JUDGMENT :

A. K. GOEL, J.

The common question raised in this group of writ petitions is about the validity of Memo No. 8620/SM dated 5th December, 2012 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government of Odisha, Steel and Mines Department. While in all other petitions the said memo is sought to be quashed, in W.P.(C) No. 17682 of 2013, the petitioners seeks direction to implement thereof.

The operative part of the memo is as follows:

The State Government hereby directs that at least 50% of the iron ore lumps and 50% of the fines won from the mines in any month, but not put to captive use by the lessees, shall be sold to the stand alone mineral based industries located in the State, limited to the requirement of such user industries, in an equitable manner, on payment of the prevailing fair market price by the user industries to the mining lessees.

2. The reason for the above direction as mentioned in the impugned order, is that the State based iron ore industries are facing acute shortage of iron ore, seriously affecting the production. Few of them are facing closure and others are experiencing low utilization of their existing capacity. There is likelihood of adverse socio-economic consequences of unemployment, loss of wages and impact on investment climate and industrialization process in the State. Therefore, it became necessary, in the greater public interest, to take measures to make adequate raw material available to the State based industries so as to maintain the pace of industrial growth and avoid adverse socio economic consequences. The exercise of power purports to be under Rule 27(1)(m) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (MCR) which provides that the State Government shall at all times have the right of pre-emption of the minerals won from the land in respect of which the lease has been granted, on payment of fair market price.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) has been enacted with reference to entry No.54 of List-I. Section 2 of the Act declares that it is expedient in public interest that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals, to the extent provided under the Act. Thus, the subject of legislation is exclusively covered by the MMDR Act and the State Legislature has no competence to enact any law on the subject nor the State has competence to exercise executive power except in accordance with the Scheme of MMDR Act. Section 13 empowers the Central Government to make rules for regulating the grant of reconnaissance permits, prospecting licences and mining leases for minerals (other than minor minerals) while the power to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals is with the State Governments. The mineral in question, not being minor mineral as defined in Section 3(e) of the Act, only such conditions can be prescribed for leases in respect thereof as prescribed by the Central Government under Section 13(2)(g). The MMDR Act or MCR do not provide for exercise of right of pre-emption before any minerals are won from the land in respect of which the lease has been granted. The said right cannot make the grant of mining lease redundant. Clause 21(a) of the Mining Lease (in Form-K) requires the State Government to issue notice for the purpose of exercising the right of pre-emption in absence of which the said right cannot be exercised. The State Government has not undertaken any study of impact of its decision on the national economy. There was ample raw material available for the industries in the State of Orissa where the demand is far less. None of the industries situated within the State of Odisha have the technology to use the iron ore having high magnetite content and as such 50% of the produce from such mine will remain completely unutilized. The demand of iron ore from the Iron and Steel Industry in the St