JAYASWAL NECOM INDSUTRIES LTD. & ANR. vs UOI & ORS.

2024-11-08 Information

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: November 8th , 2024

+ W.P.(C) 78/2009 & CM APPL. 24577/2016

JAYASWAL NECOM INDUSTRIES
LTD. & ANOTHER
….. Petitioners
Through: Sh. Rattan Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ravi Bharuka, Mr. Gautam Sinha, Mr. Rahul Pandey and Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Advocates

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr. Taha Yasin, Ms. Astu Khandelwal, Mr. Yasharth, Mr. Ali Khan and Ms. Isha Kanth, Advocates for UOI
Mr. Devesh Khanagwal, Mr. Nippun Sharma and Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate for R-2
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Sharat Kapoor, Mr. Amit Gupta Mr. Shubh Kapoor, Mr. Anirudh Dusaj, Ms. Bhavya Garg, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Mr. Shubham Sharma and Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Advocates for SAIL
Mr. Prashant Singh, Standing Counsel with Ms. Prerna Dhall, Mr. Piyush Yadav and Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocates for State of Chhattisgarh

CORAM
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for issuance of direction for quashing, (i) the letter dated 22.08.2008 issued by the respondent No.4/Steel Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred as SAIL), (ii) the letter dated 31.10.2008 issued by the Respondent No.3 / Ministry of Steel, Government of India (hereinafter referred Ministry of Steel) D.O. no. 14/8/88/S-CIP-Vol.X and (iii) the letter dated 12.11.2008 issued by the Ministry of Steel to the petitioner whereby the respondents have turned back on their promises and denied supply of iron ore to the petitioner. The petitioner has made the following prayers:-
a. Issue a Writ in nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction against the Respondents commanding them to produce before this Honble Court the entire files and records in their possession, power and custody with regard to the issuance of the notifications dated 16.07.2002, 03.12.2004 and 20.07.2006 issued by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1A) of Section 17A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957;
b. Issue a Writ in nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing, (i) the letter issued by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. to the petitioner no.1-company dated 22.08.2008, (ii) the letter issued by the Ministry of Steel, Government of India D.O. no. 14/8/88/S-CIP-Vol.X dated 31.10.2008 to the petitioner no.1-company; and, (iii) the letter issued by the Ministry of Steel, Government of India dated 12.11.2008 to the petitioner no.1-company;
c. Issue a Writ in nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction against the Respondents commanding them to ensure supply of iron ore by the Steel Authority of India Limited and/or Bhilai Steel Plant to the Petitioner no. 1-company as per its commitment for a period of one and half years from the date of grant of mining lease on a cost plus 5% basis from the existing mines with the Bhilai Steel Plant within the State of Chhattisgarh till the development of mines in the F Block of Rowghat iron deposits situated in Kanker and Bastar District of the State of Chhattisgarh and thereafter, to continue supply of iron ore from the said F Block of Rowghat iron deposits situated in Kanker and Bastar District of the State of Chhattisgarh for a total period of 30 years;
d)Issue a Writ in nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction against the Respondents commanding the Ministry of Mines, Government of India and the State Government of Chhattisgarh to impose a condition under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 in the mining lease to be granted in favour of Respondent no. 4 for supply of iron ore by the Steel Authority of India Limited and/or Bhilai Steel Plant to the Petitioner no. 1-company as per its requirement on a cost plus 5% basis from the existing mines with the Bhilai Steel Plant within the State of Chhattisgarh till the development of mines in the F Block of Rowghat iron deposits situated in Kanker and Bastar District of the State of Chhattisgarh and thereafter, to continue supplying iron ore from the said the F Block of Rowghat iron deposits situated in Kanker and Bastar District of the State of Chhattisgarh for a total period of 30 years;
2. The factual background of the case is that the Government of Madhya Pradesh (as was then, before creation of Chhattisgarh as an independent State) on 27.6.1992 announced special incentive scheme for establishment of new Integrated Steel Plants with an investment of more than Rs.1000 crores. The State Government on 20.01.1993 in consultation with the Central Government constituted a Task Force to identify suitable locations of captive iron ore mines for the proposed steel plants to be setup inter alia by the petitioner and registered under the Promotional Scheme. The respondent no.1/Ministry of Mines, Government of India on 05.03.1993 announced the National Mineral Policy, 1993 which reflects the decision of the Government of India to do away with the present restrictive policy of reservation of certain minerals for exclusive exploitation by the public sector undertaking.
2.1 The respondent no.1/ Ministry of Mines, Government of India, (hereinafter referred Ministry of Mines) issued a Circular dated 29.10.1993 to Mines Department of all the State Governments and Union Territories informing about the National Mineral Policy, 1993, whereby, in pursuance to the above National Mineral Policy, all the 13 minerals including iron ore which had been reserved for exclusive exploitation by the public sector were de-reserved and thrown upon for exploitation by the private sector. The Ministry of Mines on 24.01.1994, in its communication mentioned that the National Mineral Policy, 1993 envisages bigger role for the private investment in the mineral sector of the country. It was also mentioned that the public sector companies are required to be competitive and market oriented and are to be treated at par with the private sector.
2.2 Considering the cost economics of getting iron ore from the captive mines at iron ore deposits in the respondent No.2, State of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred as State) as also upon believing the above representations of the erstwhile State Government of Madhya Pradesh and acting thereon, M/s Nagpur Alloy Castings Limited, predecessor company of the petitioner, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.07.1994, to set up an Integrated Steel Plant (ISP) in the State under the Scheme. The State Govt. allotted the necessary land at Siltara, Raipur, where the petitioner has setup its ISP under the Scheme of the State Government as per its Gazette Notification dated 27.06.1992, duly adopted by newly formed State of Chhattisgarh vide Gazette Notification no. F 1-6/2002 dated 31.10.2002.
2.3 The petitioner commissioned its ISP in 1996 under the abovesaid promotional scheme by agreeing to progressively invest an amount of more than Rs.1000 crores at Siltara, Raipur, with the assurance of supply of iron ore from captive mines. The ISP started its production of pig iron. Due to non-availability of the requisite raw material, that is, iron ore, from nearby mines, the petitioner was compelled to import iron ore from other States to keep the ISP running. In the meanwhile, in Nov. 2000, by virtue of operation of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh was bifurcated into State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh.
2.4 The petitioner on 28.02.2001, applied for Mining Lease over 195 ha in the southern portion of Rowghat Deposit F block. The petitioner was the sole and only applicant over the said area. The petitioner accordingly contends that the Petitioner got preferential right u/s 11(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957. The petitioner has submitted that subsequent to the submission of the Application for Mining Lease, the Central Government and the State Government while issuing the notification dated 16.07.2002 reserving the entire Rowghat F deposit in favour of SAIL with a condition to supply iron ore to the Petitioner was clear from the various inter se correspondences and minutes attended by all concerned.
2.5 The petitioner submitted that a meeting was conveyed by the State of Chhattisgarh, on 04.05.2001, in order to chalk out the modalities of cluster mining approach in respect of Rowghat iron ore deposits wherein it was noted that the mining lease application has been submitted by SAIL for its Bhilai Steel Plant (hereinafter referred as BSP) in respect of 500 hectares in the North side of the Rowghat Deposit F block and the petitioner has submitted its application for grant of mining lease in respect of 190 hectares in the South side of the said block.
