1. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is, inter alia, to a Notification dated 12th October 2006 issued by the State of Maharashtra through the Department of Industries, Energy & Labour, Mumbai under Section 11(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) inviting applications for grant of mining lease (ML) covering land admeasuring 91.58 hectares situated at Khasra Nos. 4 to 7 and 31 to 34 Mauze Gudeghar, Taluka Mandangad, District Ratnagiri, Maharashtra. Challenge is also laid to an order dated 9th July 2008 passed by the State of Maharashtra through the Minister, Industries and Mining, recommending the grant of ML for bauxite ore over the said area to Infrastructure Logistics Private Ltd., Goa (ILPL) (Respondent No.3 herein) and to the order dated 7th July 2009 passed by the Central Government acting as the Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act dismissing the Petitioner’s Revision Application challenging the order dated 9th July 2008.

Facts

2. The Petitioner Ashapura Minechem Ltd. (APML) is a company having its registered office in Mumbai and is engaged in the business of mining, processing and export of industrial minerals for over three decades. It claims to be a well known mine owner, processor and exporter of bentonite and bauxite.

3. On 20th October 2003, APML applied for the grant of a ML over the aforementioned area. It was processed by the District Mining Officer, District Ratnagiri and forwarded to the Secretary, Industries, Energy & Labour Section, Government of Maharashtra on 4th February 2004 recommending the grant of ML. It is stated that under a Government Resolution dated 21st July 1999, the Government of Maharashtra had stipulated a maximum time period of 20 weeks for disposing of an application made for the grant of an ML. The said time-limit was not adhered to. APML also relies upon Rule 63A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (MCR), inserted by an amendment effective from 11th January 2002, which requires the State Government to dispose of the application for ML within 12 months from the date of receipt of the said application. APML points out that even this time-limit was not adhered to.

4. On 12th October 2006, the impugned Notification was issued under Sections 11(2) and 11(4) MMDR Act notifying mineral bearing areas in several districts in Maharashtra, including Ratnagiri District, for grant of prospecting licences and MLs. It appears that at that stage, APML decided not to challenge the said Notification. By a letter dated 13th September 2007, Respondent No.2 informed APML that pursuant to the Notification dated 12th October 2006 and the applications received thereunder, a hearing would be held on 16th October 2007 in respect of all those applications as well as APML’s application. APML appeared before the Respondent No.2, made its oral submissions and also filed its written submissions. It is stated that both at the time of oral submissions as well as in the written submissions, APML objected to the issuance of the Notification dated 12th October 2006 which was issued after a gap of almost three years from the date of filing of the APML’s application and without first disposing it of in terms of Rule 63A MCR. In its written submissions filed before the Respondent No.2, APML mentioned its proposal to set up an alumina refinery and an aluminum smelter plant at Ratnagiri district based on bauxite deposits of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg District and involving an investment of Rs.4,000 crores.

5. The impugned order dated 9th July 2008 was passed by the Minister for Industries & Mines of the Government of Maharashtra recommending the grant of ML in favour of ILPL. In the said order, it was noticed that pursuant to the Notification dated 12th October 2006, 18 applicants including APML appeared at the hearing. The details of each of the applicants were noted. Since the area had been notified under Section 11(2) of the