Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue mining lease for the respective areas applied under six different applications, pursuant to the notification dated 15th March, 2003 issued under Rule 59(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for shot ‘MC Rules’) as referred to hereunder: Table all situate at Sandur taluk, Bellary district under following facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The writ petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and listed on Bombay and Chennai Stock Exchanges. The petitioner has invested an integrated steel complex at Raichur with an installed capacity of one million MT per annum. The said integrated steel complex also consist of a sponge iron unit with a capacity of 1,88,000 MTPA and a steel melting shop with a capacity of 1,28,000 MTPA, a rolling mill to manufacture special steel structural with capacity of 2,00,000 MTPA and power generating unit of 35 MW capacity, presently enhanced to 435 MW. The plant has been erected at a total investment of Rs.700 crore and also commenced its production and proposes to attain maximum production limit within the specified period. The second phase, a fully automated unit, envisages an investment of Rs.4,000 crore, which includes erection of beneficiation plant for utilizing low grade iron ore. According to the writ petitioner the integrated steel complex at Raichur require about 2 MT of iron ore per annum for its consumption in order to achieve the total capacity of one million tonne, 3. The fourth respondent, by notification dated 15th March, 2003 under Rule 59(1) of the Rules, in the official gazette notified specific areas which are available for grant of mining lease and also invited applications for grant of lease with respect to the said areas. Pursuant to the said notification dated 15th March, 2003 issued under Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules, it is submitted, that the petitioner submitted more than 25 applications to the seventh respondent for grant of mining lease for different areas which were notified as available for grant of mining lease. 4. Pursuant to the said notification dated 15th March, 2003 issued under Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules, it is submitted, that the petitioner submitted more than 25 applications to the seventh respondent for grant of mining lease for different areas which were notified as available for grant of mining lease. 4. Even though Rule 26 if the MC Rules provides for giving an opportunity of being heard, furnishing reasons to be recorded in writing and communicating the same to the applicant before refusing to grant the mining lease over the whole or part of the area applied for, the petitioner complains that it was not given any opportunity before refusing the grant of mining lease; nor the respondent recorded any reasons in writing and communicated the same to the applicant for the refusal of the grant of mining lease. Hence, the petitioner made repeated representations to the seventh respondent requesting the status for grant of mining lease on the applications applied for. Finally the seventh respondent, by their communication dated 6th March, 2009 informed that the petitioner’s applications could not be processed due to the pendency of the batch of writ appeals against the order of the learned single Judge dated 7th August, 2008 in writ petition No.21608 of 2005. 5. Finally the seventh respondent, by their communication dated 6th March, 2009 informed that the petitioner’s applications could not be processed due to the pendency of the batch of writ appeals against the order of the learned single Judge dated 7th August, 2008 in writ petition No.21608 of 2005. 5. Our attention was also invited, on behalf of the petitioner, that by the said order dated 7th August, 2008 made in Writ Petition No.21608 of 2005, where the learned single Judge has quashed the very notification dated 15th March, 2003 issued by the fourth respondent under Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules, notifying the areas that are available for grant of mining lease and also issued consequential directions to both the Central Government and State Government as hereunder: (a) The State Government should always make a clear distinction between forest area and non-forest area while granting mining leases; (b) The State Government should always show awareness to the existing forest whether declared as reserved forest or otherwise and if there is an existing forest in any area, the first and the foremost effort should be to conserve the forest; (c) If the area has already been declared as reserved forest area, it should normally be retained without being disturbed and only if the state Government is fully satisfied that there is inevitable need justifying de-reservation and to permit a non-forest activity, that should be examined keeping in view the nature of non-forest activity proposed to be carried out in the forest area, the impact and consequence of such non-forest activity in the forest area, the extent of actual forest being damaged or destroyed, as to the duration over which such forest has developed in the area, whether the forest is in a unique and endangered biosphere, whether there is an imminent need to conserve such forest, if it is a unique type of forest or an endangered type of biosphere. (d) Mining activity being, undisputedly, very deleterious activity for preserving and conserving forest, mining activity should be totally avoided in forest areas. (e) Conserving forest can also achieve the object of conserving the mineral embedded in the earth beneath the forest growth and it is not as though the mineral is lost and therefore the State Government to bestow attention to this aspect of conserving mineral also. (e) Conserving forest can also achieve the object of conserving the mineral embedded in the earth beneath the forest growth and it is not as though the mineral is lost and therefore the State Government to bestow attention to this aspect of conserving mineral also. (f) The State Government should make a very scientific and conscious evaluation