BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTDversusRAJESH VERMA & ORS.

                    [2014] 5 S.C.R. 493


            BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD.                            A
                             v.
               RAJESH VERMA & ORS.
        (Contempt Petition (C) NO. 374 OF 2012)
                            IN
               C. A. No. 2790 OF 2012                             B

                      APRIL 22, 2014

   [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A. K. SIKRI, JJ.]

    Contempt of Court:                                            c
      Order of Supreme Court - Non-implementation of - In
terms of an MOU, State Government had committed to
recommend to Central Government for grant of iron ore mines
in favour of appellant for use in it~ proposed plant - Pursuant   0
thereto appellant set up the plant with huge investment -
Order of Supreme Caurt in appeal directing the State
Government to take steps in terms of MOU- No-compliance
of - Held: Respondents/contemners do not dispute that the
directions contained in the judgment have become final -          E
However, State Government!Contemners have pleaded their
helplessness by narrating certairi circumstances ·and
developments as also the statutory mandate embodied in s. ·
 11(4) of the MMDR Act - Held: Contemners cannot raise
such a plea to avoid implementation of directions issued by
 Court - As far as the law- laid down in Sandur Manganese,        F
that may be applied in application that are pending -
Respondents are in contempt of orders dated 14. 3. 2012
passed by the Court, in not complying with the directions in
 respect of Keora area --:- However, they are given one final
 opportunity to purge the contempt by transmitting requisite      G
 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.
                               493                                H
    494       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 5 S.C.R ..


A         Constitution of India, 1950:

        Alt. 32 - Writ petition - Claiming simll~r relief with regard
  to grant of mining lease as was directed in the case of
  appellant in its appeal - Held: Petitioners cannot approach
8 the  Coult directly under Alt. 32 of the Constitution by filing writ
  petitions, as no fundamental right of th~ petitioners is violated
  by non-granting of mining lease - However, petitioners are
  at libelty to approach High Coult in the first instance and! or
  any other forum which is available, as per law.

C      In terms of MOU dated 15.5.2002 entered into
  between the contempt-petitioner-appellant and the State
  Government of Orissa, the latter recommended to the
  Central Government grant of irpn ore mines ih favour of
  the appellant for use of iron ore in proposed plant. For
D this purpose, Thakurani area with 96 million tonnes iron
  ore reserve and Keora area with additional 128 million
  tonnes of iron ore were earmarked for 50 years
  requirement of the plant. The. plant was set up, but, due
  to family dispute, which was subsequently resolved,
E there arose some difficulties in getting the grant of iron
  ore lease. Meanwhile in 2006, the State Government took
  a decision that mining lease over Thakurani area could
  not be allowed in favour of the appellant, and made a
  recommendation to Central Government to grant mining
F lease in favour of "NM(P) Ltd.". The appellant challenged
  these orders before the High Court in a writ petition,
  which was dismissed. However, the appeal of the
  appellant (C.A. No. 279012012) was allowed by the
  Supreme Court by its order dated 14.3.2012, with the
G direction to the State Government to take appropriate
  steps to act in terms of 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 reserve to meet the requirement of the
H appellants' steel plant. The directions were implemented
     BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v."·' RAJ ESH                   495
                  VERMA
with regard to Thakurani area, but the same were not                     A
implemente'd as regards Ke.ora area. Aggrieved, the
appellant filed the contempt petition. The State
Government filed I.A. No. 14 of 2013 giving details of
subsequent developments, whi(:h according to the State
Government made. it difficult to recommend the case of                   B
the appellant. It was also stated that the issue which was
dealt with by Supreme Court in Sandur Managenese, 1 was
not raised in the appellants' vyrit petition or in their appeal.
I.A. No. 2 in 1..A. No. 14 of 2013 was filed by another
company against the status quo order passed in the                       c
applications of the appellant. The petitioners in other
three writ petitions claimed that benefit granted to the
appe~nt by order 14.3.2012 in C.A. No. 2790/2012, be also
extended to them.

      Disposing of the matters, the Court                                D

     HELD: 1.1. The appellant, by means of the contempt
petition, is seeking the ~nforcement of the directions
contained in its favour in the judgment dated 14.3.2012
passed in C.A. NO. 2790 of 2012. The State Government E
has exhibited helplessness in carrying out the directions
contained in the judgment dated 14.3.2012 even qua the
beneficiary of the said judgment namely, the appellant. In
the MOU entered into between the parties, the State
Government had committed to recommend to the Central F
Government, for grant of iron ore mines to the appellant
for use in its proposed plant. Pursuant to the grant of
permissions by various authorities enabling the appellant
to get the land, electricity, permission for installation of a
Captive Power Plant etc. etc., it set up the plant with an G
investment of Rs. 25,000 crores. 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

