FERRO ALLOYS CORPN. LTD. AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A It is true that the Central Government's order dated 15th August, 1995 recommended to the State Government to give the entire 855 hectares of land after excluding the portion earmarked for TISCO, to the four claimants namely, the appellant and Respondents 3 to 7. However, the State Government by its decision dated 29th June, 1997, took the view that 50% of the available area of855.476 hectares be reserved for consideration ofother parties including the captive consumers who have set up industries inside the State and recommended grant in the first instance of the balance 50% of the area to be distributed amongst the four parties, nemely, M/s IMFA/ICCL, Mis !spat Alloys Ltd. and M/s Jindal Strips and also the appellant herein. 50% of the area was to be made available to these four parties whose cases were recommended by the Government of India. It was also observed while assessing the need of the remiaining claimants over 50% area being withheld by the Government, further needs of the aforesaid four parties could also be taken into consideration as noted earlier.

Now it becomes at once obvious that despite the whole hearted approval of the Central Government's order dated 17th August, 1995 by this Court, in TISCO's case (Supra), the State Government in its discretion passed the aforesaid order dated 29th June, 1997 slicing down the claims of the aforesaid four parties covered by the Central Government Order by 50%. It is pertinent to note that neither the appellant nor any of the contesting Respondents 3 E to 7 have thought it fit to challenge the aforesaid order of the State Government to the extent it sliced down their claims for allotment by 50% from the available area of855.476 hectares. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents 3 and 4, as well as other senior counsel appearing for remaining Respondents 5 to 7 submitted that they did not think it fit to challenge the aforesaid slicing down by 50% of their demand for allotment of leases only on the principle that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. It is also required to be noted that the learned senior counsel, Shri Nariman in his turn, also did not challenge the order of 29th June, 1997 regarding slicing down of appellant's need by 50%. The challenge to the said order was mounted by the appellant before the High Court on an entirely different ground namely, that its need for chrome ore was more than as assessed and therefore, the Central Government's Order dated 17th August, 1995 and the consequent order of the State Government dated 29th June, J997, were not legal and valid but no alternative challenge was mounted or -· pressed before us in connection with the State Government's Order of 29th June, 1997 on the aspect of slicing down or reserving 50% of855.476 hectares for consideration of claims of other parties including the captive consumers.

FERRO ALLOYS CORPN. LTD. v. U.0.1. [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 87 As seen earlier, this challenge of the appellant about assessment of its need by the Central Government is not maintainable. We must, therefore, hold that the order of the State Government dated 29th June, I 997 slicing down up by 50% the need of the appellant as assessed and also reserving the remaining 50 per cent of 855.476 hectares of land for consideration of claims of other parties including the captive consumers and also permitting consideration of claims of the appellant and Respondents 3 to 7 for meeting their remaining 50% assessed need will remain binding on the appellant as well on the contesting Respondents 3 to 7. The said order also cannot be said to be in conflict with the order of the Central Government dated 17.08.1995. This point,

- therefore, is held in affirmative against the appellant and also against Respondents 3 to 7. In view of our aforesaid decision on point No. 4, the grievance made by learned senior counsel Shri Desai in the Intervening C

Application No. l of 1999 does not survive for consideration. The said I.A. will stand disposed of accordingly.

Point No. 5: D In view of our decision on Point No. 3, it is obvious that it is not a fit case for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. No useful purpose can be served by remanding this proceeding for a fresh decision of the High Court even though the appellant succeeds in showing that the grievances made by it regarding the alleged error in assessment of its need by the Expert Committee and as confirmed by the Central Government by its E Order dated 17th August, 1995 was not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata. It is for this simple reason that the appellant by its own conduct has disentitled itself from getting any fresh decision on this aspect from any court. In the light of our findings on Point No.3, Point No.5 is, therefore, answered in the negative against the appellant and in favour of the Respondents. F Point No. 6:

As a consequence of our decision on Point Nos.3, 4 and 5, the inevitable result is that this appeal fails and will stand dismissed. However, it is clarified that the State of Orissa will c;arry out the remaining exercise pursuant to its G order dated 29th June, 1997 at the earliest and will see to it that Shri Jagadish Prasad Dash Committee constituted by it on 6.11.1998 also completes its exercise in connection with the remaining area of 436.295 hectares out of 1261.476 hectares, after in the first instance granting leases as per its order dated 29th June, 1997 in the reserved area of 419 .18 hectares out of 1261.4 76 hectares for mining of Chromite in favour of the four parties i.e. the appellant H

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 2 S.C.R.

A and Respondents 3 to 7 in Sukinda Valley of Jaipur District.

It is obvious that the grant of mining leases to the extent of 50% to the appellant and Respondents 3 to 7 as per Order of the Orissa Government dated 29th June, 1997 will remain binding between the parties. However, any additional leases granted by the State of Orissa pursuant to the Report of Shri B Jagadish Prasad Dash Committee or even otherwise to the appellant and Respondents 3 to 7 to meet wholly or partially their remaining 50 per cent of assessed needs as per Central Government's order dated 17th August, 1995 will be subject to the revisions, if any, by the aggrieved parties before the

c Central Government in accordance with law.

case. There will be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the -- S.M. Appeal dismissed.