2.6 Thereafter, a meeting was held in the offices of Chairman, SAIL, New Delhi, on 11.10.2001 with participation inter alia of Chairman, SAIL, Principal Secretary, MRD, Chhattisgarh and Managing Director of Petitioner. In the said meeting Chairman, SAIL confirmed that SAILs requirement of iron ore for 50 years is 50 years x 9 MTPY (million ton per years) = 450 MT and the Chairman, SAIL further clarified that SAIL can start supplying iron ore to petitioner from the date mining lease is granted to it. The State Government of Chhattisgarh, on 25.11.2001, wrote to Ministry of Mines making note of the developments indicated above. It was proposed that iron ore of Rowghat F deposits may be reserved for SAIL for BSP and mining lease sanctioned to them so that SAIL may start supplying iron ore to the Petitioner. Thus, an agreement was reached amongst SAIL and Petitioner.
2.7 Thereafter, the State Government of Chhattisgarh, through the Principal Secretary, on 10.05.2002, in pursuance to the meeting held on 01.05.2002 between Principal Secretary and Chairman SAIL, wrote to SAIL that SAILs requirement of iron ore for 50 years is 50 x 9 MTPY = 450 MT. The said requirement of SAIL would be met after including proposed mining leases for sub-block A, Turhur & Raodongri of Rowghat Deposit F totaling to 320 MT to the remaining reserves in mining leases already granted to BSP as on 01.04.2001. The total of which, after including the Rowgat Deposit F comes to 473.23 MT. SAIL was requested by the State Government to start supply of iron ore to Petitioner with immediate effect. SAIL on 07.06.2002, wrote to Ministry of Mines asserting its need for reserving all the seven sub-blocks in F block of Rowghat area. SAIL further assured that with the opening of the new mine at Deposit F of Rowghat, SAIL will be able to meet the full requirement of iron ore to the petitioner.
2.8 Accordingly, the Ministry of Mines, on 16.07.2002, in exercises of powers conferred by sub-sec. (1A) of Sec. 17A of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as MMDR Act, 1957) reserved the Rowghat Deposit F block containing seven sub-blocks namely Rowdongri, Block-A, Tarhur, Anjrel, Koregaon, Kharkagaon and Takrel for undertaking prospecting or mining operation through the Steel Authority of India of the iron ore deposits for a period of 10 years.
2.9 The Petitioner submitted that SAIL having earned the benefit of the policy decision taken by the State of Chhattisgarh and Ministry of Mines, SAIL/BSP failed to bear the burden attached to the benefit. Accordingly, following meetings and correspondences ensued in view of this inaction of the SAIL/BSP which ultimately led to the de-reservation notification dated 03.12.2004, for grant of mining lease over part of deposit F. The Government of Chhattisgarh, on 16.08.2002, under its letter no. PS/CIMD/2002/734, called upon SAIL/BSP to immediately start supply the iron ore to the petitioner as the plant of the petitioner has already become sick. It was also mentioned that the crushing plant of Rajhara mines of BSP is underutilized and if this plant is run to its rated capacity, it will fulfill the requirement of the petitioner also without extra facility and would also reduce the cost of production of BSP. SAIL/BSP vide communication dated 22.08.2002, to the Government of Chhattisgarh, agreed to supply iron ore lumps to the petitioner provided that the mining lease of Rowghat deposit is granted to BSP / SAIL.
2.10 The Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) had also, in Sept. 2004, submitted a Modified Regional Mineral Development Plan, in which IBM recommended grant of mining lease of Raodongri sub-block of Rowghat F block to Petitioner and rest to BSP. It was noted that the Rowghat iron ore can be used by such steel plants that consume iron ore through blast furnace route. The Under Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, on 12.11.2002, wrote to the Ministry of Steel, that iron ore bearing areas of Rowghat F deposit in Kanker/Bastar district has been reserved in favour of BSP/SAIL with the understanding that BSP shall start supplying iron ore from the existing mines to the Petitioner and once deposit F is developed the same shall be supplied from Rowghat. Thus, the Petitioner argues that the condition of supply of iron ore to Petitioner by SAIL was part and parcel of the understanding based on which the policy decision of reservation under sec. 17A(1A) was made by the Central Government.
2.11 The Ministry of Coal & Mines, Department of Mines, through its Joint Secretary on 13.12.2002, again informed the Ministry of Steel that Iron ore bearing area of Rowghat F deposit in Kanker / Bastar districts have been reserved in favour of BSP / SAIL with the understanding that BSP shall start supplying lump ore to the petitioner herein, immediately from the existing mines and once deposit F is developed the same shall be supplied from Rowghat and in spite of repeated follow up by the petitioner and recommendations of the State Government of Chhattisgarh, BSP / SAIL has not started supplying lump iron ore to the petitioners plant.
2.12 The Government of Chhattisgarh on 28.02.2003 wrote to the Ministry of Mines that since SAIL has failed to supply iron ore immediately from existing mines as promised the State needs to (a) De-reserve Anjrel sub-block of deposit F and give prior approval under Section 5(1) of MM(D&R) Act, 1957 for allotment of mines to the petitioner in consonance with the recommendations of IBM, Ministry of Mines, Government of India in the Regional Mineral Development Plan of iron ore deposits in the State of Chhattisgarh; and, (b) Strongly take up issue with BSP / SAIL to start supplying lump iron ore at a reasonable price of cost + 5% profit at the rate of 3 lacs tons per year for 3 years i.e. the time taken to develop Anjrel by the petitioner and enter into an agreement for supply of iron ore fines to the petitioner on long term basis.
2.13 The Govt. of Chhattisgarh, vide its communication dated 06.03.2003, informed the Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India to take up strongly with BSP/ SAIL to start supplying iron ore for one year and enter into agreement for supply of iron ore fines to petitioner on Long Term basis and de-reserve Anjrel sub-block of Deposit F for allotment to the petitioner as recommended by IBM, Ministry of Mines. Thereafter, a meeting was held in the chamber of the Minister of State for Mines on 23.04.2003 which was attended inter alia by Chairman, SAIL, Principal Secretary, Mining and Geology, Chhattisgarh, Controller General, IBM and Managing Director, BSP. The State Government strongly urged for de-reservation of Anjrel block of Roghat F deposit in favour of Petitioner since SAIL/BSP failed to supply iron ore as per the understanding for issuance of notification of 2002. The Secretary (Mines) agreed and stated that an amicable solution is possible whereby a small part of Rowghat F deposit could be de-reserved for throwing open to private sector.
2.14 A meeting was held on 09.06.2003 on Rowghat iron ore project which was chaired by the Chief Minister of Government of Chhattisgarh and attended by the Principal Secretary, Department of Mineral Resources, Government of Chhattisgarh, representative of IBM, BSP as well as the petitioner whereby on an offer made by BSP, it was decided that Koregaon sub-block of F deposit of Rowghat iron ore be allotted to Petitioner and the remaining sub-blocks of F deposit may be kept reserved for BSP. Accordingly, Ministry of Mines, Government of India be requested to de-reserve this block viz. Koregaon in Rowghat iron ore mines.
2.15 In view of the meeting held on 09.06.2003, the Government of Chhattisgarh on 16.06.2003, wrote to Ministry of Mines, that in view of the decision taken during the meeting held on 09.06.2003, the Ministry of Mines may de-reserve Koregaon sub-block of deposit F, in place of Anjrel as suggested in the letter dated 09.03.2003 and convey prior approval for grant of mining lease to the petitioner for Koregaon sub deposit of deposit F of Rowghat iron ore deposit as required under Section 5(1) of MMDR Act, 1957.
2.16 Thereafter, a meeting was held on 14.08.2003, between Ministry of Mines, Ministry of Steel and State Government of Chhattisgarh, it was agreed that it would be operationally better and acceptable to Ministry of Steel, if instead of Koregaon sub-block (which was centrally placed in the reserved area) any other area which is located on the extreme ends of the reserved area could be made available to the petitioner. The General Manager (Mines), BSP, on 27.10.2003, with the approval of Managing Director, BSP wrote to the Director (Technical & Finance), SAIL confirming that it has been decided that instead of Koregaon block as suggested by the State Government, the block located at one side of deposit F i.e. Rowdongri alongwith a part of Block-A should be given to the petitioner.
2.17 The Government of Chhattisgarh, vide communication dated 08.10.2004, addressed to the Ministry Mines requested that sub-block Raodongri and part of sub-block A of deposit F be de-reserved. The State Government also requested the Central Government to grant prior approval u/s 5(1) of the MMDR Act,1957 in favour of the Petitioner for grant of mining lease. Along with the said communication the enclosures of proforma for recommending grant of mining lease in favour of the Petitioner was also forwarded.