of the consequences of losing precious forest as to whether it is so very imminent and inevitable for exploiting the mineral for being used in the production of the mineral for country’s purpose and development and such related aspects should always be examined and only if it is found that the benefits of exploiting mineral far outweigh the losses due to the destruction of forest and there is imminent need for the mineral, then alone, the State Government should think of notifying even a forest area owned by the State Government as one available for lease to carry out mining operations in the area. (g) Mining operation being undisputedly capable of causing immense pollution, ecological imbalance and even environmentally disastrous, the State Government should always undertake a scientific study of ways and means to avoid such possibilities. The mineral if can be obtained by non mining activity or can be obtained by any other means that should be explored and not to resort to mining operation in forest areas. (h) As there is an imminent need to conserve existing forest, state Government is directed to put an hold on all mining activities in forest areas, undertake a scientific study of effects and consequences of continued mining in such forest areas, the impact of mining activity on the entire forest, need for conserving forest growth, need for protecting forest growth and if the forest growth comprises of any endangered flora or fauna or comprises of a rare biosphere with kinds of flora and fauna found only the area, the impact of mining on such flora and fauna and only after such an evaluation and on being satisfied that all precautions are followed, permit a non-forest activity on the land. (i) All the mining leases granted during the pendency of the above writ petition before this Court and under the notification dated 15.3.2003 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) being leases granted during the pendency of the writ petition and as it is not in dispute that the State Government has not shown its awareness to the need or necessity to conserve forest in the notified areas, particularly with large tracts of forest coming under the category of reserved forest, these leases cannot be sustained and are quashed thereby by issue of a writ or certiorari. (j) In respect of all other mining leases not covered under the notification dated 15.3.2003 but in forest areas, reserved forest or non-reserved forest, the state Government is required to follow the above directions and till a scientific evaluation is made and the imminent need for carrying out mining operations in the forest area is established and only if it is established that it is inevitable for carrying on the mining operations even at the cost of losing forest, then alone, leases can be permitted to work, otherwise, the state Government is directed to take steps for cancellation of such leases by following the procedure envisaged under the Act and the Rules and in terms of the conditions stipulated for resumption of the lease under the mining lease itself. (k) The State Government should always bear in mind that the larger public interest will overweigh the smaller individual or personal interest or business interest of the lessees who would have taken mining leases of the areas for commercial production and from the business angle and the prospects of existing lessees incurring losses or losing profit cannot come in the way of state Government pursuing rightful action for protecting the forest wealth, for conserving and retaining endangered species of flora and fauna and even to retain a biosphere of unique nature developed in nature developed in nature over millions of years which once interfered or destroyed will be lost to mankind for ever. (l) The State Government is hereby directed not to embark on granting any mining leases in forest areas as a matter of rule and only as an exception, forest areas may be notified for grant of mining leases, after fully establishing the imminent and inevitable need for exploiting the mineral and if it is found such exploitation is in the national interest for making available mineral which otherwise cannot be obtained for the nation building activities including defence, research or other scientific activities. (m) The state and the central Governments may also consider the possibilities of nationalization of mining industry so that the private profit motive does not come in the way of protecting environment, conserving forests and to avoid ecological disasters, so that the Government once becomes aware that the mining operations are deleterious to this cause, it can without any hassle, straightaway stop mining activities.” 6. As the above batch of writ appeals are pending before this Court, it is brought to our notice that unless the notification dated 15th March, 2003 issued by the fourth respondent under Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules and the action taken pursuant to the notification dated 15th March, 2003 by the respondents herein are sustained, the petitioner could not get the grant of mining lease for the areas applied for pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner was informed by the proceedings dated 6th March, 2009 of the 7th respondent that the petitioner’s applications could not be processed due to the pendency of the batch of writ appeals against the order of the learned single Judge dated 7th August, 2008 in writ petition No.21608 of 2005. 7. Hence the above writ petition. 8.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules, which provides for issuance of notification as to the availability of the area for regrant of mining lease and the same reads as hereunder: Rule. 59. 7. Hence the above writ petition. 8.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules, which provides for issuance of notification as to the availability of the area for regrant of mining lease and the same reads as hereunder: Rule. 59. Availability of area for re-grant to be notified.