* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: September 16, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: October 03, 2013 + LPA 237/2012 INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Dhruv Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Saket Sikri, Ms.Ekta Sikri and Mr.Prannoy Dey, Advocates Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Sapna Chauhan, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for R-4 + LPA 243/2012 INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Parag P.Tripathi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Saket Sikri, Advocate with Ms.Ekta Sikri and Mr.Prannoy Dey, Advocates Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Sapna Chauhan, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Mike P.Desai, Advocate for R-2. Mr.Naveen Kumar, Advocate for R-3 Mr.Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for R-4 CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG CHIEF JUSTICE:

1. The issue which arises in the two appeals above captioned is whether in exercise of its revisional power the Central Government has correctly opined that the order passed by the State Government granting mineral concessionaire rights to the appellants suffers from an erroneous approach in law and also ignores relevant facts requiring the matter to be reconsidered by the State Government and whether the view taken by the learned Single Judge upholding the remand is correct.

2. The relevant facts to be noted are that on October 12, 2006 the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification inviting applications from those who were desirous of mineral concessions over the areas mentioned in the notification; and pertaining to District Ratnagiri, two areas ad-measuring 42.35 hectares and 158.871 hectares were listed in Survey numbers Ambivali-Gat No.13 to 16, 50, 63, 65 and Kante-3, 4, 10 to 15, 18 to 25, 28. It was indicated that the mineral Bauxite Ore was to be mined in the said two areas. Seventeen applicants submitted applications, and since we are primarily concerned with the inter-se dispute between the appellant Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and the two contesting respondents in the two appeals, being Aakash Universal Ltd., the respondent No.3 in LPA No.243/2012 and M/s.Ashapura Minechem Ltd., the respondent No.4 in LPA No.237/2012, we note that all three, apart from fourteen more, were the applicants desirous of mineral concessions over both areas at Ambivali and Kante.

3. The applications had to be processed and decided by the State Government as per the provisions of ‘The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957‟ (hereinafter referred to as the MMDR Act), and it being the undisputed positions that notwithstanding the applications having been filed on different dates all applicants had to be treated as if the applications filed by them were deemed to have been received on the same day, the right of the applicants to obtain the necessary license had to be decided as per sub-Section (3) of Section 11 of the said Act, which reads as under:-

“11. Preferential right of certain persons-

(1) ....... (2) .......

(3) The matters referred to in sub-section (2) are the following:-

(a) any special knowledge of, or experience in, reconnaissance operations, prospecting operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant;

(b) the financial resources of the applicant;

(c) the nature and quality of the technical staff employed or to be employed by the applicant;

(d) the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on the minerals;

(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.”

4. On June 24, 2009, the Government of India issued guidelines pertaining to Mineral Concession proposals to be considered by State Governments, and inter-alia directed the State Governments to process the applications as per para 8.8 of the Guidelines, which paragraph reads as under:-

“8.8 Section 11(3) mentions various criteria for selection from amongst applications received on the same day (actual or dee