1.   Sandur Manganese and Iron Ors. v. State of Kamataka 2010 (11) SCR
     ~~                                                                  H
    496      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A backward area of Orissa persuant to the scheme of ttie
  State Government. The Court held that MOU dated
  15.5.2002 still subsisted in favour of the appellant and
  also that State Government was under obligation to make
  recommendations as per the said MOU. [Para 13-16] [506·
B F, G-H; 507-D, G-H; 508-A, F, G]

       1.2. In so far as reserve of 96 million tonnes of iron ore
  in Thakurani mines is concerned, the State Government
  had made the recommendation to the Central
C Government, which also approved the same in favour of
  the appellant. As regards a reserve of 128 million tonnes
  in Keora mines, the respondents/ contemners do not
  dispute (and in fact there is no scope for any dispute) that
  the directions contained in the judgment have become
  final. One would, therefore, command for obeying these
D directions. However, the State Government/contemners
  have pleaded their helplessness by narrating certain
  circumstances and developments as also the statutory
  mandate embodied in s. 11 (4) of the MMDR Act, 1957
  which, are stated to have come in the way of the
E respondent State in implementing the final order and
  judgment dated 14.3.2012 in so far it relates to the Keora
  area. [Paras 17 -19] [510-A-C; 512-8-C]

       1.3. The respondents cannot raise a plea to avoid
F implementation of the directions contained in the
  judgment. It is significant to note that there is a judgment,
  inter partes, 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
G 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 petitior:iers for mining lease in both the areas.
H In view of such categorical and unambiguous directions
    BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. RAJ ESH                497
                 VERMA
-giv~!'.I in the judgment which has attained finality, merely   A
because another 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. [Para 20 and 24] [512-B-C; 515-C-E]
                                                                B
    T.R. Dhananjaya vs J. Vasudevan 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR
   =
64 (1995) 5 SCC EM~; Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of
Jharkhand and Others; 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 740 = (2004)
7 SCC 261; Bihar Finance Service H. C. Coop. Soc. Ltd. v.
Gautam Goswami and Ors.; (2008) 5 sec 339 - relied on.
                                                                c
    Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore vs State of Karnataka
2010 (11) SCR 240 = (2010) 13 SCC 1 - referred to,

    1.4. In so far as law laid down in Sandur Manganese
is concerned, that may be applied and followed by the           D
State Government in respect of other applications which
are still pending. However, that cannot be pressed into
service qua the appellant whose rights have been
crystallised by the judgment rendered in its favour. It
cannot be 're-opened, that too at the stage of                  E
implementation of the said judgment. [Para 24] [515-E-F]

     1.5. Once 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              F
relevant considerations, can be left to the wisdom ,of the
Central Government while taking a decision on the
recommendation of the State Government. [Para 25] [516-
B-C]
                                                              G
     1.6. This Court, therefore, holds 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, they are given one final ·
opportunity to purge the contempt by transmitting H
    498       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2014) 5 S.C.R.

A 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, the respondents/ contemners shall stand
B discharged from the contempt petition and no further
  action will be taken. However, in case the respondents
  do not purge in the manner suggested, it would be open
  to the petitioners to point out the same to this Court by
  moving appropriate application and in that event the
c contemners shall be proceeded against. [Para 27] [517-
  8-E]

       2. In so far as three writ petitions are concerned, they
  claim on the basis of parity with the appellant. However,
  on the basis of such a plea, the petitioners in the said
D petitions cannot approach this Court directly under Art.
  32 of the Constitution by filing writ petitions, as no
  fundamental right of the petitioners is violated by non-
  granting of mining lease. However, the petitioners are at
  liberty to approach the High Court in the first instance
E and/ or any other forum which is available, as per law.
  [Paras 29 and 30] [517-F, G-H; 518-A, C-0]

      Monnet !spat & Energy Ltd. V. U.0.1 & Ors. 2012 (7)
  SCR 644 = (2012) 11 SCC 1; State of Assam v. Om Prakash
F Mehta 1973 (3) SCR 169 = (1973) 1 SCC 584 - relied on.

       Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr.
    1998 (2) SCR 795 = (1998) 4 SCC 409 - referred to.
                        Case Law Reference:
G
          2010 (11) SCR 240          referred to      para 5
          1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 64     relied on        para 21
          2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 740    relied on        para 22
H         2008 (3) SCR-1.t37         reUed on         para 23
        BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. RAJESH               499
                     VERMA
        1998 (2) SCR 795             referred to      para 26     A
        2012 (7) SCR 644             relied on        para 29
        1973 (3) SCR 169             relied on        para 29
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (C)           B
No. 374 of 2012.