- (1) No area- (a) which was previously held or which is being held under a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence or a mining lease; or (b) which has been reserved by the government or any local authority for any purpose other than mining; or (c) in respect of which the order granting a permit or licence or lease has been revoked under sub-rule (1) of rule 7A or sub-rule (1) of rule 15 or sub-rule (1) or rule 31, as the case may be; or (d) in respect of which a notification has been issued under sub-section (2) or subsection (4) of section 17; or (e) which has been reserved by the State Government or under Section 17A of the Act, shall be available for grant unless – (i) an entry to the effect that the area is available for grant is made in the register referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 7D or sub-rule (2) of rule 21 or sub-rule (2) of rule 40, as the case may be; and (ii) the availability of the area for grant is notified in the Official Gazette and specifying a date (being a date not earlier than thirty days from the date of the publication of such notification in the Official Gazette) from which such area shall be available for grant: Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to the renewal of a lease in favour of the original lessee or his legal heirs notwithstanding the fact that the lease has already expired: Provided further that where an area reserved under rule 58 or under Section 17A of the Act is proposed to be granted to a Government Company, no notification under clause (ii) shall be required to be issued: Provided also that where an area held under a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence, as he case may be, is granted in terms of sub-section (1) of section 11, no notification under clause (ii) shall be required to be issued. (2) The Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax the provisions of sub-rule (1) in any special case.” (emphasis supplied) 8.2 The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that while considering the applications, which had been received pursuant to the publication of notification dated 15th March, 2003 notifying the areas available for grant of mining lease, the matters specified under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act, are to be taken into consideration for statutory compliance. The matters to be taken into consideration while granting the mining lease as per Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act are: (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; and (e) such other matters as may be prescribed. (emphasis supplied) 8.3 Our attention was also invited to Rule 35 of the MC Rules, which deals with “the Preferential Rights of certain persons” and the same reads as hereunder: “35. Preferential rights of certain persons.- Where two or more persons have applied for a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of the same land, the State Government shall, for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 11, consider besides the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 11, the end use of the mineral by the applicant.” (emphasis supplied) 8.4 The learned counsel also invited our attention to Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act, as per which, subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 11, where the State Government has not notified in the Official Gazette the area for grant of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, and two or more persons have applied for a reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of any land in such area, the applicant whose application was received earlier, shall have the preferential right to be considered for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, over the applicant whose application was received later. 8.5 The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Section 4(1) of the MMDR Act, as per which no person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder. 8.6 As per Section 4(2) of the MMDR Act, no Reconnaissance Permit, Prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of MMDR Act and the rules made thereunder. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-compliance of Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act would render the grant of mining lease as void and illegal and of effect as per Section 19 of the MMDR Act, which reads as hereunder: “19. Prospecting licences and mining leases to be void if in contravention of Act.- Any reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease granted, renewed or acquired in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any Rules or orders made thereunder shall void and of no effect.” (emphasis supplied) 8.7. Thus, the learned counsel foe the petitioner contends that as per Section 19 of the Act, any Reconnaissance Permit, Prospecting Licence or Mining Lease granted or renewed or acquired in contravention of the Act or any Rules or orders made thereunder, particularly, which are referred to above, shall be void and of no effect. 8.8 In the light of Sections 4(1), 4(2) and 19, referred to above, read with Section 11(3) (e) of the MMDR Act, it is contended that the Government shall take into consideration the matters that are prescribed under the rules, guidelines, Notifications and Policies of the Government. 8.8 In the light of Sections 4(1), 4(2) and 19, referred to above, read with Section 11(3) (e) of the MMDR Act, it is contended that the Government shall take into consideration the matters that are prescribed under the rules, guidelines, Notifications and Policies of the Government. 8.9 In precise, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner satisfies all the qualifications that are matters to be taken into consideration as per Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and particularly with reference to the fact that the petitioner has got: (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; and (d) the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on the iron ore minerals by establishing steel plants. and also fully qualifies Rule 35 of the MC Rules by establishing steel industries for the end-use of the minerals by the applicant himself and hence is entitled for the preference as against other persons. 