A party must demonstrate a specific legal interest adversely affected by an action to establish locus standi; executive guidelines can clarify laws but do not override statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1.Heard Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate with Shri Priyanshu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri Praveen Das Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State, Shri Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSGI, for Union of India/Respondent No. 3.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1142/2023, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court.

3. (a) The case of the petitioner is that the Government of Madhya Pradesh, by notification dated 19.06.1981 (Annexure P/1), reserved the right of mining of Bauxite ore in Kanker and Narayanpur Tahsils of District Bastar in favour of M.P. State Mining Corporation Limited (MPSMC). Pursuant thereto, joint prospecting mining was approved vide notification dated 18.11.1981 and Belpahar Refractories Limited conducted prospecting operations and submitted a geological investigation report for Bauxite in the notified area.

(b) Subsequently, vide order dated 22.11.1985 (Annexure P/3), the State Government nominated MPSMC as an agent for Bauxite mining in Kanker, Kondagaon and Narayanpur areas of District Bastar, subject to conditions, including that MPSMC would be the owner of the mines and comply with the Mines Act, 1952. Upon reorganization of the State on 01.11.2000, the State of Chhattisgarh was formed and the Chhattisgarh Minerals Development Corporation (CMDC) was constituted as a State Government public sector undertaking to carry out mining operations in Chhattisgarh.

(c) The petitioner contends that a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 17.02.2003 (Annexure P/7) was executed between CMDC and the petitioner company for identification, exploration, exploitation and marketing of Bauxite ore in Kanker and Bastar Districts and for setting up a calcination plant of 100 MTPD capacity in District Kanker. Under the JVA, CMDC was required to ensure availability of Bauxite-bearing areas to the petitioner and was allotted 25% equity in the joint venture without financial contribution, while day-to-day management was to remain with the petitioner. In furtherance thereof, CMDC applied for grant of a mining lease on 20.04.2006 for village Budhiyamari, District Kanker. A supplementary JVA dated 16.10.2008 (Annexure P/6) provided that CMDC would apply for prospecting licence/mining lease in its name and thereafter transfer the leasehold rights to the joint venture company without consideration, and that no application would be withdrawn without consent of the petitioner.

(d) The application submitted by CMDC was forwarded by the Directorate of Mining, Government of Chhattisgarh to the State Government and thereafter to the Government of India. However, the proposal was rejected on the ground that the area was reserved and not available for private persons under Rule 59 of the Mining Concession Rules, 1960. A request for reconsideration was again made by the State Government, stating that a decision had been taken to grant mining lease to CMDC for 30 years.

(e) The Government of India, Ministry of Mines, vide memo dated 01.08.2011 (Annexure P/10), rejected the proposal on the ground that the joint venture partnership ratio and selection of the joint venture partner were not in accordance with Section 11(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Develo