2.18 Accordingly, on 03.12.2004, in pursuance to and furtherance of the policy adopted and accepted by the Ministry of Mines, Ministry of Steel and State Government of Chhattisgarh (as indicated above), a notification was issued under sec. 17A(1A) of the MMDR Act, which superseded the earlier notification dated 16.07.2002. By the said notification, the entire area of Block F of Rowghat deposits except Rowdongri and part of sub-block A was reserved in favour of SAIL. As a result of this notification, the Rowdongri deposit and part of sub-block A was de-reserved and made available to the petitioner.
2.19 The petitioner further submits that in furtherance to the decision of the State Government as well as the Central Government to grant mining lease for iron ore in sub-block Rowdongri of Rowghat deposit F in relaxation of Rule 59(1) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, in favour of the petitioner for a period of 30 years, the Ministry of Mines on 06.12.2004, conveyed the approval of the Central Government under Section 5(1) of MMDR Act, 1957 for grant of mining lease. The State Govt. communicated the approval of the Central Government under Section 5(1) to the Petitioner on 29.12.2004. Thereafter, the State Government on 31.12.2004, advised the Petitioner to attend a meeting on 06.01.2005, in order to reconcile the area available for acceptance and to prepare common maps of the area pursuant to the approval of the Central Government dated 06.12.2004, for grant of mining lease in favour of the Petitioner. The Mineral Resources Department of the State Government of Chhattisgarh on 11.02.2005, wrote to Chief Conservator of Forests in respect to environment site clearance to the petitioner. The Ministry of Environment and Forests on 28.03.2005, granted environment site clearance to the Petitioner.
2.20 The petitioner further submits that barely after a month of issuance of the above notification, there was change of stand on part of the Ministry of Steel and it was of the view that the entire area of Rowghat F block should be re-reserved in favour of SAIL. The petitioner submits that the reservation in favour of SAIL was only on account of the assurance of Ministry of Steel to supply iron ore to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the following meetings and correspondences ensued in view of this commitment of the Ministry of Steel which ultimately led to the re-reservation notification dated 20.07.2006, for grant of mining lease over entire deposit F.
2.21 The Ministry of Steel, with approval of the Minister of Steel, on 17.01.2005, wrote to Ministry of Mines stating that the matter of de-reservation has been reexamined and Ministry of Steel is of the view that the entire Rowghat F block deposit may be reserved in favour of SAIL and whatever iron ore is required by the petitioner would be supplied by BSP on cost plus basis. Hence, the Ministry of Steel, requested the Ministry of Mines that the notification dated 03.12.2004, may be revised and fresh notification re-reserving entire F block deposit consisting of 7 sub-blocks in favour of SAIL may be issued.
2.22 The State Government, on 08.08.2005 in reply to the letter of the Ministry of Mines dated 08.02.2005 whereby comments of the State Government were sought with regard to re-reservation of the entire Rowghat F deposit in favour of SAIL/BSP, informed the Ministry of Mines that it is not agreeable to the request of Ministry of Steel for again reserving Raodongri sub-block of Deposit F of Rowghat in favour of SAIL.
2.23 The State Government, on 27.04.2006, informed the Ministry of Mines that if the Ministry of Mines considers it necessary to reserve the whole of deposit F for mining to be done by SAIL, the State Government has no objection to such re-reservation in favour of SAIL in view of commitment of Ministry of Steel vide their letter dated 17.1.2005, issued with the approval of Minister of Steel, to meet the requirement of iron ore of the petitioner.
2.24 SAIL vide its letter dated 16.06.2006, confirmed to IBM that Raodongri deposits need to be reserved only due to its geographical location otherwise operation in the remaining 6 blocks of Deposit F will become unviable. Accordingly, in view of the above assurances from the Ministry of Steel, SAIL and no objection from State, the Ministry of Mines, on 20.07.2006, in exercises of the powers conferred by sub-sec.(1A) of Sec.17A of the MMDR Act and in supersession of the notification dated 03.12.2004, re-reserved the iron ore F block deposits in Rowghat area in Kanker and Bastar districts for undertaking prospecting or mining operation through SAIL.
2.25 The petitioner has also additionally placed reliance on various internal note sheets of Ministry of Mines and Ministry of Steel and documents received by the petitioner on 24.08.2007, 07.09.2007 and 24.09.2007 from Ministry of Mines and Ministry of Steel under the Right to Information Act, 2005, pursuant to the orders of Central Information Commissioner on 06.08.2007. The Petitioner submits that the said internal note sheets and documents reveal how the Petitioner was deprived of its right over the mining area inspite of the express and written promise/commitment that SAIL/BSP would supply iron ore as per requirement of the Petitioner. However, the promise/commitment was not adhered by SAIL/BSP inspite of repeated reminders and requests by the Petitioner and the Ministry of Mines.
2.26 Thereafter, the Ministry of Mines on 30.08.2006 issued an office memorandum to Ministry of Steel regarding supply of iron ore by SAIL/BSP to the petitioner on cost plus basis in view of the letter of Ministry of Steel dated 17.01.2005. The petitioner on 07.09.2006 wrote to Joint Secretary, Ministry of Steel to advise BSP/SAIL to enter into a contract for supply of Iron Ore on cost plus 5% basis immediately from the existing mines of BSP till deposit F of Rowghat is developed and from deposit F of Rowghat once it gets developed.
2.27 The petitioner on 01.12.2006 wrote to Ministry of Mines with a request to impose a condition of supply of iron ore by BSP/SAIL to the petitioner from its existing mines till Deposit F is developed and from deposit F once it gets developed by BSP/SAIL on cost plus 5% basis while granting prior approval for mining lease in terms of Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
2.28 The Petitioner on 27.12.2006, wrote to the Honble Minister, Ministry of Steel for advising BSP/SAIL to enter into a contract with Petitioner for supply of iron ore on cost plus 5% basis from the existing mines of BSP till deposit F of Rowghat is developed and from such deposit once it is developed. The petitioner wrote to the Under Secretary, Mineral Resources Department, Government of Chhattisgarh on 22.02.2007 requesting that the condition of supply of iron ore by BSP/SAIL to petitioner should be incorporated in the mining lease under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
2.29 The Joint Secretary, Mineral Resources Department, Government of Chhattisgarh on 23.02.2007 rejected the Mining Lease application for 195 Ha applied on 28.02.2001 taking into consideration the communication dated 17.01.2005 where under it was agreed that BSP/SAIL would supply iron ore as per the requirement of Petitioner at cost plus basis and the notification dated 20.07.2006 re-reserving the Rowghat Area in favour of SAIL. The Secretary, Ministry of Mines on 10.04.2007 wrote to Secretary, Ministry of Steel stating that vide letter dated 17.01.2005, Ministry of Steel has committed that SAIL would supply iron ore to JNIL based on which the entire area of Rowghat F deposit was reserved for SAIL and requested the Secretary, Ministry of Steel to take necessary action in this and impose Rule 27(3) condition in the mining lease to be executed in favour of SAIL.
2.30 The Secretary (Mines), Ministry of Mines, again on 19.07.2007 wrote to Secretary (Steel), Ministry of Steel for resolving the matter and supplying iron ore by SAIL/BSP to petitioner. The petitioner also made a representation to Ministry of Steel and SAIL on 29.07.2008 requesting supply of iron ore by SAIL/BSP. However, SAIL, vide its letter dated 22.08.2008, informed the petitioner that it is unable to commit supply of iron ore to the petitioner. In view of failure of Ministry of Steel to decide on the representation dated 29.07.2008, the petitioner filed Writ Petition being W.P.(C) 6751/2008, inter alia praying for direction to the Ministry of Steel to decide on the representation. Similarly, the Ministry of Steel, vide its letters dated 31.10.2008 and 12.11.2008, informed the petitioner that it cannot accept the request of the petitioner. Accordingly, in view of the decision of the Ministry of Steel the petitioner withdrew the W.P.(C) 6751/2008 and the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C) 78/2009, challenging the letter dated 22.08.2008 issued by SAIL and letters dated 31.10.2008 and 12.11.2008 issued by Ministry of Steel.