9.1 The learned Advocate General appearing for the State, of course, does not seriously dispute the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner thrusting on the preferential right for those who satisfy the condition prescribed under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC Rules, as the same cannot be denied or disputed. 9.2 The learned Advocate General submits that the Government is only waiting for the decision this Court in the writ appeals No.888, 6087 and 6086 of 2009 preferred against the order in writ petition No.21608 of 2005 dated 7th August, 2008 and comes forward to process the applications received pursuant to the Notification dated 15th March, 2003, immediately after the decision of this Court in the aforesaid writ appeals. 9.3 The Advocate General also submits that the contention made on behalf of the petitioner is similar to those raised in the writ petition 5022 of 2009 (PIL), wherein it was prayed as follows: i. to direct the respondents not to issue any mining leases in respect of iron ore within the State of Karnataka, until all existing steel industries are issued captive mining leases; ii. to reserve certain areas exclusively for existing steel industries; iii. to grant Captive Mining Leases to Steel Manufacturing industries in the State of Karnataka in proportion to their respective licensed capacity on preferential basis; iv. not to renew any exiting mining lease unless necessary investment is made by the lease towards value addition; v. to increase the royalty and licence fee to a minimum of 10% of value of iron ore extracted; and Vi. direct the respondents to frame appropriate rules to curb illegal mining of iron ore. 10. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties. 11.1. Even though the fact that the petitioner has: (a) 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; and (e) the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on the minerals. are not seriously disputed by the Government, suffice it direct that it is for the Government to process, scrutinize and consider the applications received pursuant to the notification dated 15th March, 2003 and taking note of all the material facts while considering the applications of the petitioner for the impugned quarries as per Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the Rules. 11.2. Even though the learned single Judge in his order dated 7th August, 2008 quashed the very notification notifying the areas available for grant of mining lease and issued consequential directions (a) to (m) referred to in paragraph 150 of the said judgment, this Court, by order dated 5th June, 2009 in writ appeal No.5026/2008 set aside the judgment dated 7th August, 2008 made in writ petition No.21608 of 2005 and held that the notification dated 15th March, 2003 notifying the area available for lease and inviting the applications for the same are valid and consequently the directions (a) to (m) issued by the learned single Judge in the order dated 7th August, 2008 made in W.P.No.21608/2005 referred to above, were also set aside. In the said judgment, while interpreting Section 11(3)(e) of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC Rules, it was held as hereunder: “28.4. In the said judgment, while interpreting Section 11(3)(e) of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC Rules, it was held as hereunder: “28.4. The words employed by the Parliament under Section 11(3)(e) viz., ‘such other matters as may be prescribed’ include the matters prescribed under Rule 35 of MC Rules also specifically refers to Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act. It is, therefore, mandatory for the State Government to consider the end-use of minerals by the applicants while evaluating their relative merits. In the instant case, the appellants herein (respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition) who have already established iron-ore based industry viz., iron and steel plant, weighed the State Government to prefer the appellants herein (respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition) as against the first respondent herein (writ petitioner). When the appellants herein (respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition) proposed to use the iron-ore mined as captive consumption for the existing industry which in turn generate more employment and span ancillary industries, the consideration and evaluation of relative merits of the appellants herein (respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition) and the first respondent herein (writ petitioner) in terms of Rule 35 of MC Rules, would certainly fall within the matters specified under Section 11 (3) of MMDR Act.” 12. Of course, there is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled for an opportunity before refusing or granting lease as per Rule 26 of the MC Rules, but the contentions made in this regard on behalf of the petitioner, in our considered opinion does not weigh much because the learned Advocate General has fairly come forward that the Government is prepared to process scrutinize the consider the applications received pursuant to notification dated 15th March, 2003 and to take appropriate decision in the impugned matters, as they could not proceed due to the pendency of the writ appeals before this court against the order dated 7th August, 2008 made in W.P.No.21608/2005 by the learned Single Judge. 13. 13. As to the matters that are required to be considered under Section 11(3) of the Act and the preferential right of certain persons in the light of Rule 35 of MC Rules, this Court upheld the decision of the Government granting mining lease to those who intend to use the iron ore as captive consumption for the proposed steel industries taking into consideration the end-use of the minerals by the applicant and its value addition as provided under Section 11(3) of MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC Rules. Therefore, suffice it to further direct that the Government shall follow the same yardstick in the similarly placed cases including that of the petitioner. 