ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J These two writ petitions are by persons who had aspired for mining lease of Government reserved forest lands in Kumaraswamy Range of Reserved Forest of Sandur Taluk in Bellary District, which land figures one amongst several parcels of lands notified for grant of mining lease by the Government of Karnataka in terms of its Notification No. CI 16 MMM 2003, dated 15-3-2007. The notification was issued under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short, ‘the Rules’), which in turn is the Rules framed under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. It appears that the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 20739 of 2005 M/s. Salgoacar Mining Industries Private Limited, had filed an application in Form 1 and had sought for grant of mining lease in respect of an extent of 524.80 hectares of forest land in Ramanamale Block, Sandur Range, Bellary District and a sketch plan had been enclosed along with the application, the application of the petitioner in W.P. No. 19339 of 2005 filed by one H.G. Rangagouda, son of Gaviyappa of Hospet in Bellary District was in respect of 350 hectares of forest land in Yeshwa’nthnagar Forest Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. 3. It appears when the processing of such applications was in progress, the State Government had made a recomme ndation to the Central Government and had sought for grant of permission under Section 5(1) of the Act for granting area of 509 hectares of forest land in favour of the petitioner in W.P. No. 20739 of 2005 and to an extent of 16.80 has in favour of writ petitioner W.P. No. 19339 of 2005. While an area of 524.80 hectares in Kumarswamy Range, Sandur Taluk in Bellary District by making an application, much later than the writ petitioners herein had applied for and that the State Government indicating that it had already processed the other applications for grant of mining leases in respect of the lands, the STC having become active to obtain the mining lease and having moved the Central Government for issue of a notification in exercise of the powers of the Central Government under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act, which reads as under: “17-A. Reservation of area for purposes of conservation.- ( 1) x x x (l-A) The Central Government, in consultation with the State Government, reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease for undertaking prospecting or mining operations, through a Government Company or Corporation owned or controlled by it, and where it proposes to do so, it shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such areas will be reserved”. to reserve this extent of land exclusively in favour of STC for the purpose of mining iron ore available in the land and for such purpose having issued the Notification No. SO 889(E), dated 27-6-2005, which would virtually snuff out the aspirations of both the petitioners these two writ petitions have been filed praying for quashing of the said notification dated 27-6-2005 issued by the Central Government through the Ministry of Mines and for further a direction to the State Government to process, finalise and grant mining leases as had been sought for by the petitioners. The writ petitions are for such purpose and essentially for quashing the notification issued by the Central Government reserving land in favour of the STC for the purpose of exploiting the entire area available in 524.80 hectares located in Kumaraswamy Reserve Forest Area in Bellary District for a period of 30 years. The writ petitions are for such purpose and essentially for quashing the notification issued by the Central Government reserving land in favour of the STC for the purpose of exploiting the entire area available in 524.80 hectares located in Kumaraswamy Reserve Forest Area in Bellary District for a period of 30 years. The impugned notification reads as under: MINISTRY OF MINES NOTIFICATION New Delhi, dated the 27th June, 2003 SO 889(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1-A) of Section 17 -A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), the Central Government in consultation with the Government of Karnataka, reserves for undertaking mining operations through the State Trading Corporation of India Limited (STCIL), a Public Sector Undertaking, owned and controlled by the Central Government, of the iron Ore deposits in Kumaraswamy Reserve Forest Area in Bellary District of the State of Karnataka, except the area already held under prospecting licence or mining leases and declares that no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted in the area of 524.80 hectares for thirty years lying within the boundary of such reserve area for the minerals specified below, namely. District; Bellary Area : Kumaraswamy Reserve Forest, Kumaraswamy Range, Sandur Taluk Area demarcated by latitude and longitude: Latitude’: 15"07’100" Longitude: 70"32’15" Minerals: Iron ore Toposheet Number: 57-A/2 4. Writ petitioners have urged many grounds in support of their challenge to the legality of the notification. It is mainly contended that the notification of this nature in exercise of the power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act cannot be issued in respect of the lands which had been once held on lease and had been notified for further lease under Rule 59 of the Rules, but a notification can only be in respect of virgin lands and not in respect of a land which had already been held on lease or prospecting licence. 5. It is also contended that the land was virtually not available for issue of notification as it had already been notified, applications processed and deserving applicants chosen and. recommended of the previous sanction of the Central Government and in this view of the development, the land was not available for issue of a notification under Section 17 -A(1-A) of the Act and for this reason the notification is bad in law. 6. recommended of the previous sanction of the Central Government and in this view of the development, the land was not available for issue of a notification under Section 17 -A(1-A) of the Act and for this reason the notification is bad in law. 6. Yet another contention urged is that the power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act has not been exercised for any bona fide purpose; that the power is exercised in a biased manner to favour a Central Government Undertaking M/s. STC, which was also an applicant, but on realizing that the application for grant of mining lease may not meet with success, had resorted to this method of eliminating the rivals/petitioners and therefore the notification is bad in law, as the power has not been exercised in a bona fide manner. 7. Another contention urged is that the exercise of the power by the Central Government should have been on its own and not at the behest of STC, which had virtually moved the Central Government for issue of a notification, as is evident on the records placed before the Court and it amounts to abdication of its function/responsibility by a statutory body and therefore also the notification is not tenable in law. 8. One more ground which as urged on behalf of the petitioners at the time of arguments, but not pleaded nor made good is the argument that the Central Government wanted to favour a private person and is using STC only as a conduit for the benefit of a private individual who had competed with persons like the petitioners by applying for grant of mining lease in response to the State Government notification issued under Rule 59 of the Rules and for this reason also, the impugned notification is bad in law. 9. 9. Yet another major ground urged in support of prayer for quashing the notification is that even the requirement of Section 17-A(1-A) has not been met to issue of notification as there was no proper consultation at all with the State Government before issue of the notification and it is vehemently urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners at the time of hearing, who had also got an opportunity to peruse the records, that the records do not indicate that there was an effective consultation with the State Government and at any rate the record does not disclose that the State Government had concurred or consented to the proposal of the Central Government and therefore the notification is bad. 10. Yet another ground urged is that the STC is a body set up for carrying on domestic and international trade; that the STC is not one set up for the purpose of carrying out mining operations which requires technical skill and expertise, which the STC woefully lacks and for this reason also, the impugned notification, reserving area in favour of such improper and inexperienced persons is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 11. Notices had been issued to the respondents-Union of India, State of Karnataka and its officers and later to the State Trading Corporation of India, which was added as a party respondent in both these writ petitions. 