JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J:—The "Dramatis personae" All these matters are in the nature of offshoots of a basic controversy raised in W. P. No. 14116/84 which was "disposed of" by the orders of this Court dated 30-4-87 and 6-10-87. The parties are now seeking certain clarifications and directions in relation to the orders passed by this Court in the above writ petition. There have been several subsequent developments having an impact on the issue originally brought to this Court in the writ petition (W. P.) and, at present, the matter has become very complicated and involves the interests of a large number of parties. To give a cogent narration of the necessary facts, it is best to start with an enumeration of the various parties with whom we are concerned in the matters which are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. The writ petition as well as the connected matters arise out of applications for grant of rights for the mining of chrome ore or chromite in the State of Orissa. Chrome ore is one of the minerals specified in the First and Second Schedules to, and not a "minor mineral" within the meaning of S. 3(f) of, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The right to grant mining rights in respect of this mineral is vested in the State Government, subject as we shall see later to control by the Union of India. The State of Orissa (S.G.) and the Union of India (C.G.) are, therefore, the primary respondents in this litigation. On the other side are ranged a number of applicants for the mining rights we have referred to above. These, are :-

(1) Indian Metals and Ferro-Alloys Limited (IMFA);

(2) Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited (FACOR);

(3) Orissa Cements Limited (OCL);

(4) Orissa Industries Limited (ORIND);

(5) Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC);

(6) Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (IDCOL); and

(7) Shri Mantosh Aikath

Of the above, the first four are companies in the private sector, the next two are public sector corporations owned substantially by the State of Orissa and the last, a private individual.

The Present Controversy

3. The principal question for decision before us is as to whether all or any of the various parties referred to above are entitled to obtain leases for the mining of chrome ore (hereinafter referred to as MLs) and, if so, to what extent. In particular, we are concerned with an area consisting of five blocks referred to in para 8 of the W.P. to which reference will be made later. The controversy primarily turns round applications made in respect of these blocks by IMFA, FACOR, AIKAT and OCL. ORIND also lays claim to mining rights in respect of a portion of these blocks. It has filed a special leave petition which is separately numbered as S. L. P. No. 8574 of 1989 and is directed against an order dated 7-4-89 passed by the Orissa Government rejecting an application made by the company on 5th July, 1971. FACOR has also preferred S. L. P. No. 5163 of 1988 from an order of the High Court of Orissa dated 11-11-1987 dismissing a writ petition filed against an order of rejection by the S. G. of an application made by it on 18-7-1977 for grant of a ML which was confirmed. by the C.G.

4. As already mentioned, this Court disposed of W.P. No. 14116/ 1984 by.its, order of 30-4-87. We shall have to consider this and several other orders passed by this Court in the course of the hearing more closely but a brief reference may be made here to the resultant effect thereof. When this Court found that there were a large number of applications for MLs over varying extents of land in the areas in question, this Court decided that the respective merits of the applications could not be gone into by this Court but that they should be considered by a responsible officer of the C.G. Accordingly, by the orders above referred to, this Court referred the entire controversy to the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Mines (Shri B. K. Rao, "Rao", for short) for a detailed consideration, of th