w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. v/s Union of India & Others

    SLPs (C) No. 8434 of 2007 in WP No. 4151 of 2006 with Nos. 7494, 8506, 8538, 12256 and 17407 of 2007

    Decided On, 15 December 2008

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE M.K. SHARMA

    For the Appellant: Arun Jaitley, Sr. Adv., Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv., Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, Gaurav Goel, Amit Kumar Sharma, Neha Aggarwal, E.C. Agrawala, K.B. Rohtagi, Aparna Rohtagi Jain, Mahesh Kasana, Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Rohit Choudhary, Preeti Khewani, B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Dr. Abhishek M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv., R.F.Nariman, Sr. Adv., Gautam Mitra, Amit Sibal Bina Madhavan, Rajiv Lall, Gaurav Mitra, Manish Kumar for M/s. Lawyer's Knit and Co., R.F. Nariman, Sr. Adv., Jaya Bharuka, Anjani Kumar Singh, Devashish Bharuka, K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Ashok Panigrahi, Gopal Shankar Naryaan, Prashant Chowdhary , Advocates. For the Respondents: B. Dutta, A.S.G., Madhurima Tatia, Gargi Khanna, A. Tarique, Anil Katiyar, D.S. Mahra, K. Parasaaran, Sr. Adv., Ciccu Mukhopadhaya, Shambhu Prasad Singh, Prem Sunder Jha, M.S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv., Sushila Ray, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, B.V. Balram Das, P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Adv. Sridhar Potaraju, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The State of Jharkhand has filed an affidavit in these special leave petitions inter alia stating that the matter has been considered by the State Government without prejudice t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

o its rights and contentions in these proceedings. The State Government has decided as follows:

(a) Each petitioner company would be required to file with the State Government an affidavit assuring that it would establish its plant within a reasonable time.

(b) Each petitioner company would also be required to give a written undertaking to the State Government that they would ensure that no part of the iron ore shall be wasted and that all of it would be fully utilized.

(c) in respect of three of the Companies/Petitioners, viz., M/s. Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd., M/s. Jharkhand Ispat Ltd and M/s Prakash Ispat Ltd., recommendations would be sent to the Central Government for grant of mining leases over areas (i.e. extent) according to their requirements of area after assessment by the State Government.

(d) in respect of two of the Companies/Petitioners, viz M/s. Aadhunik Alloys and Power Ltd. and M/s. Abhijeet infrastructure Ltd., recommendations would be sent to the Central Government for grant of the same areas (i.e. extent) of mining lease as earlier recommended for them, while for M/s. Ispat industries Ltd. for the time being, recommendation would be sent in respect of an undisputed area.

3. in view of the aforesaid statement, we direct that let State Government send its recommendations in terms of what has been stated above within a period of five weeks to the Central Government. The concerned parties shall comply with the requisite formalities as noted above so far as they are concerned within a period of three weeks.

4. The Central Government is requested to consider the recommendations within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the recommendations. Before recommendations in respect of the concerned areas are made to the Central Government, the inter se dispute on account of alleged overlapping shall be considered duly by the State Government in cases where the issues arise. This order shall not in any way affect those who were not parties before the High Court.

5. List these matters in the last week of April, 2009.
O R