The Delhi High Court today said that Lakshmi Mittal's steel manufacturing firm ArcelorMittal ought to have challenged rejection of its plea for forest clearance (FC) in Jharkhand instead of seeking clarification of the court's direction to the Centre to consider its request for clearance expeditiously.
"This court said consider..., it means pass an order. It does not mean take a decision in your favour. They decided to reject your application. You challenge the rejection," Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said.
The court did not pass any order on the company's application and listed it for hearing on August 21 after the lawyer for Luxembourg-based ArcelorMittal said it would be filing a separate writ petition challenging the Centre's decision.
The company has sought a clarification that the court's January 9 order meant if a favourable decision was not possible, then the decision ought to have been deferred by the government.
Central government standing counsel Sanjeev Narula vehemently opposed the plea saying it was a "mockery of court process" and "costs should be imposed" on the company for filing such a "frivolous" application.
He said that pursuant to the court's January 9 order, the entire machinery was put in motion to expeditiously decide the company's application and a decision was taken, before the deadline of January 11, to reject ArcelorMittal's plea for grant of forest clearance for a mining lease in Jharkhand.
The court in its January 9 order had said, "The respondents (Centre) are directed to consider the application of the petitioner expeditiously. If there is a provision for consideration of application by circulation, the respondents shall consider the same by circulation, prior to the end of January 11, 2017, so that if the respondents dispose of the representation of the petitioner in its favour, the mining lease could be executed by the state government prior to expiry of January 11, 2017."
The company is seeking a mining lease in Jharkhand to set up a 12-million-tonne per annum (MTPA) steel plant in the state.
In its main petition, ArcelorMittal has claimed it was
entitled for grant of mining lease under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act as it satisfies all the requirements provided under the statute.
According to the company, under section 10(2)(a) of the Act, once the Centre has communicated previous approval as required under section 5(1) of the Act for grant of a mining lease, or if a letter of intent been issued by the state government to grant a mining lease before the Act was amended in 2015, the mining lease shall be granted subject to fulfilment of the conditions of the previous approval or of the letter of intent within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the said Act.
