IMPORTANT POINTS
Contempt Court cannot test correctness of the judgment.
Contempt being a matter between the Court and the contemnor, third party intervention is not permissible.

Headnote:(a) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Judgment and directions in Civil Appeal No. 2790 OF 2012 – Review petition rejected – Decision becoming final – Contemnors pleading that directions not capable of implementation – Subsequent development and the statutory mandate embodied in Section 11(4) of the MMDR Act, 1957 cited as stumbling blocks in implementation of directions in Civil Appeal No. 2790 OF 2012 – Necessary directions sought – Plea not tenable – Government throughout a party to proceedings – Cannot raise such pleas now – Contempt Court cannot go behind the judgment – It cannot test correctness of the judgment – In view of categorical and unambiguous directions given in the judgment, merely because another judgment has been delivered, cannot be a ground to undo the said directions – Law laid down in subsequent judgment may be applied and followed in respect of other applications which are still pending – Same cannot be pressed qua petitioner whose rights have been crystallised by the judgment rendered in its favour – The judgment cannot be re-opened, that too at the stage of implementation. (Para 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24)
       (1995) 5 SCC 619; (2004) 7 SCC 261; (2008) 5 SCC 339 – Relied upon
       (b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Intervention applications – Contempt is a matter between the court and the contemnor – Third parties cannot intervene – Intervention applications not maintainable. (Para 26)
       (1998) 4 SCC 409 – Relied upon
       (c) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Writ petition – Filed on the basis of relief granted to BPSL praying for same relief – This is no ground for petition under Article 32 – No fundamental rights of petitioners therein violated – Petitions dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to approach High Court. (Para 29, 30)
       (2012) 11 SCC 1; (1973) 1 SCC 584 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       BPSL, by means of Contempt Petition, is 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 even better position than BPSL and, therefore, entitled to same treatment.
       The State Government, on the other hand, has shown its helplessness in carrying out the directions contained in the judgment dated 14.3.2012 even qua BPSL. In so far as other three writ petitioners are concerned, not only same difficulties are projected, it is also mentioned that they 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 is questioned. In such a scenario it is apposite to first deal with the CCP filed by BPSL.
       Finding of the Court:
       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.
       Result: Contempt petition and IAs disposed of. Writ petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT

A.K SIKRI, J.

1. All the aforesaid matters were 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. (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 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, 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 to accord due priority to Bhushan Limited for grant of suitable iron ore 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 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 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.

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 and the application made by Bhushan Limited was premature. Thereafter, the Government of Orissa made a recommendation 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 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: "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 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 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 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 Sundarga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 333

IMPORTANT POINTSContempt Court cannot test correctness of the judgment.Contempt being a matter between the Court and the contemnor, third party intervention is not permissible.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINTS
Contempt Court cannot test correctness of the judgment.
Contempt being a matter between the Court and the contemnor, third party intervention is not permissible.