SC reserves order on pleas from mining firms

Verdict of 2010 related to applications for leases

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order on maintainability of a host of petitions filed by the Union and Karnataka governments, as well as mining companies seeking review of a 2010 apex court verdict.

The verdict had directed the Karnataka government to consider afresh within four months the applications of companies vying for lease of iron ore mines in the Kumaraswamy range.

A bench of Justices P Sathasivam and H L Dattu concluded the hearing and said it would pass order if those review petitions were maintainable or not.

Attorney General G E Vahanvati, appearing for the Centre, contended that the judgment was delivered on “erroneous” basis. He also claimed that though notice was issued, the Union government could not be heard.

“If you are not there, can we say that you were not heard,” the Bench asked him. “First you have to satisfy us that you were not heard. If we find that some facts were wrongly placed, we can consider your petition,” the Bench said. Vahanvati argued that the 2010 judgment was made on the basis of “written submission” which had wrongly quoted the report of the committee set up to “review the Existing Laws and Procedure for Regulation and Development of Minerals.”

He submitted that the Karnataka government had not yet implemented the court’s directions to seek fresh applications for the mining leases in the area. Besides the Centre, JSW Steel Ltd, Kalyani Steels and Karnataka government had approached the apex court with the review petitions challenging the order passed on September 13, 2010. M/s Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd and MSPL Ltd have challenged the maintainability of the review petitions.

Senior counsel F S Nariman, appearing for Sandur, pointed out unexplained delay in filing the review petition while senior advocate K K Venugopal, representing MSPL opposed the Centre’s plea saying that its argument that it was not heard could not be ground for review as there had to be error apparent on the face of records for taking up such an exercise.

Vahanvati, however, countered them, “If some case of public importance was decided on incorrect report, is it not open for the court to hear it afresh?”

The Bench had in May decided to hear the review petitions in the open court. Overturning the Karnataka High Court ruling, the apex court had, in its decision in 2010, directed the State government to consider afresh the applications of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore Limited, MSPL Ltd, Jindal Vijaynagar Steels Ltd and Kalyani Steel Limited.

Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore Ltd and MSPL had then challenged the ruling of Karnataka High Court that had upheld the decision of the State government to allot certain lease of the mines to Jindal and Kalyani.