2.31 The petitioner has also placed reliance on the three legal opinions which were sought from the Ministry of Law & Justice, once by the Ministry of Mines and twice by the Ministry of Steel after the passing of order dated 16.09.2009 by this Court in the present writ petition. Sh. Rattan Singh, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner has argued that in view of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, framed by the President of India under Article 77(3) of the Constitution of India and circulars issued by the Ministry of Law, the legal opinion given by the Ministry of Law is binding upon all the ministries. Resultantly, SAIL is bound by the directions of its administrative ministry i.e. the Ministry of Steel. The petitioner relies of the said legal opinions which are as hereunder:
At the request of Ministry of Mines, Ministry of Law gave a legal opinion on 19.01.2010, to the Ministry of Mines that the petitioner is entitled to supply of iron ore by SAIL.
At the request of Ministry of Steel, Ministry of Law gave a legal opinion on 23.08.2010 to the Ministry of Steel. It opined that, JNL has legitimate expectation and the same may not be illogical. Therefore, the denial of the same after repeated assurances is prejudicial to the interest of the JNIL and may amount to breach of the implied promise made in this regard. It further opined that, it will not be unfair to conclude that there is an implied promise on the part of SAIL to supply the iron ore immediately. It was also noted that, The SAIL being a PSU under the administrative control of the ministry of steel, the central government can issue directions to it to adhere to the implied promise to make the supply of iron ore to JNL on cost plus basis.
Upon a request by the Ministry of Steel, the Ministry of Law on 26.05.2011 gave a second legal opinion re-affirming its earlier opinion. The matter was perused once again. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that our earlier opinion dated 27.8.2010 has been recorded after considering all the relevant papers/material placed on the file including the opinion obtained by SAIL privately papers/material placed on the file including the opinion obtained by SAIL privately from the then Ld. ASG. Therefore, it may not be legally correct to say that our earlier opinion has been recorded without considering the relevant facts and material.
2.32 Sh. Rattan Singh has also argued that the benefit under the said policy of exclusive reservation of Rowghat F deposit in favour of SAIL was given effect to by way of a Central Government notification under sec. 17A (1A). However, SAIL refused to adhere to this corresponding obligation on part of SAIL to supply iron ore to the petitioner, after securing the mining rights for the entire Rowghat F block including the mining area for which the Petitioner had prior approval under section 5 (1) of MMDR Act, 1957. The Petitioner thus has argued that SAIL/BSP in view of the aforesaid is under an obligation to supply iron ore to the Petitioner more particularly once it has taken the benefit of the policy by enjoying the reservation of the entire Rowghat F deposit including Raodongri (concerned area), it cannot retreat from its corresponding obligation attached to the benefit of the policy to supply iron ore to the Petitioner. Petitioner argues that a person cannot blow hot and cold or approbate and reprobate and has placed reliance on the decision of on R.N. Gosain V Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683.
2.33 It was also argued by learned Senior Counsel that the action of the respondents in not supplying iron ore to the petitioner is hit by the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation. The total inaction of the BSP/SAIL as also the Ministry of Steel in commencing supply of iron ore to the petitioner makes it clear that after the issuance of the notification dated 20.07.2006, they have taken a stand of not supplying any iron ore to petitioner. The inaction of the Respondents with a purpose to either thwart or avoid such promise/assurance amounts to a denial of the Petitioners legitimate expectation. The respondents accordingly are bound to act in accordance with and honour their assurance, promise and commitment. Sh. Rattan Singh, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the Union of India vs Hindustan Development Corporation, (1993) 3 SCC 499. It was also argued that petitioner that the actions of the respondents in not supplying iron ore to JNIL is hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel and placed reliance on State of Punjab V Nestle India Ltd. & another, (2004) 6 SCC 465 and Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills V State of Uttar & others, (1979) 2 SCC 409, Manuelsons Hotel Pvt. Ltd. V State of Kerala & others, (2016) 6 SCC 766, State of Jharkhand V Brahmaputra Metallics Ltd. 2020 SCC Online Supreme Court 98 and State of Bihar V Kalyanpur Cements Ltd., (2010) 3 SCC 274.
2.34 The petitioner in view of the changed circumstances due to lapse of 15 years has prayed that the relief prayed in the writ petition be moulded. The petitioner has submitted that the total quantity to be supplied by SAIL is 80 million tones instead of 48 million tones agreed, as with the change in mining laws, i.e. Section 8A(3) of MMDR Act, 1957, inserted vide Amendment Act, 2015, the Mining Lease period has been extended from 30 years to 50 years. The petitioners requirement of 48 MT was determined by SAIL by considering the grade of Iron Ore to be minimum of 63%. In view thereof, the Fe in iron ore should be minimum 63%, In case of lower than 63% Fe, pro-rata quantity to be increased. The petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vashisht Narayan Kumar V State of Bihar & others, 2024 SCC Online SC 2, Pr. 26. Accordingly, the Petitioner has sought for the following directions to be issued to the respondents: –
Respondent No.4/SAIL to start immediate supply of minimum of 1.6 million tonnes of Iron Ore per year for a period of 50 years totaling to 80 million tonnes of the grade agreed by SAIL in the letter dated 27.10.2003 on cost plus 5% basis ex mines from their existing Dalli / Rajhara mines and Rowghat mines in Chhattisgarh to Petitioner/JNIL in the same proportion of sized Ore and Ore fines being generated from the said mines.
Declare that the supply of iron ore to JNIL will not amount to sale as SAIL would be supplying iron ore in view of the promises/ commitment made to JNIL as well as in consideration of JNIL giving up its mining rights.
Pass a direction that the Petitioner reserves its right to separately claim its losses / damages suffered during last 20 years due to non-supply of committed iron ore by SAIL.
3. The Respondent No.1/ Ministry of Mines, has submitted that the issuance of Notification dated 20.7.2006 in supersession of Notification dated 03.12.2004, reserving an area of 2028.797 hect. covering seven sub blocks of F Block Deposit of Rowghat was based on the letter dated 27.04.2006 received from the State Government giving no objection and the Reservation was done over an area over which Prospecting license or Mining Lease was not held by any anyone before. The Respondent No.1 further submits that the commitment if made between two commercial parties if not part of the mining lease deed is not covered under the MMDR Act. The Respondent No.1 further submits that the commercial agreements lie between two commercial parties and the Respondent No.1 is agreeable to any directions passed by this Court.
4. The respondent No.2/ Ministry of Steel has submitted that the proposal of supply of iron ore by SAIL/BSP to the Petitioner never attained finality as quantity, quality, price and period for which the iron ore was to be supplied was never determined. The Respondent No.2, further submits that supply of iron ore to the Petitioner would be in contravention of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The Respondent No.2, further submits that the Dalli-Rajhara iron ore mines which supplies iron ore to Respondent No.4, SAIL/BSP has dwindled and therefore in the face of the expansion plans of Respondent No.4, it is impossible for Respondent No.4 to supply iron ore to the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2, further submits that there can be no estoppel against the statutory power exercised under Section 17A (1A) of the MMDR Act. The Respondent No.2 further submits that the doctrine is not applicable as it is a policy decision in the wake of public interest.
5. The respondent No.3/ State of Chhattisgarh has submitted that a mining lease has been executed in favour of the Respondent No.4/SAIL for Rowghat Deposit F Area of 2028.797 ha on 21.10.2009 for 20 years. The respondent No.3 further submits that the mining leases granted/approved in favour of the Petitioner is sufficient to meet the requirement of the Petitioner. Further, the respondent no. 3 submits that the Petitioner is not a sick unit in 2010.
6. The respondent no.4/ Steel Authority of India has submitted as hereunder:
a. Respondent No.4 has never given any assurances to supply iron ore to the Petitioner and as such there is no obligation of supply. The proposals of supply of iron ore never attained finality. The Reservation Notification dated 28.07.2006 did not encompass a condition wherein the Respondent has to supply iron ore to Petitioner.

