SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 977

2024:DHC:8676
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
Jayaswal Necom Industries Ltd. and Another – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 78 of 2009, C.M. APPL. No. 24577 of 2016
Decided On : 08-11-2024
Advocates Appeared : 
For the Appellants : Rattan Singh, Ravi Bharuka, Gautam Sinha, Rahul Pandey, Rohit Agarwal
For the Respondents : Ravi Prakash, Taha Yasin, Astu Khandelwal, Yasharth, Ali Khan, Isha Kanth, Devesh Khanagwal, Nippun Sharma, Anjana Gosain, Chetan Sharma, Sharat Kapoor, Amit Gupta, Shubh Kapoor, Anirudh Dusaj, Bhavya Garg, Saurabh Tripathi, Shubham Sharma, Vikramaditya Singh, Prashant Singh, Prerna Dhall, Piyush Yadav, Akanksha Singh

Public sector undertakings are bound by prior commitments to supply resources, arising from the doctrine of promissory estoppel due to previous assurances and negotiations.

Headnote:(A) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 17A(1A) - Petition for quashing denial of iron ore supply by Steel Authority of India Ltd. - Court confirms prior commitment of SAIL to supply 48 million tonnes of iron ore on a cost plus basis - Provisions of law do not preclude private entity from receiving ore if obligations of public entities are fulfilled. (Paras 1-41)

(B) Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - Recognized as binding on public sector undertakings when obligations arise from prior assurances - Evidence shows legitimate expectation created by SAIL to supply iron ore to petitioner. (Paras 24-40)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an integrated steel producer, challenges the denial of iron ore supply by SAIL based on earlier commitments and various preceding correspondences indicating a promise of supply conditioned upon mining approval. The mining rights were initially reserved by SAIL with a commitment to provide ore to the petitioner. (Paras 1-30)

Findings of Court:
SAIL and the Ministry of Steel have consistently ignored their obligation to supply, despite assurances given throughout the negotiations, leading to an unconscionable departure from their commitments. (Paras 31-41)

Issues: The core issues revolved around whether there exists a binding commitment on SAIL to supply iron ore and whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies in this context. (Paras 24-40)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under prevailing agreements and in light of the commitments made by SAIL, there was a clear expectation for SAIL to supply the petitioner with the promised amount of iron ore, reinforcing the principle of reliance on governmental and public sector assurances. (Paras 17-23)

Result: The letters denying supply were quashed, and SAIL was directed to supply iron ore to the petitioner as previously agreed. (Paras 42.1-42.3)

JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for issuance of direction for quashing, (i) the letter dated 22.08.2008 issued by the respondent No.4/Steel Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred as “SAIL”), (ii) the letter dated 31.10.2008 issued by the Respondent No.3/ Ministry of Steel, Government of India (hereinafter referred “Ministry of Steel”) D.O. no. 14/8/88/S-CIP-Vol.X and (iii) the letter dated 12.11.2008 issued by the Ministry of Steel to the petitioner whereby the respondents have turned back on their promises and denied supply of iron ore to the petitioner. The petitioner has made the following prayers:-

a. Issue a Writ in nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction against the Respondents commanding them to produce before this Hon‟ble Court the entire files and records in their possession, power and custody with regard to the issuance of the notifications dated 16.07.2002, 03.12.2004 and 20.07.2006 issued by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1A) of Section 17A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957;

b. Issue a Writ in nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing, (i) the letter issued by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. to the petitioner no.1-company dated 22.08.2008, (ii) the letter issued by the Ministry of Steel, Government of India D.O. no. 14/8/88/S-CIP-Vol.X dated 31.10.2008 to the petitioner no.1-company; and (iii) the letter issued by the Ministry of Steel, Government of India dated 12.11.2008 to the petitioner no.1-company;

c. Issue a Writ in nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction against the Respondents commanding them to ensure supply of iron ore by the Steel Authority of India Limited and/or Bhilai Steel Plant to the Petitioner no. 1-company as per its commitment for a period of one and half years from the date of grant of mining lease on a cost plus 5% basis from the existing mines with the Bhilai Steel Plant within the State of Chhattisgarh till the development of mines in the „F‟ Block of Rowghat iron deposits situated in Kanker and Bastar District of the State of Chhattisgarh and thereafter, to continue supply of iron ore from the said „F‟ Block of Rowghat iron deposits situated in Kanker and Bastar District of the State of Chhattisgarh for a total period of 30 years;

d) Issue a Writ in nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction against the Respondents commanding the Ministry of Mines, Government of India and the State Government of Chhattisgarh to impose a condition under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 in the mining lease to be granted in favour of Respondent no. 4 for supply of iron ore by the Steel Authority of India Limited and/or Bhilai Steel Plant to the Petitioner no. 1- company as per its requirement on a cost plus 5% basis from the existing mines with the Bhilai Steel Plant within the State of Chhattisgarh till the development of mines in the „F‟ Block of Rowghat iron deposits situated in Kanker and Bastar District of the State of Chhattisgarh and thereafter, to continue supplying iron ore from the said the F‟ Block of Rowghat iron deposits situated in Kanker and Bastar District of the State of Chhattisgarh for a total period of 30 years;

2. The factual background of the case is that the Government of Madhya Pradesh (as was then, before creation of Chhattisgarh as an independent State) on 27.6.1992 announced special incentive scheme for establishment of new Integrated Steel Plants with an investment of more than Rs.1000 crores. The State Government on 20.01.1993 in consultation with the Central Government constituted a Task Force to identify suitable locations of captive iron ore mines for the proposed steel plants to be setup inter alia by the petitioner and registered under the Promotional Scheme. The respondent no.1/Ministry of Mines, Government of India on 05.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top