12. This Court had initially granted an interim order of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notification in terms of the order dated 19-4-2006, which had come to be extended from time to time and was modified in terms of further order dated 23-8-2006, which reads as Under: “Writ petitions by persons who are applicants for grant of mining leases pursuant to notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short, ‘the Rules’). The grievance of the petitioners is that while the State Government was in the midst of processing of such applications, that exercise has been preempted by the impugned notification, a notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’). It is aggrieved by the intervention of the impugned notification, the present writ petitions, questioning the legality of the notification. It is aggrieved by the intervention of the impugned notification, the present writ petitions, questioning the legality of the notification. The notification is challenged mainly on two grounds: that the notification has not been issued in terms of the provisions of Section 17-A(I-A) of the Act itself; and further it is a mala fide exercise of power i.e., for issue of the notification, the power is misused only for the purpose of keeping out the petitioners from getting the leases, particularly to favour the fifth respondent-State Trading Corporation, who was a competitor for the very land and for the lease and who having realised it is losing out in open competition, obviously had moved the Central Government and the Central Government having issued the notification, the petitioners aspirations for getting mining leases having been snuffed out, the present writ petitions are filed. Notices had been issued to the respondents. State and the Central Governments, and the State Trading Corporation has been subsequently come on record, in one case at the instance of the petitioner and in the other case on its own. This Court had earlier granted an interim order dated 19-4-2006, staying the operation of the impugned notification and all further proceedings in W.P. No. 19339 of 2005 and that interim order was continued for four weeks on 10-8-2006 with the understanding the writ petitions can be taken up for disposal today i.e., 24-8-2006. Statements of objections have been filed both by the State Government as well as the Central Government as also by the State Trading Corporation. The petition averments are denied and the allegations of mala fide are also denied etc. Applications are also filed on behalf of the State Trading Corporation - beneficiary of the impugned notification – praying for vacating the interim order of stay, inter alia, contending that the stay order has come in the way of the Corporation taking necessary steps for beginning the operations to extract mineral that the preparatory works are all of considerable extent and it will be a set back to the applicant if the stay is continued etc. Though the matters are listed today with the understanding that they can be taken up for disposal as had been agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, due to paucity of time, I have confined the examination to the question of modification/grant of interim orders. Though the matters are listed today with the understanding that they can be taken up for disposal as had been agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, due to paucity of time, I have confined the examination to the question of modification/grant of interim orders. I have heard Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.19339 of 2005, Sri Basavaprabhu Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 20739 of 2005, learned Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, Smt. Nalini Chitambaram, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Counsel appearing for the State Trading Corporation and Sri B. Veerappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State of Karnataka. While learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have vehemently pleaded for modification of the interim order, submission on behalf of the petitioners is that as of now no modification is required; that the understanding was to take ‘up the matter for disposal; that the interim order has been operating for the past more than three years and continuation for a further short period before the disposal cannot make any great difference to the interest of the State Trading Corporation; that it is not necessary to modify the interim order at this stage; that the applications filed by the petitioners for grant of mining leases have been treated in a rather whimsical and shabby manner; that the applications are sought to be preempted by mala fide exercise of power under the provisions of Section 17-A(I-A) of the Act. The nature of right insofar as the petitioners are concerned, as I gather on a perusal of the provisions of the Act and the Rules is one of getting equal opportunity at the hands of the State, if the State is to grant mining leases. If the State should choose to administer the largesse of the state, undoubtedly, the petitioners have such a right. But, if the State Government, the owner of the land containing the mineral, chooses not to lease any land for the purpose of mining the ore in it, no one can compel the State Government to lease the land. If the State should choose to administer the largesse of the state, undoubtedly, the petitioners have such a right. But, if the State Government, the owner of the land containing the mineral, chooses not to lease any land for the purpose of mining the ore in it, no one can compel the State Government to lease the land. Also in a situation like the present one, if the State Government should resile from a notification issued under Rule 59 of the Rules, persons like the petitioners cannot compel the State Government to continue with the processing of the applications that have been received in response to such notification. Insofar as the extraction of mineral ore, figuring in Schedule I to the Act, is concerned, it is one regulated under the Act and subject to the previous approval by the Central Government. The Central Government has special powers in respect of prospecting and mining activities in such mineral ore under Section 17 of the Act and particularly for reservation etc., under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act, which is a later addition to the parent Act by way of amendment by Act No. 37 of 1987 in the first instance and by Act No. 25 of 1994 in the second instance. This provisions enables the Central Government to reserve any extent of land in respect of ore occurring in the first schedule in favour of an undertaking or a Company or a Corporation owned by the Central Government. The impugned notification is issued in exercise of such power. Though Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the notification is ultra vires the provisions of Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act, I do not find prima facie find such a possibility inasmuch as the impugned notification is one issued in exercise of the power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act and it is not one either contrary or regulated by the notification; that perhaps might have been issued under Rule 59 of the Rules. One of the submissions made by Sri Basavaprabhu Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 20739 of 2005, is that on the language of Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act, a notification of the nature could have been issued only in respect of land which had never been previously held on lease or licence, but the land in question having once been held on lease in favour of M/s. Sandur Mangane se and Iron Ore Company Private Limited, issuing a notification under Section 17-A of the Act is not possible in respect of such land or area which had been held on lease once earlier. Prima facie, I find on interpretation of this nature may not be acceptable. For the present, I find that the notification being one issued in exercise of the power under Section 17-A (1-A) of the Act and in a matter where the petitioners do not have any right in the sense, unless it was available for distribution to the public at large and notification under Section 17 -A(1-A) of the Act preempting such possibility, I do not find any constitutional right or legal right, which is available to the petitioners per se for seeking a lease of land owned by the State Government in their favour. If that is the legal position, I do not find any justification to restrain the Central Government or its undertak ings from proceeding in pursuance of the impugned notification pending consid eration of the validity of the notification in these writ petitions. However, as the petitioners have alleged mala fides, it at all the matter requires examination, it can be examined at the time of disposal of the petition, but that cannot be one to restrict the exercise of the power or action of the Central Government pursuant to the impugned notification, as of now. I am of the view that larger public interest demands modification of the interim order to permit the respondent –State Trading Corporation to take such steps which it deems fit to take but all such steps/actions to be subject to the result of these writ petitions and short of starting mining activity in the area in question i.e., the mining activity such as exploitation of ore itself the applicant-State Trading Corporation - is free to take such steps as it deems fit. But the actual mining activities can commence only after further specific orders by this Court in this regard. It is also made clear that the applicant-State Trading Corporation cannot plead equities because of such development at the time of final disposal of these petitions. In the result, the interim order of stay granted earlier is modified as above. Issue rule. List the matter for further hearing on 13-9-2006, as agreed by all the learned Counsel”. 