b. The relief claimed by the Petitioner is supposedly under Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation. The relief claimed is based on only two documents i.e. a Letter dated 17.01.2005 and an office memorandum of Ministry of Mines dated 30.08.2006. None of these documents suggest any certitude of cause of action in favour of the Petitioner.

c. The court cannot go into the thicket of commercial transaction in a Writ Jurisdiction and the Writ Petition will not be maintainable in case of dispute question of facts. The Respondent relies on Shubhas Jain V Rajeshwari Shivam & others, (2021) 20 SCC 454.

d. The Petitioner has sought quashing of the notification dated 20.07.2006, without challenging the notification being ultra vires.

e. The said letter and office memorandum has not been sent by designated authority and hence of no value and placed reliance on Jasbir Singh Chhabra V State of Punjab (2010) 4 SCC 192.

f. Interdepartmental communications and file notings in departmental files do not have sanction of law and there is always an exercise of review until a final decision is taken. The Respondent placed reliance on Union of India V Vartak Labour Union, (2011) 4 SCC 200, State of Uttaranchal V Sunil Kumar Vaish, (2011) 8 SCC 670.

g. It was further submitted that the Legal Opinions of Ministry of Law which states that JNIL has Legitimate Expectation is perverse.

h. It was further contended that there is no fundamental right in mining. Promissory Estoppel is not attracted due to Statutory Prohibition u/s 17A(1A) of the MMDR Act and there is no Public Interest in favour of the Petitioner for mining of Iron Ore. The Respondent placed reliance on the decision of Monnet Ispat V Union of India & others, (2012) 11 SCC 1.
i. The Petitioner has not done any prospecting over the area, whereas, SAIL was granted prospecting license over the entire Rowghat Deposit F block.

j. The mining lease granted to Respondent No.4 does not contain any condition to supply iron ore, therefore, the Respondent cannot sell iron ore to the Petitioner.

k. It was also argued that there is changed in circumstances after 20 years and the issue has become academic. It was contended that (a) JNIL is no longer a sick company and is presently a profitable company (b) JNIL has two operational mines at the present and therefore it can meet its present requirement (c) There has been a change of law with enactment of Rule 12B(i) of the Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Mineral) Concession Rules, 2016 and Section 8(5) of MMDR Act, 1957 (d) Respondent No.4 has made substantial investments for exploration of Rowghat mines.

l. It was further contended that if relief is granted in favour of the Petitioner, it would discriminate against others, hence it would be violative of Art. 14 & 19 of the Constitution.