14. As rightly pointed by the learned Advocate General, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is similar to those raised in W.P.5022 of 2009 (PIL) which was disposed by us by order dated 11th June, 2009, we feel it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the said judgment which reads as hereunder: “15.1. Industrialization, which is intended for mass production of goods, changes the way of business and the very lifestyle. While globalization takes over, the local and traditional economy slowly disappears. 15.2. Iron ore comprises naturally occurring iron bearing minerals which can be economically extracted for production of iron and steel. Almost all the iron and steel in this planet have been derived initially from iron ore excepting a few small occurrences of meteorites containing from coming from Space. Iron ore is a major raw material for steel industry. In 21st century, around 85% of iron and steel came from iron ore directly, the rest from recycled steel scrap, which in turn came from iron ores over the last four centuries. 15.3. Iron and steel is the backbone of modern societies and economies. Per capita consumption of steel is a direct index of degree of development of a nation. As per the available statistics, the present per capita steel consumption is 50kg per annum in India. Time has come to compare India’s per capita steel consumption with that of 400 kg in developed countries, a world average of 180 kg and Chinese current consumption of 340 kgs. Our country, from a mere domestic per capita steel consumption of 35 kg in 2000, is projected to grow to 150 kg by 2020. Time has come to compare India’s per capita steel consumption with that of 400 kg in developed countries, a world average of 180 kg and Chinese current consumption of 340 kgs. Our country, from a mere domestic per capita steel consumption of 35 kg in 2000, is projected to grow to 150 kg by 2020. This corresponds to the production targeted steel consumption of 200 million tons per annum, after factoring in imports/exports. 60% of the production is expected to come through blast furnace route, 33% through sponge iron – electric arc furnaces and 7% through other routes. This would require an availability of 290 million tones per annum of medium/high grade iron ore, after discounting scrap and re-cycling. Blast furnaces have the flexibility to use medium grades (62-64% Fe) and fines (through sinter and pellets) without loss of productivity and efficiency. 15.4. Iron constitutes 4-5% of earth’s crust, but is not evenly distributed. Iron ore reserves are largely distributed in Australia, Brazil, India, Russia and Ukraine. Indian Iron ore is rich in Fe and has moderate silica alumina and phosphorus. India ranks fifth in terms if iron ore reserves and is a leading producer and exporter of iron ore in the world after Australia, Brazil and CIS Countries and contributes to around 7.6% of world iron ore production. Some iron ores in India are the best naturally occurring grades in the world. With 207 million tones of iron ore production in 2008, iron ore tops the metallic mineral production in the country. 15.5. In the meantime, countries like Japan and China have been importing iron ore from India and value adding/converting it to high end-high priced steel products and also exporting to all other countries, to the benefit of their society. Generally, countries have adopted to the idea of conserving raw materials and other inputs for the purpose of domestic industry and only value added item have been exported, ensuring economic growth right from grassroot level. All the economically developed countries have become developed by pursuing this route, excepting Australia who have very large mineral resources and retain very small population. China has adopted a different strategy now, of importing iron (+60% Fe) contributed to 60 MT per year of additional steel inventory there, which is more than India’s annual production. All the economically developed countries have become developed by pursuing this route, excepting Australia who have very large mineral resources and retain very small population. China has adopted a different strategy now, of importing iron (+60% Fe) contributed to 60 MT per year of additional steel inventory there, which is more than India’s annual production. This, in turn correspondingly improves the competitiveness of Chinese steel industry for eventual export possibly back to India and this will work against the overall interest of Indian economic growth in the long term. 15.6. The Steel industry is the engine that drives manufactures in industries such as automobile, machinery, white goods, appliances and constructions. Steel industry is the back bone of “Economic Development of the Nation” and wherefore, it is imperative that special concern should be taken to develop the indigenous Steel industry by making special concessions and placing the industry in a preferential position vis-à-vis procurement of iron ore. 15.7. Undoubtedly, the Steel industry generates more income to the State exchequer besides generating far more employment than the mining industry. As rightly pointed out, the Steel industry contributes around Rupees 200 Crore annually to the State and Central exchequer for every million tonne of iron ore converted into Steel, as compared to Rs.1.5 Crore in the case of iron ore exported, besides providing permanent employment and livelihood to million of citizens. Even though the Government of India has formulated a national mineral policy with the objective of granting preferential mining leases to steel industries, no concrete steps have been taken in that regard. Nothing concrete has been done by the State of Karnataka to control the growing money power of the mining industry and Steel industries have not been granted any iron ore mining lease in the State. 15.8.1. Karnataka has total iron ore resources of 9.03 billion tons out of total 23.59 billion tons, which is 38.28% of total Indian iron ore resources. In spite of higher resources in the State, the total iron and steel making capacity in the State is only a dismal 6.5 million tons, which is only 11.8% of the total Indian iron and steel production capacity of India. 