13. Counters have been filed on behalf of the Union of India and also STC. While the Union of India stoutly defended the legality of the impugned notification, the STC joined hands in support of the stand of the Union of India. Ultimately, the State Government has taken the stand that the notification has been issued to their knowledge and with the consent and they are prepared to abide by it etc. 14. It is in the light of such assertions and counter assertions, the writ petitions have been heard over a period of time and quite extensively. 15. While Sri Basavaprabhu Patil and Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Counsel appeared and argued the matter for the writ petitioners, on behalf of the Union of India, Sri Datta, learned Additional Solicitor General of India has appeared instructed by the learned Central Government Standing Counsel, and on behalf of the State Government, the Additional Government Advocate has appeared and submitted arguments. On behalf of the STC, Ms. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri Ashok Haranahalli, have appeared and have made submissions also defending the legality of the impugned notification. 16. Both the Central and the State Governments have made available the original records for the perusal of the Court. Records have been perused by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 17. In the present case, the area reserved under the impugned notification is in favour of the specific Central Government Public Sector Undertaking namely STC. The reservation is also in respect of a small extent of 524.80 hectares. Through this notification the mineral iron ore is reserved for exploitation for a period of 30 years in the demarcated area by the Central Government through the agency of STC. What can be noticed is that the reservation is in favour of the modalities of exploitation by using the agency of STC-an undertaking owned and controlled by the Central Government. 18. What can be noticed is that the reservation is in favour of the modalities of exploitation by using the agency of STC-an undertaking owned and controlled by the Central Government. 18. The challenge to the notification is about the manner of exercise of power under Section 17 -A( 1-A) of the Act and the challenge is not to the availability of such power for reservation with the Central Government. 19. While the first legal contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is .that even in terms of the language of the section, the reservation could have been only in respect of a land or area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease and in the instant case, admittedly the land being part of a vast extent of area, which was under a mining lease in favour of M/s. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore Limited, the power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act could not have been exercised in respect of such land. 20. The second legal contention is that the reservation can be done only in consultation with the State Government and as there was no consultation with the State Government, the notification is again not in consonance with the very section and is therefore not sustainable. 21. The third legal contention, though not as forcibly as the earlier two contentions, is that as the petitioners had already applied for grant of mining lease in respect of the area and the State Government had tentatively decided to grant the leases of the areas in favour of the petitioners and have sought for the consent of the Central Government under the proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act, the lands/areas even otherwise cannot be construed as areas which were free for reservation and therefore also the Central Government could not have exercised the power of reservation under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act. 22. 22. Yet another legal contention which is urged with the same vehemence and with some force is that the manner of exercise of power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act is not bona fide; that it is used for the purpose of spiking the petitioners; that the STC had made a belated effort to seek grant of lease of the very area in its favour by filing an application purported to be in response to the notification issued under Rule 59 of the Rules, but the STC having not been favoured by the State Government and the STC having lost the race vis-a-vis the petitioners, has set up the Central Government to virtually exercise its power under Section 17-A(l-A) of the Act to favour STC to the disadvantage of the writ petitioners; that the STC itself is interested in some other private operator whose development it wants to promote, particularly as the STC has no expertise in the highly technical mining operations: that the STC lacks technical skill for scientific and systematic explotation of the mineral; that the STC having realised its inability to compete with other rivals in the field, in the light of its lack of expertise and skill has only tried a backdoor entry taking a piggy-ride on the exercise of the power by the Central Government under Section 17-A(I-A) of the Act. 23. One another legal contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the very provision of Section 17 -A( I-A) of the Act is with the object of reserving an area for the purpose of conservation; that the conservation is either to conserve mineral or for reserving an area in favour of any scientific or research organisation, who undertakes any research activity on mineral ore or like and there can never be a reservation for commercial exploitation, more so in favour of admittedly re trading organisation like the STC, which can exploit mineral only for its commercial purpose and not for any conservation or research purpose. 24. 24. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, who had occasion to peruse the records of not only the State Government but also the Central Government in the context of issue of notification under Section 17-A (1-A) of the Act, only reiterated their submissions even after the perusal of the records, that there is no consultation with the State Government and the very manner of exercise of the power betrays that the Central Government is acting only for favouring and promoting STC rather than for any scientific or methodical preserva tion or development of the mineral, national interest or public interest and for such purpose, is reserving an area or reserving for exploitation by itself through its agency. 25. It is in support of such legal contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioners have relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v Ram Kishan and Others, AIR 1998 SC 1301 : (1988) 3 SCC 416 . 