7. The Rowghat F Block deposit, iron ore mines are situated at Rowghat Hills, Malta Reserve Forest, situated in Naraynapur Forest Range, District Kanker in the State of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred as the Rowghat F Block) and has a total of 7 iron ore reserves. There are three reserves in the Northern portion of the Rowghat F Block known as Raodongri, A Block and Tarhur and four reserves in the Southern portion known as Anjrel, Kargaon, Khakagaon and Tarkel. It is not in dispute that SAIL has made an application for mining lease of 500 ha of Northern portion of Rowghat F Block and whereas the Petitioner has made an application for 195 ha of Southern portion of Rowghat F Block was pending consideration. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner was sole and only applicant over the 195 ha. of Southern portion of Rowghat F Block which is evident from the content of minutes of the meeting dated 04.05.2001. The respondent No.1/Ministry of Mines has also affirmed in counter affidavit that no Prospecting License or Mining Lease was held by anyone with respect to the area in which the petitioner had filed its Mining Lease application. It is apparent that SAIL had never applied for Mining Lease for the area for which the petitioner had given its application for Mining Lease and vice versa. Thus, under the legal regime which existed prior to the MMDR, Amendment Act, 2015, which was based on the first come first serve basis, a preferential right under section 11(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957, existed in favour of the petitioner.
8. While the aforesaid applications for Mining Lease of the Petitioner and SAIL were pending consideration, there were discussions with regards to the mining in the Rowghat iron ore reserve on the basis of cluster mining approach by giving mining operation to a single entity/SAIL so that there shall be minimum loss to the forest and at the same time mining activities can start in Rowghat area. However, in order to safeguard the interest of the private entities, in line with the National Mineral Policy, discussions also happened with regards to condition of supply of the iron ore by SAIL to private entities so that the mining rights of private entities are not affected and there is no accumulation of the minerals in the hands of the single entity.
9. It is in this backdrop that various communications and meetings were held between 04.05.2001 to 07.06.2002, which is evident from minutes of meeting dated 04.05.2001, 11.10.2001, letter dated 25.11.2001, 10.05.2002, 14.05.2002 and 07.06.2002 with all concerned which ultimately led to notification dated 16.07.2002, under sec. 17A(1A) of the MMDR Act, reserving the entire Rowghat F deposit containing all the seven blocks in favour of SAIL. In the meeting dated 11.10.2001, the Chairman SAIL had admitted that SAIL can start supplying iron ore to the petitioner from the day Mining Lease is granted to SAIL. The State Government of Chhattisgarh, on 25.11.2001 wrote to the Ministry of Mines and proposed that iron ore of Rowghat F deposits may be reserved for SAIL for BSP and Mining Lease sanctioned to them so that SAIL may start supplying iron ore to the petitioner. Moreover, SAIL vide its letter 07.06.2002 to Ministry of Mines asserted its need for reserving all the seven sub-blocks in F block of Rowghat area and assured that with the opening of the new mine at Deposit F of Rowghat, SAIL will be able to meet the full requirement of iron ore to Petitioner. The respondents did not dispute these correspondences or letters, therefore, the respondent No.4/SAIL or Respondent No.3/Ministry of Steel was not correct to contend that assurance of supply of iron ore to the petitioner was never given by them.
10. SAIL besides aforesaid letters in its counter affidavit filed on 11.02.2009 has also admitted in clear and express terms that the request by the Petitioner for supply of iron ore by SAIL on cost plus basis was contingent on immediate grant of mining lease to SAIL at Rowghat. It is an admitted position that mining lease was executed in favour of SAIL on 21.10.2009. It is therefore incorrect on behalf of the Respondent No.4/SAIL to contend that assurance of supply of iron ore was never given by SAIL. Rather, Respondent No.4/SAIL has not been able to explain what precluded the Respondent No.4/SAIL to honour its commitment of supplying iron ore to Petitioner upon grant of mining lease on 21.10.2009.
11. There cannot be any gainsaying that while SAIL had applied for Mining Lease of only 500 ha of Northern portion of Rowghat F Block, in view of the aforesaid policy decision which included the condition of the supply of iron ore to the Petitioner, SAIL vide the notification dated 16.07.2002, became beneficiary of the entire 2028.797 ha of Rowghat F Block containing all the seven blocks. It is relevant to note that above referred communications which are undisputed also reveals an important aspect that the entire iron ore mineral as contained in the entire 2028.797 ha of Rowghat F deposit was not required by SAIL as on 07.06.2002 and for the same reason SAIL clearly promised and committed that it will meet the full requirement of iron ore of the Petitioner, which is evident from communication dated 07.06.2002.
12. The fact that the reservation in favour of SAIL vide notification dated 16.07.2002 under sec. 17A(1A) of the MMDR Act, was with an understanding that SAIL/BSP will start supplying iron ore to the petitioner is also clear from the letters of Ministry of Mines, dated 12.11.2002 and 13.12.2002 to Ministry of Steel, which again has not been disputed by either of the respondents. Resultantly, when SAIL/BSP failed to bear the condition attached to the reservation of the entire Rowghat F deposits by way notification dated 16.07.2002, of supplying iron ore to the Petitioner, various meetings and correspondences ensued from 16.08.2002 to 03.12.2004 namely 12.11.2002, 13.12.2002, 28.02.2003, 06.03.2003, 23.04.2004, 09.06.2003, 16.06.2003, 14.08.2003 27.10.2003 which ultimately led to the de-reservation notification dated 03.12.2004 by the Ministry of Mines, by which the area of Rowghat F Block reserved in favour of the SAIL was reduced as a result of which certain portion of the Rowghat F was opened up so that Petitioner could be granted mining lease over the same. The respondents did not dispute these correspondences and have also been acted upon by them to secure the mining rights over entire Rowghat F block. It is relevant to note that the said understanding is not only evident from these correspondences but also from the various internal notings dated 10.07.2003, 17.07.2003 13.09.2003, 31.10.2003, 18.12.2003, 15.01.2004 and 27.05.2004 received by the petitioner from the Ministry of Mines on 07.09.2007 and Ministry of Steel on 24.09.2007.
13. It is also relevant to note that the General Manager (Mines), BSP, on 27.10.2003, with the approval of Managing Director, BSP, wrote to the Director (Technical & Finance), SAIL confirming that it has been decided by BSP that instead of Koregaon block as suggested by the State Government, the block located at one side of deposit F i.e. Rowdongri along with a part of Block-A should be given to the Petitioner. Upon examination of the report of IBM, it was also stated that the petitioners 30 years iron ore requirement was also assessed at 48 million tons (1.6 MT x 30 years) which could be met with the de-reserved mine area. BSP had also stated that the actual requirement of iron ore for 1 million tones (MT) Hot Metal production for 30 as hereunder:

Iron Ore Requirement 1 x 1.6
= 1.6 MTPA
Requirement of ore for 30 years 1.6 x 30
= 48.00 MT
Geological Reserve of Raodongri
= 47.42 MT
Mineable Reserve @ 90% of Geological Reserve
= 47.42 x 0.90 = 42.68 MT at 61.40% Fe
Beneficiation losses (@ 14%
= 5.98 MT

The upgradation on beneficiation is likely to be around 2% i.e. from 61.40% to 63.40% Fe.