15.8.2. In spite of higher resources in the State, the total iron and steel making capacity in the State is only a dismal 6.5 million tons, which is only 11.8% of the total Indian iron and steel production capacity of India. 15.8.2. The biggest fall back of very low steel production is that all these producers who have set up industry in the state do not have iron ore mines, in spite of the assurance by the State Government and provisions of MMDR Act and National Mineral Policy and the Karnataka State Mineral Policy. These companies have already made an investment of over Rs.25,000/- crore in the state and have generated direct and indirect employment to atleast 25000 people. 15.8.3. All other mineral-rich states viz., Orissa, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh which signed maximum number of MOUs, have clear policy to give iron ore mining lease only to the existing iron and steel producers or the proposed steel plants, who make substantial investment in the state in iron and steel plant before the recommendation. 15.8.4. Although mineral wealth vests with State Governments, yet the subject of regulation of miens and mineral development is covered by entry 54 of the Union List under Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. By virtue of this, the Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to regulation of mines and mineral development. But still greater role by State Governments is the need of the hour. 15.9. While ratifying the value addition criteria adopted by certain mineral-rich Indian States, utmost priority for granting of mining lease shall be given to those companies who have set up steel plants to the benefit of the society at large. 15.10. Prudent pre-qualifications followed by allocation of mining leases, within a reasonable time, to those steel companies who have invested and operating, could be the appropriate route to trigger higher growth rate in steel sector, thereby ensuring value additional, employment generation, infrastructure development – a pre-requisite to become a developed and balanced society.” 15. With regard to the preferential right based on the end-use of the minerals by the applicant, it was held by us in writ petition No.5022/2009 as hereunder: “18. With regard to the preferential right based on the end-use of the minerals by the applicant, it was held by us in writ petition No.5022/2009 as hereunder: “18. While mining as a stand-alone industry cannot be ignored, the contention of the petitioner based on the policy decision of the Central and State Government that preference should be given to captive mining while granting mining lease, also deserves due consideration. The schedule of time prescribed under Rule 63A of the MC Rules is also required to be strictly adhered to, as the State is bound by such time schedule in deciding the applications for grant of mining lease. It is true that no specific time limitation is given for granting approval by the Central Government, but that does not mean that the Central Government could take its own sweet time, which in our considered opinion would be unreasonable and arbitrary, because any such delay would affect the economic growth of the State. 19.1. Even though it is not proper for this Court to prescribe any time schedule, which is not provided under the statue, we are the considered opinion that the Central Government should themselves come forward to exercise their power for clearing the applications for the approval contemplated under Section 5 of the MMDR Act and Section 2 of the FC Act within a reasonable time limit, which should not, in our considered opinion, be more than six months from the date of receipt of the application for such approval. 19.2. Mere want of provision as on date for passing orders in respect of the approval of the Central Government contemplated under Section 5 of the MMDR Act and Section 2 of the FC Act, would not be an excuse for the Central Government to take indefinite time for passing orders on the application for such approval and to cause undue delay in the matter, as it would defeat the very policy of the Central Government and the State Government in the matter of industrialization and economic development. Of course, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that it may not proper for this Court to interfere with the policy decision of the Government. Of course, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that it may not proper for this Court to interfere with the policy decision of the Government. But we are unable to appreciate the said contention, because in the instant public interest litigation, the petitioner is neither making any allegation against the policy decision nor challenging the same, but all that the petitioner seeks is, only to give effect to the policy decision of the State which is admittedly implemented by the State. 19.3. The apex Court, in Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) V. State Of Uttar Pradesh [ (1991) 1 SCC 212 ] held that: “27. Unlike a private party whose acts uniformed by reason and influenced any personal predilections in contractual matters may result in adverse consequences to it alone without affecting the public interest, any such act of the State or a public body even in this field would adversely affect the public interest. Every holder of a public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of the State or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in whom the sovereignty vests. As such, all powers so vested in him are meant to be exercised for public good and promoting the public interest. This is equally true of all actions even in the field of contract. Thus, every holder of a public office is a trustee whose highest duty is to the people of the country and, therefore, every act of the holder of a public office, irrespective of the label classifying that act, is in discharge of public duty meant ultimately for public good. with the diversification of State activity in a Welfare State requiring the State to discharge its wide ranging functions even through its several instrumentalities, which requires entering into contracts also, it would be unreal and not pragmatic, apart from being unjustified to exclude contractual matters from the sphere of State actions required to be non-arbitrary and justified on the touchstone of Article 14.” 