26. Sri Datta, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Central Government has very firmly and vehemently defended the action of the Central Government in issuing the notification from such legal and factual attacks. It is urged that the power under Section 17-A(I-A) of the Act is an independent power that is vested in the Central Government and it cannot be linked to the consideration of the applications under Section 11 of the Act and the factors that weigh in considering the competing applicants in the light of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. It is submitted that when once the power itself is conceded and the exercise of the power is only for the benefit of the Central Government and through its undertaking namely STC for exploiting Iron ore mineral, the requirement of the section in this regard is fully met. It is submitted that when once the power itself is conceded and the exercise of the power is only for the benefit of the Central Government and through its undertaking namely STC for exploiting Iron ore mineral, the requirement of the section in this regard is fully met. It is also urged that there was consultation with the State Government in the sense, the proposal to reserve the area concerned as per the impugned notification, had been placed before State Government prior to the issue of notification; that the State Government was fully aware of the proposal, but did not concur with the proposal through any positive indication, that the consultation does not necessarily mean obtaining concurrence and submits that a plethora of judicial pronouncements supports this proposition; that the Central Government is not obliged to wait indefinitely for positive concurrence of the State Govern ment and it can definitely act in terms of the .provisions of Section 17-A (1-A) of the Act after lapse of a reasonable interval of time subsequent to the State Gover nment being apprised about the proposal and if the State Government does not respond one way or the other at any rate even if the State Government disagrees, when the Central Government can issue the notification under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act for the exclusive reservation of the area in favour of the Central Govern ment, a non-commu nicative attitude on the part of the State Government cannot stand in the way of issue of a notification and that the notification cannot be characterised as one suffering from any legal infirmities on this score. 27. Learned Additional Solicitor General, in support of his submission that there was consultation, has also placed the records of the Central Government leading to the issue of the impugned notification and has very vehemently urged that the very record reveals that there was consultation with the State Government and that the record speaks for itself and therefore there is no substance in the contention that there was no consultation with the State Governm ent before the issue of the notification. 28. 28. The learned Additional Solicitor General has also placed before the Court a copy of the National Mineral Policy, 1993, guidelines for examining mineral conce ssion proposals in the Ministry of Mines, and submits that the notification issued under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act is fully in consonance with the policy and guidelines and the provisions of Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act. It is also submitted that it is an avowed object of the STC to take up scientific development of the mineral and to take steps for conservation particularly in the area reserved, the Corporation will take care of the mining activity in a very scientific and systematic manner, which would ensure that the ecological balance of the area is not disturbed or destroyed and the mining activity does not leave any deleterious effects in the land by puttying in place the activities of compensatory forestry etc. 29. In support of such submission, learned Additional Solicitor General has placed reliance on the following decisions. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited v Union of India and Others, AIR 1991 SC 818 : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 91.; Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited v Union of India and Another, AIR 1996 SC 2462 , Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited and Another v Union of India and Others, AIR 1999 SC 1236 ; Indian Charge Chrome Limited and Another v Union of India and Others, AIR 2003 SC 953 ; M/s. Pallava Granite Industries (India) Private Limited v Union of India, JT 2006 (10) SC 318; M/s. Indian Charge Chrome Limited v Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 2087 . 30. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions in support of the submission that there was due and sufficient consultation with the State Government before issue of the impugned notification. Land T Mc Neil Limited v Government of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2001 SC 844 ; High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v P.P. Singh and Another, AIR 2003 SC 1029 ; Chairman and Managing Director, BPL Limited v S.P. Gururaja and Others, AIR 2003 SCC 4536. 31. It is in the light of such factual and legal contentions urged in support of the versions of the petitioners and the respondents, the matter has to be considered. 32. 31. It is in the light of such factual and legal contentions urged in support of the versions of the petitioners and the respondents, the matter has to be considered. 32. As noticed in the earlier part of this order, the State Government is now towing the stand that there was consultation prior to the issue of the notification issued. As discussed earlier, while the petitioners have no right for seeking grant of mining lease in their favour in respect of the land owned by the State Government, the only right an applicant like the petitioner, if at all has, is that when the State Government chooses to grant mining lease, it should accord equal opportunity to all applicants and ensure a proper consideration of the application in accordance with the statutory provisions. 33. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the subject land was notified for grant of mining lease in terms of the notification dated 15-3-2003 under Rule 59 of the Rules. It is also not in dispute that on 16-4-2003, the petitioners applied for grant of mining lease in their foll our and there was a recommendation by the State Government in favour of the petitio ners for according consent in terms of the proviso to Section 5 (1) of the Act as per the communication dated 9-2-2004. 34. STC had also applied for the very lease as on 6-8-2004, by which time the State Government had already made recommendation in favour of the petitioners. It also transpires that the Government of India in its letter dated 13-9-2004, addressed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Coal and Mines, to the Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Department of Commerce and Industry, expressed its reservations for grant of consent to the proposal of the State Government for grant of mining leases in favour of the writ petitioners, in the light of the claims and capacity of a rival applicant M/s. MSPL having better financial capacity and had sought for the State Government clarification in this regard. It is at this stage the Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry had addressed a letter dated 27-12-2004 to the Union Minister for Mines seeking the interference of the Minster for Mines in the matter of awarding mining lease in favour if STC, highlighting the superior claims of STC and also that it is a public sector undertaking. Such efforts having failed and the State Government being rather lukewarm to the request of either the Minister for Commerce or the Minister for Mines, Government of India, the STC appears to have moved the Ministry of Mines for reserving the area in favour of a Central Government under taking in exercise of its power under Section 17–A (1-A) of the Act. 35. It appears Indian Bureau of Mines, a functionary under the Ministry of Mines, Government of India also entered the picture and made a recommendation to the Ministry in terms of its recomme ndation dated 6-5-2005, indicating that on its evaluation, STC was found to be having better merit and it highly recommended for reserving the area in favour of the STC. 36. It is thereafter, further correspondence had taken place and as the State Government was reluctant to give its consent to the same, particularly in the light of the letter dated 2-6-2005 from Smt. G. Latha Krishna Rao, Secretary to Government, Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Karnataka addressed to the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Coal and Mines, it was taken that the State Govern ment was not in favour of STC and there after the Central Government proceeded to issue the impugned notification. As a consequence of the issue of the notifi cation, the Central Government also retur ned the files relating to the grant of con sent to the recommendation of the State Government in favour of the writ petition ers in terms of the letter dated 21-7-2005. 37. It is in the light of such develo pment, the petitioners being quite naturally aggrieved in their effort to seek the grant of mining lease and their favour in respect of the areas applied having been preempted, presented the above writ petitions with the factual and legal contention as indicated earlier. 38. 37. It is in the light of such develo pment, the petitioners being quite naturally aggrieved in their effort to seek the grant of mining lease and their favour in respect of the areas applied having been preempted, presented the above writ petitions with the factual and legal contention as indicated earlier. 