        In

    .
        Civil Appeal No. 27~0 of 2012.
                                   .
    From the Judgment & Order dated 14.12.2007 passed by
                                                                  c
the Hgih Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P.(C) No. 6646 of
2006.

                              WITH
                                                                  D
W.P.(C) Nos. 60, 194, 837 of 2013.

{A. No. 14 &I.A. No. 2 in I.A. No. 14 in C.A. No. 2790 of 2012.

     L. Nageswara Rao, ASG, Mukul Rohatgi, Dr. A.M. Singhvi,
.R.F. Nariman, K.K. Venugopal, Pinaki Mishra, K. E
 Radhakrishnan, Shibashish Misra, Abhinav Rao, Mahesh
 Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, E.C. Agarwala, Radhika Gautam,
 Devika Mohan, Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Sunil Fernandes, Ranjana
 Roy Gawai, Raghav Chadha, Astha Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar,
 Rohit Bhatt, Rajat Jariwal, Aakash Bajaj (for Khaitan & Co.), F
 Suresh Chandra Tripathy, Sanjay Jain, Sunil Kumar Jain, Sachin
 Sharma, Satya Mitra Garg, Manjula Gupta, Mohan Prasad
 Gupta, D.S. Mahra for the following parties.

        The Judgment of the Courtwas delivE3red by.               G
    A.K SIKRI, J. 1. All the aforesaid matters wer.e 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.       H
     500       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 5 S.C.R.

A (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 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
B 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,
C    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
D    to accord due priority to Bhushan Limited for grant of suitable
     iron qre 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
·E   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 128 million tonnes of iron ore; both
F    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.
G       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
H and the application made by Bhushan Limited was premature.
   BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. RAJ ESH                     501
           VERMA [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
Thereafter, the Government of Orissa made a recommendation           A
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      B
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. 2790/2012. This appeal was allowed by
this Court vide judgment dated 14.3.2012 with the following
directions:                                                          c
     "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        D
     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            E
     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   F
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     G
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         H
    502        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A expressing certain difficulties because of which they claim that
  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
B 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
c 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
0
  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
E         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 petitioner for an additional
          128 million tonnes of iron ore over lands in Keora area of
F         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
G 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
H applications of the applicant not being considered by the State
    BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. RAJ ESH                     503
            VERMA [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
Government which is adversely affecting the interest of the           A
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           B
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            C
group got incorporated a 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:-
                                                                      D
     "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
                                                                      E I
     took place was that on 25th NovemQer, 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                 F
     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.'.'
                                                                      G
                           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           H
    504       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A         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
B         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 Mehramandali and a suggestion was also
          made for execution of a fresh MOU between the State
          Government and BSSL to this effect."
c
         8. It is the case of the SSL 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, Mis. Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. (BSSL)
D   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 SSL is identically situated
    as BPSL and, therefore, the benefit given to BPSL vide
E   judgment dated 14.3.2012 needs to be extended to the SSL
    as well. The direction in the nature of mandamus is sought to
    implement the decision of 12th llAC Meeting dated 27.8.2003
    and terms of MOA dated 3.11.2005 against the State
    Government by making appropriate recommendation to the
F   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.
G   uhder Bonai sub-division, District Sundegarh to meet the
    captive requirements of SSL 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 SSL as well.
H
     BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. RAJ ESH                      505
             VERMA [AK. SIKRI, J.]
 WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 194 OF 2013                                      A

       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.   8
  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             C
      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."                                                      D

       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 for setting up an integrated Steel Plant wherein similar       E
 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
                                                                        F
 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         G
 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     H
    506       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A 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 Wi"it Petition is filed by Shri Mahavir Ferro Alloys
B Pvt. Ltd. It has also proposed to set up a 0.35 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
C 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
D 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.
E
        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
F seeking the enforcement of the directions contained in its favour
  in the 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
G 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.
H In so far as other three writ petitioners are concerned, not only
    BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. RAJ ESH                      507
            VERMA [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
same difficulties are sought to be projected, ,it is also mentioned    A
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 i.s questioned. In such a scenario it i.s apposite to
first de;al with the GCP filed. by BPSL.                               B
             '
CONTEMPT PETITION (Cl NO. 374 OF 2012 In