19.5. Again, the apex Court, in Food Corporation Of India V. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries reported in [ (1993) 1 SCC 71 ] has observed as hereunder: “7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. Again, the apex Court, in Food Corporation Of India V. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries reported in [ (1993) 1 SCC 71 ] has observed as hereunder: “7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is “fairplay in action’. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision-making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non-arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but provides for control of its exercise by judicial review. 8. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision-making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant’s perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant’s perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent.” (emphasis supplied) 19.6. In the case of Official Liquidator V. Dayanand reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 , the Apex Court while dealing with the doctrine of legitimate expectation observed that: “102. The concept of “due process of law” has played a major role in the development of administrative law. It ensures fairness in public administration. The administrative authorities who are entrusted with the task of deciding lis between the parties or adjudicating upon the rights of the individuals are duty-bound to comply with the rules of natural justice, which are multifaceted. The absence of bias in the decision-making process and compliance with audi alteram partem are two of these facets. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a nascent addition to the rules of natural justice. It goes beyond statutory rights by serving as another device for rendering justice. At the root of the principle of legitimate expectation is the constitutional principle of rule of law, which requires regularity, predictability and certainty in Government’s dealings with the public J. Raz, The Authority of Law [(1979) Chapter 11]. The “legal certainty” is also a basic principle of European community. European law is based upon the concept of vertrauensschutz (the honouring of a trust or confidence). It is for these reasons that the existence of a legitimate expectation may even in the absence of a right of private law, justify its recognition in public law. 103. In Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edn.), the doctrine of legitimate expectation has been described in the following words: “A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. 103. In Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edn.), the doctrine of legitimate expectation has been described in the following words: “A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied representation, or from consistent past practice.” 104. A formal statement on the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be found in the judgment of the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service. In that case the Government tried to forbid trade unionism among civil service. For this, the Civil Service Order in the 1982 Council was issued. The Court of appeal declared that the Minister had acted unlawfully in abridging the fundamental right of a citizen to become a member of the trade union. The House of Lords approved the judgment of the Court of Appeal and held that such a right could not be taken away without consulting the civil servant concerned. 105. In India, the courts have gradually recognized that while administering the affairs of the State, the Government and its departments are expected to honour the policy statements and treat the citizens without any discrimination. The theory of legitimate expectation first found its mention in Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India. In that case the right of a housing society for right to priority in the matter of registration was recognized in the following words: (SCC pp. 494-95, paras 15-16) “15. … In the aforesaid facts, the Group Housing Societies were entitled to ‘legitimate expectation’ of following consistent past practice in the matter of allotment, even though they may not have any legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The existence of ‘legitimate expectation’ may have a number of different consequences and one of such consequences is that the authority ought not to act to defeat the ‘legitimate expectation’ without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so. In a case of ‘legitimate expectation’ if the authority proposes to defeat a person’s ‘legitimate expectation’ it should afford him an opportunity to make representations in the matter. In this connection reference may be made to the discussion on ‘legitimate expectation’ at p.151 of Vol. In a case of ‘legitimate expectation’ if the authority proposes to defeat a person’s ‘legitimate expectation’ it should afford him an opportunity to make representations in the matter. In this connection reference may be made to the discussion on ‘legitimate expectation’ at p.151 of Vol. 1(1) of Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn. (re-issue). We may also refer to a decision of the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service. It has been held in the said decision that an aggrieved person was entitled to judicial review if he could show that a decision of the public authority affected him of some benefit or advantage which in the past he had been permitted to enjoy and which he legitimately expected to be permitted to continue to enjoy either until he was given reasons for withdrawal and the opportunity to comment on such reasons. 