38. The present writ petitions are not so much about the grant of mining leases in favour of the petitioners or non-grant of it: but more about the manner in which the Central Government has issued the notification in exercise of its power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act and as to whether it is legal and tenable in the light of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. 39. With regard to the first contention that the land or the area in question was not one which was already held under a mining lease and therefore the power could not have been exercised by the Central Government I am unable to accept the argument for the reason that the land or area was notified for grant of mining lease in favour of intending applicants through a notification issued under Rule 59 of the Rules. At that time it was not an area held on lease by any person. A mere fact that the area had been held on lease once earlier cannot make much difference in. understanding the words ‘not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease for undertaking prospecting or mining operations in Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act, as obviously the notification for reservation can only be m respect of a free land available for reservation and not in respect of a land which had already been held on lease or the land in respect of which the currency of the lease had not expired, in which event, perhaps assuming that even such lands were required to be reserved henceforth, a different procedure is required to be followed by first terminating the lease and such other measures. Submission of Sri Datta, learned Additional Solicitor General, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in M / s. Pallava Granite Industries (India) Private Limited’s case, is that the law declared by the Supreme Court in the said case concludes the issue as against the petitioners and so long as the area is not held under lease or the proceedings for grant of lease had not culminated in actual grant of lease, the area cannot be construed as one held under a lease for the purpose of exercise of power under Section 17-A (1-A) of the Act. In the present case, there being neither any existing lease nor any lease deed having been executed pursuant to the notification issued under Rule 59 of the Rules, the area is very much available for reservation under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act and the notification cannot be held to be bad on this ground. 40. In the instant case, it is not in dispute the subject land/area was one available for grant of lease as on the day the Central Government issued the notification. It cannot also be said that the land is so held under lease etc., for the reason that the State Government had favourably considered the applications of the petitioners and had made a recommendation in their favour seeking for the consent of the Central Government under Section 5 of the Act. It will become a land or area held or leased after valid execution of the lease in favour of the chosen person by the State Government and not till that point of time. That stage had not reached and therefore also it cannot be argued that the land/area was one in respect of which a notification under Section 17-A(1) of the Act could not have been issued. 41. That stage had not reached and therefore also it cannot be argued that the land/area was one in respect of which a notification under Section 17-A(1) of the Act could not have been issued. 41. Insofar as the argument that there was no consultation or effective consultation is concerned, on an examination of various authorities relied upon and cited at the Bar, it is clear that in a situation of the present nature particularly for the exercise of power under Section 17-A(1) of the Act and having regard to the scheme of the Act the process of consultation cannot partake the requirement of concurrence on the part of the State Government, but consultation envisaged in the section can only be understood as one apprising the State Government and taking the State Government into confidence and in that process to know its views and to bear in mind the views expressed by the State Government before issue of a notification under Section 17 -A(1-A) of the Act. The response of the State Government which is consulted, cannot by itself conclude the matter one way or the other in terms of its response or opinion. The record indicates that the State Government was in the knowledge of the proposal for reserving the area by the Central Government in favour of STC. I am of the view that the requirement of consultation is sufficiently met in the light of the available record and on the authority of the law as emerges from the decisions relied upon by the learned Additional Solicitor General. 42. While the writ petitioners by themselves have no right to claim lease of the land reserved under the notification, it cannot be disputed that they have sufficient locus to question the legality of this notification. The examination of the validity of the notification is more in this context and not in the context of any right of the petitioners to get mining leases of land for which they applied for. 43. A perusal of the records and the dates and events clearly indicates that the development for issuing the impugned notification had taken place in the light of the failure on the part of the STC to seek grant of mining lease of the subject land. 43. A perusal of the records and the dates and events clearly indicates that the development for issuing the impugned notification had taken place in the light of the failure on the part of the STC to seek grant of mining lease of the subject land. While a situation of this nature by itself may not come in the way of exercise of the power under Section 17 -A( I-A) of the Act, the manner in which the power is exercised becomes quite relevant and can have a bearing on the validity of the notification. 44. Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act is for carrying on mining operations through a Government Company or Corporation, which means that the reservation is necessarily in favour the Central Government itself and for carrying out actual mining operations, the Central Government may employ the agency of a Government Company or Corporation owned or controlled by it. The reservation is not in favour of the Government Company or Corporation owned or controlled by it, but in favour of the Central Government itself and the power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act has to be used for reservation in favour of the Central Government. 45. In the present case, the proposal for reservation did not originate from the Government and for itself, but originated only by the STC -Central Government Undertaking - and not for reservation in favour of the Central Government. STC was an applicant earlier. Viewed in this background it is obvious that the Central Government is exercising its power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act for the benefit of STC, its undertaking. STC being essentially a commercial trading organisation, its endeavour will be to market the ore if at all it mines the area in a profitable manner. The stress will be obviously on the commercial part of the activity and not necessarily either the conservation part or on the research and development part. STC being essentially a commercial trading organisation, its endeavour will be to market the ore if at all it mines the area in a profitable manner. The stress will be obviously on the commercial part of the activity and not necessarily either the conservation part or on the research and development part. If it is the intention of the Central Government to exploit the ore in a scientific and systematic manner, it could have employed its agency of National Mineral Trading Corporation, which perhaps has the better expertise for mining activities and exploiting ore and the Central Government could have decided the manner in which such ore should be applied as to whether for producing the metal through an undertaking in the area or for exporting the mineral or for any other purpose, having regard to the object and purpose of Section 17 -A( 1-A) of the Act. 46. A perusal of the record also does not inspire the confidence of the Court that the power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act is exercised in a proper or bona fide manner, as the entire events leading to the issue of the impugned notification appear to be as a result of STC losing out in the race with other applicants rather than the object of conservation and development or even regulation related development of the mineral. 