C.A. No. 2790 OF 2012

     · 14. We have already narrated the gist Of factual                c
  background in which BPSL approached the High Court and
  thereafter this Court 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        D
  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 Barbi! Sector of Keonjhar (Thakurani area)        E
             · 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.      F
     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         G
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                H
    508          SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A scheme of the State Government. It 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
B 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
c 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
D                 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
E                 aforesaidMOU dated 15th May, 2002 andwhether
                  in respect of the areas which had notbeen notified
                  under Rule 59(1 ), the StateGovernment can make
                  a recommendation forrelaxation of Rule 59(1)
                  under Rule 59(2).
F       16. The Court deliberated at length on these issues and
  decided in favour of BPSL holding that MOU dated 15.5.2002
  still subsisted 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
G 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
H         for the commissioning of the plant, which, in fact, had
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. RAJ ESH                 509
        VERMA [A.K. SIKRI, J.] ·

already started functioning. However, it is the claim made A
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 B
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     c
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            D
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 p·lant. Whatever differences that may
have resulted on account of the dispute within the Bhushan E
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 addition to the
above, the action taken by the State Government appears F
to us to be high,ly 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 G
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".
                                                              H
    510        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A       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 ofJ28 million tonnes.
B
        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
C 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 notified
D         on 23.8.1991 under Rule 59(1) of the Mineral Concession
          Rules, 1960. The validity of the notification dated
          23.8.19S1 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
E         Court.

          (b) Further, it is seen that the applied area is overlapping
          with the applied area of several other applicants, including
          Mis. Larsen & Toubro Limited and M/s. Tata Iron and Steel
          Co. Limited.
F
          (c) It is also po.inted out that earlier on 21.10.1997 an are~
          of 998.93 hectares overlapping with appliedarea of the
          BPSL, was recommended in favour of M/s Larsen &
          Toubro Ltd. in puruance with the said company. However,
G         this recommendation was withdrawn for certain reasons.
          Thereafter, even revised MU 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
H         dated 10.7.2003 wherein direction is given to consider
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD: v. RAJ ESH
        VERMA [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
application of M/s. Lar:s.efl ~ ifoubro Ltd. Alongwith about   A
196 app]ica.ti&ns" 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.
                                                               B
(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    C
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
proceedi11gs it is difficult to pass any orders qua B P S L
at this stage.
                                                               D
(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 ha$
concluded that all applications filed over areas notified
under Rule 59(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 E
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 F
process of simultaneous consideration of the applications
filed over ·Khajhurdihi R.F. In Sundergarh and Rakma,
Marsuanand Tiriba of Keonjhar district had rem a i n e d
stalled due to the various stay orders passed in litigations
concerning such area. Subject to the orders, if any, passed G
by this Hon'ble Court in this application, the process of
simultaneous consideration 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 H
    512       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A         of personal hearing and credentials of these applicants are
          required to be evaluated for assessment of relative merits
          in terms 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
8
   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
C in the Keora area, 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
D 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.

E      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
F 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
G following discussion contained in the said judgment squarely
  applies here:-

          "10. When this order was passed, what remained for the
          respondent was only implementation of the order passed
H         by this Court in furtherance of the action taken thereunder
BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. RAJ ESH                     513
        VERMA [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

by the Corporation. It is now clear that instead of               A
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           B
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           c
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
                                                                  0
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 part)L, when the direction was given in
LA. No. 3 filed by the petitioner, it was not brought to out      E
notice that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion, in
contradiction with Dasegowda, or any other. When t11e
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           F
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
concerned officers have deliberately made concerted effort        G
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."                                              H
    514        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A        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
B         in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its
          implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it ~hould
          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
c         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
D         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
E         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
F         clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding
          acceptability or otherwise of the application for initiation
          o( contempt proceedings".                        ·

      23. This very principle has been reiterated by in Bihar
G 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
H         other questions including the plea of equities which could
      BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. RAJ ESH                   515
              VERMA [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
      fall for consideration only in the original proceedings. The.   A
      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 beyoncl 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       B
      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          C
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       D
and unambiguous directions given in the judgment which has
attained finality, merely because another 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             E
(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     F
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.         G
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     H
    516        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A 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 be necessary to go into these
  contentions in detail. Once we hold that the respondents are
B 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
c the State Government.
        26. In so far as intervention applications by Talas 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;
D
           "42. The contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be
           exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act
          .adversely affects the administration of jµstice or which
           tends to impede its course or tends to shake public
E          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
F          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 community it is
G
           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
H
    BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. RAJ ESH                     517
            VERMA [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
     administration of justice, the majesty of law and the dignity    A
     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 th.at the Respondents/             8
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         C
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          D
respondents do not purge in the manner mentioned above, it
would be open to the petitioners to point out the same to this
Court by moving appropriate application and in that event the
Contemners shall be proceeded against.
                                                                      E
     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
                                                                      F
      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              G
 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        H
    518       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A 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
8   out 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
C   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
D   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
E   are also kept open .to be agitated in those proceedings. Writ
    petitions are dismissed with liberty as aforesaid.

    Rajendra Prasad                                  Matter disposed of.