Heard the parties finally at length.

2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.10.2010, passed in Revision Application File No. 06/10/2008-RC.1 by the Revisional Authority, rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the State Government dated 11.2.2008, recommending the application filed by respondent no.7 (R-7) for grant of mining lease for Iron Ore and Manganese Ore over the area in question. Petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the recommendation and the prior approval granted by the Central Government dated 5.6.2008 for grant of the said mining lease in favour of R-7, A further prayer has been made for setting aside the recommendation made by the State Government and for a direction to it to reconsider all the applications made by the parties for the said mining lease without being influenced by the orders passed in other writ petition, and by giving preference to the Industries already established within the State of Jharkhand.

3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted as follows:

The remark-late applicant' made in the comparative chart with regard to petitioner has prejudiced it's case. Recommending the application of R-7 amounts to rejecting the application of the petitioner, and therefore in terms of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (MC Rule for short), it was necessary for the State Government to communicate the reasons to the petitioner, which has not been done. In paragraph 8.18 of the Circular of the Ministry of Mines, Government of India dated 24.6.2009 it is provided that as revision lies against the recommendation of the State Government, it should inform all the unsuccessful applicants about the reasons recommending the case of other applicant. The Revisional Authority did not assign reasons while rejecting the revision. The judgment of Brahmi Impex Limited-2009(4) JCR 130 (Jhr.) [ : 2009(4) JLJR 189), will not operate as res judicata for the petitioner. The recommendation in favour of R-7 on the basis of MOU i.e. a past commitment is bad. Therefore, the reliefs prayed be granted.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Khan, appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, learned Advocate General, appearing for respondent' nos. 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. K. Venugopal, appearing for respondent no. 7 supported the impugned order/recommendations made in favour of R-7. It was submitted that the recommendation in favour of R- 7 is strictly in terms of Section 11 (3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act). It was made after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The remark-'late applicant' in the case of petitioner in the comparative chart did not prejudice the petitioner, rather petitioner was given opportunity of hearing on merits of its application by the State Government. The Revisional Authority has assigned reasons. In view of the judgment of Brahmi Impex (supra), affirmed by the Division Bench, petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the decision making process in question. It was also submitted that this is the stage of recommendation and not the stage of grant of mining lease, which depends of other contingencies. Therefore, the writ petition be dismissed.

5. From the records, the following position emerges.

The State Government issued a notification dated 2.4.2007 under Rule 59 of the MC Rules inviting applications for grant of Mining Lease for Iron Ore and Manganese Ore in Meghataburu Taluka, Karampada Reserve Forest, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand over an area of 500 acres. R- 7 applied within time stipulated, whereas there was delay of one day by the petitioner. However, condoning such delay, all the applicants including the petitioner were called for hearing by the State Government on 17.12.2007 and then on 18.1.2008. After hearing them and considering their comparative merits, the State Government prepared a comparative chart and recommended the application of R-7 on 11.2.