47. There cannot be any two opinions that the exploitation of ore by a Central Government undertaking which would imply necessary compliance in safety and conservation methods being adopted, by itself cannot constitute the reason for justifying the issue of the notification under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act. The requirement of existence of awareness of the same for issue of the notification should be necessarily on the part of the Central Government and not of its undertaking or agencies. Though the learned Additional Solicitor General placed reliance on the recommendation of the Bureau of Mines-an organisation having expertise in the matter of mining - the manner in which the recommendation is elicited does not convince the Court about the bona fide exercise of the power. 48. Though the learned Additional Solicitor General placed reliance on the recommendation of the Bureau of Mines-an organisation having expertise in the matter of mining - the manner in which the recommendation is elicited does not convince the Court about the bona fide exercise of the power. 48. Though the learned Additional Solicitor General submits that in the matter of systematic exploitation of ores to mining activities and the procedures and safety measures it has developed over a period of time and as also pointed to the statutory role the Indian Bureau of Mines is required to play in such activities by drawing attention to the provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 5, 18, 18-A and 24-A of the Act and the Rules 22-A, 22-BB and 63 of the Rules and to the definition of Section 3 of the Act, as also the provisions of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, particularly Rules 9, 10, 11 and 12 of these Rules, and the role of the Indian Bureau of Mines in this regard, that it is a statutory functionary, which has a definite role to play and being an organization which is part of the Central Government, it should be taken that the proposal for reservation of the area originated from the Central Government itself and therefore it can only be for the Central Government, I am unable to accept this argument, for the reason that the Indian Bureau of Mines either did not act on its own in the wake of the statutory provisions referred to above and for the regulation and development of the mineral involved viz., iron ore in the present case but also was not acting on the dictates of the Central Government itself but was stirred into action only by STC. As noticed earlier the initiative only came from the STC and not the Central Government and the recommendation definitely indicates that it is for the benefit of the STC and not for the Central Government itself. 49. On this aspect of the matter, learned Counsel for the petitioners have drawn the attention of the Court to the contents of paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the Government in W.P. No. 20739 of 2005, which read as under: “4. 49. On this aspect of the matter, learned Counsel for the petitioners have drawn the attention of the Court to the contents of paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the Government in W.P. No. 20739 of 2005, which read as under: “4. The issue of notification calling upon general public to file applications for grant of mining leases over certain areas does not take away the special powers of the Central Government as vested in it under Section 17-A(1-A) of MM (D and R) Act, 1957. As per Section 17-A(1-A) of MM (D and R) Act, 1957, the Central Government may in consultation with the State Government reserve any area, not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease, for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through a Government Company or Corporation owned or controlled by it. Consultation with State Government is mandatory but concurrence is not mandatory under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act. The State Government was duly consulted in this case. In this particular case, the area in question was not held by any person including the petitioner under any prospecting licence or mining lease and hence Central Government was fully within its rights to reserve the said area in favour of STCIL, which is a Corporation owned/controlled by Central Government. 5. The action of the State Government in allowing inspection of area in question to the petitioner for satisfying himself of the availability of mineral deposits and present status of land therein has no bearing on this issue, as Central Government is well within its powers to reserve the area in question in favour of a Government Company or Corporation owned or controlled by it. In this case no prospecting licence or mining lease has been granted to the petitioner or any other person and hence there was no bar on Central Government to reserve the said area Section 17-A(1-A) of MM (D and R) Act, 1957. The contention of the petitioner that he got a complete study of the area conducted and was hence entitled to the mining lease over the said area does not have any merit since no prospecting .licence was ever issued to the petitioner and no prospecting was done by the petitioner. 6. The contention of the petitioner that he got a complete study of the area conducted and was hence entitled to the mining lease over the said area does not have any merit since no prospecting .licence was ever issued to the petitioner and no prospecting was done by the petitioner. 6. State Government has forwarded 10 proposals including the proposal of the petitioner for seeking prior approval of the Central Government. However, the State Government vide their letter dated 12-4-2005 had recalled these proposals. STCIL has requested for reservation of a partic ular area and the same has been reserved under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act. Even if the State Government forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Central Government after examining the same, there was no legal bar on the Central Govern ment to reserve the said area in favour of a Central Government PSU since Sections 17 and 17-A have bestowed special powers on the Central Government to carry out prospecting operations, mining operations etc. by itself or through a Government Company or Corporation owned or controlled by it. The Central Govern ment considered the two vital ingred ients of Section 17 -A( I-A) before rese rving the said area in favour of STCIL: (a) Whether any PL or ML is held by any person over the area in question? (b) Whether the mandatory ‘consultation’ with the State Government has been done? In this case, no PL or ML was held by the petitioner or anyone else over the said area and the State Government was duly ‘consulted’ in the matter. The letters/reminders of the Central Government and the replies of the State Government are on record. With regard to the comments of the State Government that there was no free area to consider the application of M/s. STCIL, it is stated that the Central Government is not bound by the reply/advice of the State Government. ‘Consultation’ does not mean ‘concurrence’. The word ‘consult’ as understood in ordinary parlance means to ask or seek the views of a person on any given subject i.e., to take Counsel from another but it does not convey that the consultant is bound by the advice (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268 , Constitution of India, Articles 124(2) and 217(1)). Xxx xxx 8. Xxx xxx 8. Before reserving the said area in favour of STCIL, the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) a subordinate office under the administrative control of Ministry of Mines, was requested to give their comments on the issue of reservation of the said area in favour of STCIL. As per the comments of IBM in which they have recommended reservation of this area in favour of STCIL, the Indian Bureau of Mines have noted as under: 9. STCIL proposes to invest Rs. 400 crores for mining and for establishment of benefication plant and pelletisation plant in Hospet Bellary area. As the annual turnover of STCIL is more than Rs. 8000 crores, STCIL is financially sound to invest this money for systematic and scientific mining in the area. Further as STCIL proposes to have benefication plant as well as pellet plan in the area, the aspect of conservation of minerals will be taken due care by STCIL. In Hospet Bellary area-leases for iron ore mining are being granted for smaller area to private parties. This has resulted in ecological imbalance and adverse environmental affect (sic) in the surround areas. Therefore, investment on large lease area by a PSU is a better proposition from mineral Conservation and environment point of view. As per the project proposal, STCIL proposes fully mechanised open cast mining which can take care of the need for specific mining in the area. STCIL has also proposed to spend around Rs. 18.5 lakhs on environmental management, apart from indirect employment in the ancillary activities, it is likely to boost employment opportunity in this area and would also lead to development of necessary infrastructure in the area. 10. As per their project report submitted with the Central Government, STCIL have claimed that: “STCIL has diversified into Metals and Minerals during 2003-04 and these items contributed a turnover of Rs. 112 crores to this Government PSU. STCIL was further proposing to expand its operation in “these areas. Considering the high market fluctuation, it was proposed by STCIL to go in for backward integration by venturing into mining of iron ore and other value added activities in domestic and overseas markets. The demand from various consumers like JVSL SISCOL, SESA, GOA, Mandavi Pellets, Usha Ispat, Kalyani Steels, Goa Carbon, Kirloskar Ferro Alloys Limited, etc., was about 10 to 12 million tones/per annum of iron ore”. 