 26 the same to this Court by moving appropriate application and in

that event the Contemners shall be proceeded against.

28.With this, I.A. No. 14 in C.A. NO. 2790 of 2012 and I.A. No. 2

in I.A. NO. 14 in C.A. NO. 2790 of 2012 also stand disposed of.

Writ Petitions

29.In so far as three writ petitions are concerned we need not

go into the detailed arguments advanced by Counsel for the

petitioners in those petitions. As already noted above, for their

own reasons all the three petitioners pray that the same

directions as given in favour of BPSL in judgment dated

14.3.2012, be passed in their cases as well. This they claim on the

basis of parity with BPSL. However, we are constrained to hold

that, on the basis of such an argument, they cannot approach this

court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution by filing writ

petitions. It has already been authoritatively determined that no

fundamental right of the petitioners is violated. No fundamental

right is violated by non-granting of mining lease. (See (2012) 11

SCC 1 and (1973) 1 SCC 584).

30.That apart, there are few other aspects, aptly pointed out

26

Page 27 by Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned ASG, which come in the way of

maintainability of the instant petitions. He, inter alia, submitted

that atleast in respect of applications which are still pending and

yet to be decided, judgment in Sandur Manganese (Supra) shall

have to be applied as it does not remain virgin area, which was

the position when the case of BPSL was decided. He had made

various other submissions on merit as well. Without going into all

these issues, we dismiss these petitions giving liberty to the

petitioners to approach the High Court in the first instance and/ or

any other forum which is available, as per law. We make it clear

that in so far as these petitions are concerned we have not dealt

with the issues on merits. Wherever the petitions are filed, it

would be open to the said forum to deal with the question as to

whether the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of

judgment dated 14.3.2012 passed in the case of BPSL or not. All

other issues are also kept open to be agitated in those

proceedings. Writ petitions are dismissed with liberty as aforesaid.

…................................J.

[Surinder Singh Nijjar]

27

Page 28 …................................J.

[A.K. SIKRI]

New Delhi

April 22, 2014

28