Delhi High Court Rejects ArcelorMittal's Plea Seeking Approval To Commence Mining Operations In Jharkhand's Saranda Forest Division

The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea moved by ArcelorMittal seeking approval and clearance to commence mining operations in Jharkhand's Saranda Forest Division.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna found no merit in the plea which was filed in 2017.

The court observed that the approval granted to ArcelorMittal by the Central Government in 2007 and 2008 was conditional and no mining lease could be executed in its favour, in the absence of the prescribed requisite pre-conditions.

It added that till date, ArcelorMittal does not have approval of the Central Government under Section 2(ii) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, nor it has forest clearance under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

The bench also noted that the Shah Commission in its report dated October 14, 2013, clearly recommended that no fresh leases should be granted in the Saranda region and recommended that the areas that fell within the proposed mining areas, including the proposed mining area of ArcelorMittal, be declared as inviolate areas and be included in proposed Conservation Reserve under Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

Furthermore, it was also observed that on the relevant date, ArcelorMittal did not satisfy other conditions of the Letter of Intent, issued by the State Government for grant of mining lease, in the absence of any forest clearance in its favour.

The bench also rejected ArcelorMittal's contention regarding discriminatory treatment meted out to it, observing that it cannot draw any inference in its favour on the basis of lease granted in favour of other entities namely SAIL, NINL and Rudra Sen Sindhu.

“…fresh mining leases or approvals could be granted for the Saranda Region in the absence of the completion of the Carrying Capacity Study and the finalization of Sustainable Mining Plan for the area. As is apparent from the Shah Commission recommendation and the ATR, this embargo did not apply to ongoing mining operations under existing mining leases,” the court said.

The bench observed that no case was made out in favour of ArcelorMittal in the absence of compliance of the statutory provisions of fulfilling the conditions of the Letter of Intent within the cut-off date of January 11, 2017.

It also said that disposal of public property by the state or its instrumentalities partakes the character of a trust and that public interest has always been accepted to be as the superior equity which can override individual equity.

“Thus, when the regime for grant of mining lease has changed from first-cum-first-serve basis to that of auction, this Court would be failing in its duty to uphold the public trust by directing grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite condition for grant of mining lease within the stipulated time as provided in the MMDR Act,” the court said.

It added: “The earlier application of the petitioner having been submitted not on the basis of any open transparent process where the petitioner can be said to have succeeded by way of open competition, no vested right has been created in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right in its favour for grant of mining lease in its favour.”

Counsel for Petitioners: Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Mr. Jayant Sud, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Ashish Rana, Mr. Vishrov Mukherjee, Mr. Anuj Berry, Mr. Girik Bhalla, Mr. Anurag Kr. Singh, Ms. Priyanka Vyas, Mr. Madhav Mishra, Mr. Kartik Jasra, Mr. Shivam Jasra, Mr. Shivam Nagpal, Mr. Prannit Stefano, Mr. Gaurav Raj, Mr. Nilesh Mudgil, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Ms. Vidhi Jain, Ms. Shreya Mehra, Mr. Varun Rajawat, Ms. Akshita J, Mr. Taha Yasin, Mrs. Hina Bhargava, Mr. Vikash Kumar Mr. Hina Yadav, Advocates for R-1 & 2; Mr. Jayant Mohan, Mr. Karma Dorjee, Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Advocates for R-3&4

Title: ARCELORMITTAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 237

Click Here To Read Order