50. The demand from various consumers like JVSL SISCOL, SESA, GOA, Mandavi Pellets, Usha Ispat, Kalyani Steels, Goa Carbon, Kirloskar Ferro Alloys Limited, etc., was about 10 to 12 million tones/per annum of iron ore”. 50. Likewise, attention is drawn to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the Central Government in W.P. No. 19339 of 2005 reiterates the very position. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the first respondent-Central Government in W.P. No. 19339 of 2005, reads as under: “8. Before reserving the said area in favour of STCIL, the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), a subordinate office under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Mines, was requested to give their comments on the issue of reservation of the said area in favour of STCIL. As per the comments of IBM in which they have recommended reservation of this area in favour of STCIL, the Indian Bureau of Mines have noted as under: 9. STCIL proposes to invest Rs. 400 crores for mining and for establishment of benefication plant and pelletisation plant in Hospet Bellary area. As the annual turnover of STCIL is more than Rs. 8,000 crores, STCIL is financially sound to invest this money for systematic and scientific mining in the area. Further as STCIL proposes to have benefication plant as well as pellet plant in the area, the aspect of conservation of minerals will be taken due care by STCIL. In Hospet Bellary area leases for iron one mining are being granted for smaller area to private parties. This has resulted in ecological imbalance and adverse environment affect (sic) in the surround areas. Therefore, investment on large lease area by a PSU is a better proposition from mineral conservation and environment point of view. As per the project proposal, STCIL proposes fully mechanised open cast mining which can take care of the need for specific mining in the area. STCIL has also proposed to spend around. Rs. 18.5 lakhs on environmental management apart from indirect employment in the ancillary activities, it is likely to boost employment opportunity in this area and would also lead to development of necessary infrastructure in the area. 10. As per their project report submitted with the Central Government, STCIL have claimed that: 11. STCIL has also proposed to spend around. Rs. 18.5 lakhs on environmental management apart from indirect employment in the ancillary activities, it is likely to boost employment opportunity in this area and would also lead to development of necessary infrastructure in the area. 10. As per their project report submitted with the Central Government, STCIL have claimed that: 11. “STCIL has diversified into Metals and Minerals during 2003-04 and these items contributed a turnover of Rs. 112 crores to this Government PSU. STCIL was further proposing to expand its operation in these areas. Considering the high market fluctuation, it was proposed by STCIL to go in for backward integration by venturing into mining of iron ore and other value added activities in domestic and overseas markets. The demand from various consumers like JVSL, SISCOL, SESA, GOA, Mandavi Pellets, Usha Ispat, Kalyani Steels, Goa Carbon, Kirloskar Ferro Alloys Limited, etc., was about 10 to 12 million tones/per annum of iron ore”. 12. STCIL has, thus claimed to be a financially and technically sound Central Government Corporation entitled for reservation on the said area in its favour for the business needs. The issue of environment degradation has been one of a major concern both for Central Government and State Government. STCIL is suitable from environmental point of view. This has been pointed out in the recommendation of India Bureau of Mines (IBM), which has been placed on record. 13. In respect of various grounds urged by the petitioners from paras 13 to 18, inter alia, contending that the powers of the 1st respondent under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act does not extend to reserving areas which are already recommended by the State Government for grant of leasing rights in favour of a third party, are untenable. The impugned order/notification is in conformity with the powers available to be Central Government under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act and as such there is no illegality in exercise of that power by the Central Government. . 14. It is submitted that the area in question was not held under any prospecting licence or mining lease. Recommendation of grant of mining lease to any party by the State Government is not binding on the Central Government. In exercise of powers under Section 17-A(1-A) of MM (D and R) Act, 1957, the Central Government has issued the said notification. Accordingly, Government of India,. Recommendation of grant of mining lease to any party by the State Government is not binding on the Central Government. In exercise of powers under Section 17-A(1-A) of MM (D and R) Act, 1957, the Central Government has issued the said notification. Accordingly, Government of India,. Ministry of Mines reserved the area for STCIL. Recommendation of grant of the mining lease to any party by the State Government does not bar the Central Government to exercise its powers under Section 17-A(1-A) of MM (D and R) Act, 1957. The powers of the Central Government under Section 17-A(1-A) are special powers whereby it has the power to reserve any area for undertaking prospecting or mining operations itself through any Government Company or Corporation owned/controlled by it. Any action under Section 17-A(1-A) is not barred by a pending action under Section 5 of the MM (D and R) Act, 1957. 15. The present action of the Central Government relates to ‘reservation’ of the said area in favour of STCIL, a Central Government PSU, whose claim has been denied by the State Government in favour of private persons (since STCIL had earlier applied for ML and the claim of STCIL was ignored by the State Government). The cases related to grant of ML/PS to various persons are decided under Sections 5 to 13 of MM (D&R) Act 1957, whereas cases of ‘reservation’ in favour of Central or State Governments or Central or State PSUs are decided by way of special powers vested in the Central Govern ment (to undertake prospecting or mining operations in certain cases) under Sections 17 and 17-A of MM (D&R) Act, 1957. The two categories are absolutely different and seek to award mineral concessions to two distinct categories of legal persons. The latter sections i.e., Sections 17 and 17 -A seek to grant mineral concession by way of first reserving particular areas in favour of State or Central Government Companies so as to exclude others and thereafter mining leases or prospecting licences are awarded to the concerned PSU for undertaking mining or prospecting operations. Thus, the operation of law in these two different categories is different. 16. It may also be stated that in every case of grant of PL or ML to any person, it is invariably examined whether any PSU is interested in the area under consideration. Thus, the operation of law in these two different categories is different. 