16. It may be indicated here that the doctrine of ‘legitimate expectation’ imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such ‘legitimate expectation’ Within the conspectus of fair dealing in case of ‘legitimate expectation’, the reasonable opportunities to make representation by the parties likely to be affected by any change of consistent past policy, come in. We have not been shown any compelling reasons taken into consideration by the Central Government to make a departure from the existing policy of allotment with reference to seniority in registration by introducing a new guideline.” (emphasis supplied) 19.7. The apex Court in Tata Iron And Steel Co. We have not been shown any compelling reasons taken into consideration by the Central Government to make a departure from the existing policy of allotment with reference to seniority in registration by introducing a new guideline.” (emphasis supplied) 19.7. The apex Court in Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. V. Union Of India reported in (1996) 9 SCC 709 , approving the view of the Committee appointed by the Central Government pursuant to the directions to the High Court of Orissa, consisting of senior officers from the Ministry of Mines, the Indian Bureau of Mines and the Geological Survey of India, that the National Mineral Policy having been tabled before both the Houses of Parliament, is a guiding factor in the decision-making process of the Government and, both in the National Mineral Policy as well as the Industrial Policy of the State of Orissa, Captive mining has been recognized as a fundamental guideline in determining the criteria for granting mining lease, held that the Committee made an estimate of the captive mining requirement of each of the parties appearing before it, after coming to the conclusion that captive mining is a fundamental guideline to be kept in mind while renewing the lease. 20. In that view of the matter, we do not see any error or illegality on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court for seeking appropriate direction to both Central and State Government to process the application in accordance with the policy decision taken by them, as the petitioner is entitled to seek such relief based on legitimate expectation. 21. 21. Therefore, we are convinced that the petitioner is bonafide in approaching this Court with the above public interest litigation laying his hands on the very National Mineral Policy, 2006 and 2008 as well as the Karnataka Mineral Policy, 2008, which itself provide for promoting and encouraging scientific mining methods by employing advanced mining equipment and machineries with skilled and non-skilled manpower and actively encouraging value addition which should go hand-in-hand with the growth of the mineral sector as a stand-alone industrial activity and to give priority to the applicants, who propose to establish industries based on value addition making it clear that mining as a stand-alone industry needs to be encouraged as it provides large scale employment; new mineral based industries should be set up to match the available raw material resources; existing and new industries should set up facilities to bring the available raw materials up to the requires specifications by processes like beneficiation, pelletisation and sintering; and these industries will generate more employment and spawn auxiliary industries. 22. 22. In the circumstances, we direct: (i) the State Government to strictly adhere to the time schedule prescribed under Rule 63A of the MC Rules in disposing the applications for grant of mining iron ore within the State of Karnataka; (ii) to consider the matters specified under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act read with Rule 35 of the MC Rules strictly in the matter of grant of mining lease of iron ore in the State of Karnataka; (iii) to give preference for the captive consumption of iron ore for their existing iron and steel industries, of course, without causing any harm to the existing mining as a standalone industry as it would go in line with the National Mineral Policy, 2008 and the Karnataka Mineral Policy, 2008 to generate more employment in the State and also provide for value addition and satisfy the end-use of minerals by such applicants; and (iv) direct the Central Government to dispose of the applications for the approval of mining lease as contemplated under Section 5 of the MMDR Act and/or Section 2 of the FC Act, as the case may be, within the reasonable time, not exceeding six months from the date of receipt of applications for such approval, so that, there would not be any financial strain on the investments that may be made by the industrialists as well as financial aid that may be extended by the State of state-owned Corporation or the Nationalised Banks in this regard.” 16. In fine, since the order dated 7th August, 2008 made in W.P.No.21608/2005 and the consequential directions issued therein, are now set aside by this court by order dated 5th June, 2009 in Writ Appeal No.5026 of 2008 and connected matters and that apart, appropriate directions are also issued by this Court by order dated 11th June, 2009 in Writ Petition No.5022 of 2009 (PIL), and particularly, when the learned Advocate General has fairly conceded that the applications of petitioner would be processed, scrutinized and considered; and appropriate orders will be passed therein immediately after the decision in the writ appeals against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7th August, 2008 in W.P.No.21608/2005, suffice it to direct the respondents to expeditiously process, scrutinize and consider through single-window system the applications of the petitioner received pursuant to the notification dated 15th March, 2003 following the same yardstick adopted in respect of similarly placed cases, taking into consideration the merits of the petitioner as specified under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of MC Rules and as per the terms and within the time prescribed by this Court on 11th June, 2009 in Writ Petition No.5022 of 2009 (PIL) referred to above, and to pass appropriate orders therein. 17. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.