Thus, Iron ore reserve available for hot metal production
= 36.70 MT at 63.40% Fe
The balance quantity required for JNL
= 48.0 – 36.7 = 11.30 MT
The available reserve in cross section AA & BB of Block – A:

Section AA
= 2.035 MT Fe 61.58%
Section BB
= 12.097 MT Fe 64%
TOTAL
= 14.132 MT Fe 63.65%

14. Therefore, SAIL/BSP has assessed the requirement of quality, actual quantity of iron ore for 1 million tones of Hot metal production by the petitioner for 30 years. As per SAIL/BSP, Iron ore required by the petitioner was calculated at 48 million tones with 63.40% Fe content. Accordingly, BSP/SAIL, proposed that said requirement of the Petitioner could be met if reserves of Raodongri and cross section AA & BB of Block A is de-reserved. It is also relevant to note that the Respondent No.4/SAIL in its counter affidavit also admits the fact that the petitioners existing capacity of steel production is 1 million tones. Furthermore, the internal notings dated 31.10.2003, received by the Petitioner from the Ministry of Steel on 24.09.2007 and the internal notings dated 27.05.2004 received by the Petitioner from the Ministry of Mines on 07.09.2007, shows that the Ministry of Steel had also agreed for de reservation of iron ore available in Raodongri and Cross AA & BB of Block A. Therefore, the argument of SAIL and Ministry of Steel that the quality, quantity and period of iron ore reserve required by the petitioner was not finalized or crystalized is incorrect and contrary to communication and documents which are not disputed by SAIL/Ministry of Steel. Rather, the requirement of the Petitioner was first assessed by the Respondent No.4/SAIL and was agreed to be given up by way of de-reservation of certain portion of mining area already reserved in favour of the Respondent No.4. Finally, this led to de-reservation notification dated 03.12.2004, by which the area reserved in favour of SAIL was reduced to 1702.700 hectares. Therefore, it is clear that de-reservation vide notification dated 03.12.2004 under sec. 17A(1A) of the MMDR Act, 1957, was with a clear understanding that since SAIL/BSP has failed to supply iron ore to the Petitioner. Further, prior to issuance of 03.12.2024 de-reservation notification, the areas which can be de-reserved were identified by SAIL after assessing the requirement of Petitioner.

15. In furtherance to the aforesaid decision of the State Government as well as the Central Government to grant mining lease for iron ore in sub-block Rowdongri of Rowghat deposit F to the Petitioner, the State Government recommended the case of the Petitioner for grant of Prior Approval under section 5(1) of MMDR Act, 1957, for grant of mining lease. Accordingly, the Ministry of Mines on 06.12.2004 conveyed the approval of the Central Government under Section 5(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, for grant of mining lease. The grant of prior approval in favour of the Petitioner for grant of mining lease has also not been disputed by the Respondents. Based on the S.5(1) approval, the Petitioner got a vested right for grant of mining lease in its favour as under the earlier regime of MMDR Act, 1957, once S. 5(1) approval was granted by the Ministry of Mines, on the recommendation of the State Govt. thereafter there was no impediment for grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner.
16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bhushan Power & Steel Limited vs Mr. S.L. Seal, Add. Secretary, Government of Odisha & others, (2017) 2 SCC 125, while dealing with the provisions of MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, has held that by insertion of Section 10A a right vested in 3 categories of applicant were protected. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced as hereunder:
22. Newly inserted provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 are to be examined and interpreted keeping in view the aforesaid method of allocation of mineral resources through auctioning, that has been introduced by the Amendment Act, 2015. Amended Section 11 now makes it clear that the mining leases are to be granted by auction. It is for this reason that sub-section (1) of Section 10A mandates that all applications received prior to January 12,2015 shall become ineligible. Notwithstanding, sub-section (2) thereof carves out exceptions by saving certain categories of applications even filed before the Amendment Act, 2015 came into operation. Three kinds of applications are saved.

22.3. Third category is that category of applicants where the Central Government had already communicated previous approval under Section 5(1) of the Act for grant of mining lease or the State Government had issued Letter of Intent to grant a mining lease before coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015. Here again, the raison d’etre is that certain right had accrued to these applicants inasmuch as all the necessary procedures and formalities were complied with under the unamended provisions and only formal lease deed remained to be executed.

It would, thus, be seen that in all the three cases, some kind of right, in law, came to be vested in these categories of cases which led the Parliament to make such a provision saving those rights, and understandably so.