16. It may also be stated that in every case of grant of PL or ML to any person, it is invariably examined whether any PSU is interested in the area under consideration. On the issue of applications which are pending at the time when the Central Government is seized with the request of any PSU for reserving any area in its favour, it can be stated that these are not required for reserving any area in its favour, it can be stated that these are not required to be considered at all. In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v Pallav Granite Industries (India) Private Limited, 2004(2) ALD 684 (DB), while expounding on Section 17-A(2), it was held by the Hon’ble Court - no adjudicatory process is involved in taking the decision as the Central Government is not required to resolve any dispute as such. Even if the applications of private individuals seeking mining leases are pending at the relevant time when the Central Government is seized with the request of the State Government to grant approval, they are not required to be heard. Approval by Central Government cannot be assailed on the ground of non-application of mind when the proposal was considered and the Central Government agreed with the recommendation of the State Government. The Central Government having approved the reservation of an area for undertaking prospecting and mining operations by State Govern ment Company or Corporation owned by it, and notification was published reserving the said area, the applications already pending for issue of mining leases cannot be considered. It would be totally unnecessary to go into the question whether any prefer ential right is to be granted to the pending applicants, not does the question of consideration for grant of fresh land lease or quarry lease to enable the pending applicants to und ertake any quarry operation as such arise”. 51. A perusal of the contents of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the Central Government leaves one with no doubt that the entire exercise of the issue of the impugned notification is only for the purpose of reserving the area in favour of and for the benefit of the STC. 51. A perusal of the contents of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the Central Government leaves one with no doubt that the entire exercise of the issue of the impugned notification is only for the purpose of reserving the area in favour of and for the benefit of the STC. Though in this regard learned Additional Solicitor General has made a valiant effort to save the notification by submitting that the exercise of power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act by the Central Government cannot be made dependent on an affidavit filed by its officer and contents of these paragraphs cannot by themselves have an effect on the power of the Central Government, perhaps, this argument could have been accepted if the of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the Central Government and the contents of thereof were either contrary to the development as indicated in the record or the exercise of power was not linked to the manner in which the development had taken place and as revealed in the records. The’ contents of these paragraphs in the statement of objections filed on behalf of the Central Government is only a true reflection of the record. It is’ based on the development as indicated in the record. The manner of exercise of any power is also a very relevant factor in determining the validity of the’ action while exercising the power. In the present case, the Central Government acts as a statutory functionary for exercising the power under Section l7-A(1-A) of the Act and therefore the power it exercised under this provision should be within the limits of such power conferred under the statute and for the very purpose for which the power is conferred. 52. In the present case, examination of the pleadings and the records of the Central Government, very clearly indicates that the Central Government has examined the question of issue of notification under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act, as though the section confers the powers on Central Government to grant leases to its undertakings or Corporations. The entire exercise had proceeded on the basis that the Central Government has the power to prefer a Central Government undertaking or Corporation in it discretion to the exclusion of other aspirants and hand over the reserved area for the benefit of its undertaking. The entire exercise had proceeded on the basis that the Central Government has the power to prefer a Central Government undertaking or Corporation in it discretion to the exclusion of other aspirants and hand over the reserved area for the benefit of its undertaking. Though ultimately even if such result could have been achieved by the Central Government by reserving the area for its own and allowing its agency to operate there, in the instant case it is very obvious that the Central Government has not done so. The record and the pleadings very clearly reveal that the exercise is only for the benefit of STC, an undertaking of the Central Government. 53. It is by now settled law that a power conferred on any State authority or even an administrative authority should be exercised in the manner provided for and for the purpose for which it is so provided (see decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, (2002) 1 SCC 633 , para 27 and Bhavnagar University v Palitana Sugar Mills Private Limited, AIR 2003 SC 511 : (2003) 2 SCC 111, para 40). A reading of the provisions of Section 17 -A( I-A) of the Act leaves one with no doubt that the power under the provision is to be exercised for the purpose of reserving an area in favour of the Central Government and not in favour of any other agency on undertaking or organisation and if at all only the activity of mining operations can be carried out through a Government Company or agency controlled by it. The records and the pleadings reveal that the power is not exercised for this purpose, but is exercised only for the purpose of reserving an area for mining activity in favour of STC, which is not the purpose’ of the statutory provision nor is it permitted under the statutory provision. 54. The records and the pleadings reveal that the power is not exercised for this purpose, but is exercised only for the purpose of reserving an area for mining activity in favour of STC, which is not the purpose’ of the statutory provision nor is it permitted under the statutory provision. 54. A perusal of the impugned notification while does indicate that if one should go by the language of the notification, the notification is one not only well-within the powers of the Central Government but also within the four comers of Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act, nevertheless, when the action on the part of the Central Government while issuing this notification is examined, particularly as revealed from the records and the statement of objections/affidavits filed on behalf of the Central Government, it becomes very apparent that the power under Section 17-A(I-A) of the Act is not utilised for the purpose and the manner in which it is conferred on the Central Government. The Central Government had not bestowed its attention to the need for exercising the power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act on its own. The entire initiative originated at the instance of the undertaking of Central Government viz., STC. Examination of the record also reveals that the power is exercised only for the benefit of STC and not for the purpose of Central Govern ment itself. Even the recommendation by the expert body such. as the Indian Bure au of Mines is one which clearly recomm ends the case of STC and as though the reservation is for the purpose and benefit of the STC. The, cumulative effect clearly reveals that it is a case of colourable exercise of power and not a bona fide exercise of power for issuing the impugned notification. It is for this reason, the impugned notification fails and not because the Central Government lacks the power to issue a notification of this nature, but due to the manner of exercise of power as revealed from the record and the affidavits placed on behalf of the Central Government, which clearly reveal an instance of colourable exercise of po wer and therefore the notification has to be quashed. It is for this reason the impug ned notification has to be declared as bad, as being not proper exercise of power co nferred under Section 17 -A( I-A) of the Act. 55. It is for this reason the impug ned notification has to be declared as bad, as being not proper exercise of power co nferred under Section 17 -A( I-A) of the Act. 55. The petitioners have all along attacked the validity of the impugned notification on the premise that the power under the provision is misused or abused, though there was an attempt in the interregnum to impugn it as a biased action by the Central Government and ulterior motives were attributed for issue of notification and that it is virtually hit by mala fides, this attempt was not founded properly nor was it permitted by this Court, as examination was only on the basis of the development as it had taken before the issue of the notification and not on the basis of the subsequent developments. But the action on the part of the Central Government fails the test even with this limited scrutiny as the power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the Act is not used for the purpose it is conferred but for a different purpose. 56. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned notification is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. No order to costs. Rule made absolute.