Vibhu Bakhru, J.

The petitioners have filed the respective petitions impugning a common order dated 07.05.2015 passed by the Central Government (hereafter 'the Mines Tribunal') rejecting the revision petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereafter 'the MMDR Act'). The petitioners had preferred the revision petitions before the Mines Tribunal impugning an order dated 08.09.2014 passed by respondent no.2 (Government of Karnataka) pursuant to a show-cause notice issued under Rule 26(2) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereafter 'the MC Rules'). The abovementioned orders dated 07.05.2015 and 08.09.2014 are, hereafter, referred to as the impugned orders.

2. In terms of the impugned order dated 08.09.2014, the Government of Karnataka has directed that the coordinates of the 140 hectares in the North East Block Range (NEB Range) Joga Village in Sanchur Taluk, Bellary District reserved in favour of respondent no.4 (hereafter 'SAIL'), be revised for issuance of a corrigendum under Section 17A(2) of the MMDR Act. It was further directed that the revised coordinates for the land reserved for SAIL as well as the applications of the petitioners, be determined on the basis of the boundaries of the existing lease in favour of M/s Chowgule and Company, as determined by Central Government Empowered Committee (CEC). It was expressly directed that the earlier survey and demarcation done in respect of the leases of the petitioners stand nullified.

3. The petitioners are, essentially, aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, as the import of the impugned orders is to re-determine the area of the respective mining leases, which the petitioners claim, have been granted in their favour. This is so as it is apparent that revision of the coordinates for 140 hectares reserved in favour of SAIL would overlap with the leases decided to be granted to the petitioners.

4. Since, the impugned orders are common orders and the controversy involved in the present petitions is common, the petitions were heard together. For the sake of brevity, the facts as are relevant to W.P. (C) 5121/2015 are noticed for addressing the controversy raised in the present petitions. Shri B Rudragouda (the petitioner in W.P. (C) 5121/2015) is hereafter referred to as 'the petitioner', and the petitioner in W.P. (C) 6456/2015 is hereafter referred to as 'PM Mines'.

Factual Background

5. On 23.09.1963, the predecessor of M/s Chowgule & Co was granted mining lease for an area of approximately 459.73 hectares in Bellary District. On 09.02.1968, the said lease was transferred in favour of M/s Chowgule & Co (hereafter 'Chowgule & Co').

6. In 2002, Chowgule & Co surrendered an area of approximately 359.73 hectares (hereafter 'the surrendered area') out of its total mining lease area and retained an area of 100 hectares (hereafter 'the retained area').

7. On 18.08.2003, the petitioner filed an application for grant of mining lease in respect of Iron Ore to an extent of 1,777.0 Acres in North East Block (NEB) Range, Sandhur State forest, Sandhur Taluk, Bellary District, Karnataka. Thereafter, the Department of Mines and Geology (respondent no.3) and the Government of Karnataka decided to grant the mining lease to the petitioner over an extent of 68.31 hectares for a period of twenty years, which was the free/virgin area lying outside the surrendered area (the area surrendered by Chowgule and Co) and also outside the reserved Block No. 13/2 as notified by the State Government of Karnataka on 15.03.2003.

8. On 21.08.2007, respondent no.2 (Secretary (Mines, SSI and Textiles) Commerce & Industry Department, State of Karnataka) recommended the petitioner's application for grant of mining lease for prior approval of the Central Government under Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act.

9. On 24.01.2007, SAIL applied for a mining lease in respect of 140 hectares within the surrendered area of Chowgule & Co. Respondent no.2 rec