17. The said decision is also followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of State of West Bengal & another V M/s Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih & another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1149.
18. Barely after a month of issuance of the above notification, and after the Petitioner getting prior approval over the area de-reseved, there was change of stand on part of the Respondent No.3/ Ministry of Steel. The Ministry of Steel on 17.01.2005, with the approval of Minister of Steel, wrote to Ministry of Mines that the entire Rowghat F block deposit may be reserved in favour of SAIL and whatever iron ore is required by the petitioner would be supplied by BSP on cost plus basis. Moreover, SAIL vide its letter dated 16.06.2006 confirmed to IBM that Raodongri deposits need to be reserved only due to its geographical location otherwise operation in the other blocks will become unviable. Further, this fact was also confirmed by the Ministry of Mines in its affidavit that the SAIL has conducted a survey in April, 2006 and it was found that the Raodongri sub block is geographically placed at the entrance of the deposit F and the only existing approach road to the other six sub blocks passes through Raodongri sub block and any other approach road would be circuitous and not feasible and would increase the transportation cost.
19. Ministry of Mines in its counter affidavit has also confirmed that the re-reservation of the entire area by the Ministry of Mines, on 20.07.2006, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec.(1A) of Sec.17A of the MMDR Act, was based on the no objection letter dated 27.04.2006, received from the State Government. From the perusal of the letter dated 27.04.2006, it is clear that the State Government had given its no objection for re-reservation of Rowghat F block deposit area based on the communication dated 17.01.2005, of the Ministry of Steel which mentions that SAIL would supply iron ore at cost plus basis to the Petitioner as per Petitioners requirement. All the respondents were well aware of the fact that based on commitment by the Ministry of Steel for supply of iron ore on cost plus basis to the petitioner the State Government gave no objection to the Ministry of Mines to re-reserve the entire area of Rowghat F block in favour of SAIL/BSP. Further, based on no objection of the State Government, the Ministry of Mines, issued fresh Notification on 27.04.2006, re-reserving the entire Rowghat F block in favour of the SAIL.
20. It is thus clear from the various documents on record that reservation of the entire Rowghat F Block deposit in favour of SAIL, was done in view of commitment made by Ministry of Steel that whatever iron ore will be required by Petitioner shall be supplied by SAIL/BSP on cost plus 5% basis. However, upon reservation when SAIL failed to supply the iron ore to Petitioner, certain area i.e. Raodongri subblock was de-reserved vide notification dated 03.12.2004. Further, immediately after de-reservation, prior approval under Section 5(1) of MMDR Act, 1957, was granted in favour of the Petitioner for an area admeasuring 175 ha. However, when the Ministry of Steel vide its letter dated 17.01.2005, assured that if the entire Rowghat F block deposit is reserved in favour of SAIL then whatever iron ore is required by the petitioner will be supplied by BSP on cost plus basis then, on the said assurance, Ministry of Mines, which had earlier de-reserved the said area, re-reserved the entire area in favour of SAIL. Therefore, the condition of supply of iron ore to the Petitioner upon reservation of the entire Rowghat F Block in favour of SAIL was clear and explicit. Further, it can also be seen that State Government had rejected Mining Lease application of the petitioner on 23.02.2007, taking into consideration the communication dated 17.01.2005. Thus, the petitioner has altered its position by giving up its vested rights for grant of mining lease for Raodongri area on the assurance/commitment of supply of Iron Ore or cost plus basis by SAIL/BSP which is evident from all the above referred documents communication dated 17.01.2005.
21. The Ministry of Mines in its office memorandum dated 30.08.2006 addressed to Ministry of Steel had stated that the Ministry of Steel has decided that BSP/SAIL would supply iron ore to the Petitioner as per Petitioners requirement on cost plus basis as intimated vide letter dated 17.01.2005 and forwarded the representation of the Petitioner for the needful. Similarly, the Ministry of Mines vide its letter dated 10.04.2007 requested the Ministry of Steel to look into the matter of imposing condition in the mining lease in terms of Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. However, SAIL vide its the letter dated 22.08.2008 and Ministry of Steel vide its letters dated 31.10.2008 and 12.11.2008 refused to supply iron ore to the Petitioner.
22. Therefore, it is clear from the above that there was an unconscionable departure by the Respondent No.4/SAIL and Respondent No.3/Ministry of Steel in not supplying iron ore to the Petitioner despite making such promises/commitment at various stages and despite availing the benefit out of the re-reservation of the entire Rowghat F block. Therefore, the actions of the Respondents is contrary to the well-established principles of doctrine of promissory estoppel.
23. Supreme Court of India in the matter of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 409 has held as hereunder:
19. When we turn to the Indian law on the subject it is heartening to find that in India not only has the doctrine of promissory estoppel been adopted in its fullness but it has been recognized as affording a cause of action to the person to whom the promise is made. The requirement of consideration has not been allowed to stand in the way of enforcement of such promise. The doctrine of promissory estoppel has also been applied against the Government and the defence based on executive necessity has been categorically negatived. It is remarkable that as far back as 1880, long before the doctrine of promissory estoppel was formulated by Denning, J., in England, a Division Bench of two English Judges in the Calcutta High Court applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel and recognised a cause of action founded upon it in the Ganges Manufacturing Co. v. Sourujmull [(1880) ILR 5 Cal 669: 5 CLR 533] . The doctrine of promissory estoppel was also applied against the Government in a case subsequently decided by the Bombay High Court in Municipal Corporation of Bombay v. Secretary of State [(1905) ILR 29 Bom 580 : 7 Bom LR 27] .

23. It was also contended on behalf of the Government that if the Government were held bound by every representation made by it regarding its intention, when the exporters have acted in the manner they were invited to act, the result would be that the Government would be bound by a contractual obligation even though no formal contract in the manner required by Article 299 was executed. But this contention was negatived and it was pointed out by this Court that the respondents are not seeking to enforce any contractual right : they are seeking to enforce compliance with the obligation which is laid upon the Textile Commissioner by the terms of the Scheme, and we are of the view that even if the Scheme is executive in character, the respondents who were aggrieved because of the failure to carry out the terms of the Scheme were entitled to seek resort to the Court and claim that the obligation imposed upon the Textile Commissioner by the Scheme be ordered to be carried out. It was thus laid down that a party who has, acting in reliance on a promise made by the Government, altered his position, is entitled to enforce the promise against the Government, even though the promise is not in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 and that Article does not militate against the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the Government.

33. The State, however, contended that the doctrine of promissory estoppel had no application in the present case because the appellant did not suffer any detriment by acting on the representation made by the Government : the vanaspati factory set up by the appellant was quite a profitable concern and there was no prejudice caused to the appellant. This contention of the State is clearly unsustainable and must be rejected. We do not think it is necessary, in order to attract the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, that the promisee, acting in reliance on the promise, should suffer any detriment. What is necessary is only that the promisee should have altered his position in reliance on the promise. This position was impliedly accepted by Denning J., in the High Trees case when the learned Judge pointed out that the promise must be one which was intended to create legal relations and which, to the knowledge of the person making the promise, was going to be acted on by the person to whom it was made and which was in fact acted on, (emphasis supplied). If a promise is acted on, such action, in law as in physics, must necessarily result in an alteration of position. This was again reiterated by Lord Denning in W.J. Alan & Co. Ltd. v. El Nasr Export and Import Co. [(1972) 2 All ER 127, 140] where the learned Law Lord made it clear that alteration of position only means that he (the promisee) must have been led to act differently from what he would otherwise have done. And, if you study the cases in which the doctrine has been applied, you will see that all that is required is that the one should have acted on the belief induced by the other party. Viscount Simonds also observed in Tool Metal Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Tungsten Electric Co. Ltd. [(1955) 2 All ER 657] that … the gist of the equity lies in the fact that one party has by his conduct led the other to alter his position. The judgment of Lord Tucker in the same case would be found to depend likewise on a fundamental finding of alteration of position, and the same may be said of that of Lord Cohen. Then again in Emmanuel Ayodeji Ajayi v. Briscoe Lord Hodson said:This equity is, however, subject to the qualification (1) that the other party has altered his position. The same requirement was also emphasised by Lord Diplock in Kammins Ballrooms Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Investments (Terquay) Ltd. [(1970) 2 All ER 871] What is necessary, therefore, is no more than that there should be alteration of position on the part of the promisee. The alteration of position need not involve any detriment to the promisee. If detriment were a necessary element, there would be no need for the doctrine of promissory estoppel because, in that event, in quite a few cases, the detriment would form the consideration and the promise would be binding as a contract. There is in fact not a single case in England where detriment is insisted upon as a necessary ingredient of promissory estoppel. In fact, in W.J. Alan & Co. Ltd. v. El Nasr Export and Import Co., Lord Denning expressly rejected detriment as an essential ingredient of promissory estoppel, saying:

A seller may accept a less sum for his goods than the contracted price, thus inducing (his buyer) to believe that he will not enforce payment of the balance: see Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. and D. & C. Builders Ltd. v. Rees [(1956) 3 All ER 837] . In none of these cases does the party who acts on the belief suffer any detriment. It is not a detriment, but a benefit to him to have an extension of time or to pay less, or as the case may be. Nevertheless, he has conducted his