Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 962 (ORI)

Mesco Steel Ltd. v. Government of India

2016-10-24

B.R.SARANGI, VINEET SARAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. The present petition relates to grant of mining lease for certain area in favour of the petitioner company, which has set up a steel plant and the mining lease of iron ore was to be granted for such purpose. Although this matter has a chequered history, we are condensing the facts to only those, which are relevant for the purpose of the present case. 2. The petitioner no.1, M/s. Mesco Steel Ltd. is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, of which petitioner no.2 is its Director. The petitioner company had applied for grant of mining lease of iron ore over an area of 1519.980 hectares under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short “the Act, 1957), which has subsequently been amended by Act 10 of 2015 with effect from 12.01.2015. In accordance with the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Act, 1957, as it then stood, on 21.10.1997, the Government of Odisha made recommendation to the Central Government for grant of prior approval of mining lease for iron ore over an area of 1011.480 hectares in village Kadakala and Luhakala and 508.500 hectares in village Sundara and Pidapokhari of Keonjhar district (total area 1519.980 hectares) in favour of the petitioner company. Then on 07.01.1999, the Government of India accorded approval under Sections 5(1) and 11(4) of the Act, 1957 read with Rule 27(3) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 with relaxation provided under Section 6(1)(b) of the Act, 1957 for grant of mining lease of iron ore over the entire area of 1519.980 hectares for a period of 30 years, for which the petitioner company had applied. Then, certain conditions were laid down on 08.02.1999 by the Government of Odisha for grant of such mining lease, which was accepted by the petitioner company on 15.02.1999. Then on 17.03.1999, the Government of Odisha issued a grant order for granting mining lease of iron ore over the entire area for a period of 30 years. However, the lease deed could not be executed. Then on 17.03.1999, the Government of Odisha issued a grant order for granting mining lease of iron ore over the entire area for a period of 30 years. However, the lease deed could not be executed. While the matter remained pending before the State Government for execution of the lease deed, the State Government intended to reduce the area of lease of the petitioner company on the ground that there was some overlapping and that the area of lease granted in favour of the petitioner was in excess of the captive requirement of the petitioner’s steel plant. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 14044 of 2006, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.05.2008 and a direction was issued to the State Government for execution of the mining lease deed for the entire area of 1519.980 hectares. It may be mentioned that during pendency of the writ petition, a notice dated 06.02.2007 under Rule 27(5) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 was issued to the petitioner company to show cause as to why the area for mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner company on 17.03.1999 be not reduced. Since the matter was pending consideration before the High Court in W.P.(C) No.14044 of 2016, the petitioner company did not submit any reply to the said show cause notice. Challenging the judgment and order dated 16.05.2008 passed by the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 14044 of 2006, whereby the prayer of the petitioner company had been granted, the State Government filed SLP(c) No. 16139 of 2010 before the apex Court. Keeping in view that the show cause notice had already been issued to the petitioner company during pendency of the writ petition, which was not taken note of by the High Court, the apex Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal preferred by the State, vide judgment dated 06.03.2016 with the direction that the petitioner company shall submit its reply to the show notice whereupon the State Government shall pass a reasoned order. The operative portion of the judgment of the apex Court in paragraph-19 is reproduced below: “In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and direct that the respondent-company shall submit its reply to the show cause notice dated 6th February, 2007 issued by the State Government within three months from today. The Government may then upon consideration of the reply so submitted pass a reasoned order on the subject within two months thereafter under intimation to the respondent. If the order so made is, for any reason found to be unacceptable by the respondent-company, it shall have the liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.” (emphasis supplied) Pursuant to the direction issued by the apex Court, the petitioner company submitted its reply to the notice on 04.06.2013. Then by order dated 24.02.2015, the State Government held that the petitioner company was entitled to only 47.6 million ton reserve of iron ore for its 1.2 MTPA Steel Plant, but the exact specified area of mineable reserve was not decided by the State Government. The petitioner company then again approached the Supreme Court by filing Contempt Petition(C) No. 35 of 2015 and by order dated 20.03.2015, the apex Court directed the State Government to complete the exercise of re-assessing the mineable reserve area in terms of the order dated 24.02.2015 within two months and inform the petitioner company of the same. The State Government issued a corrigendum letter dated 09.04.2015 correcting its order dated 24.02.2015 and then in terms of the Supreme Court order dated 20.03.2015, the Government of Odisha, vide its order dated 06.06.2015, recommended an area of 475.457 hectares as mineable reserve of 47.6 MT for a period of 30 years. By the said order, the mining area of the petitioner company was reduced from 1519.980 hectares to 475.457 hectares, for which prior approval of the Central Government was again sought for by the State Government. By the said order, the mining area of the petitioner company was reduced from 1519.980 hectares to 475.457 hectares, for which prior approval of the Central Government was again sought for by the State Government. Immediately thereafter on 11.06.2015, after noticing the discrepancy in the proposal dated 06.06.2015, where the lease period was mentioned as 30 years instead of 50 years, as required by the amended Section 8A(2) of the Act, 1957 (amended by Act 10 of 2015) the proposal was amended to state that the grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner company was to be for a period of 50 years instead of 30 years. The petitioner company had thereafter on 26.11.2015 accepted the State Government’s decision with regard to reduction of the area from 1519.980 hectares to 475.457 hectare. Then on 10.12.2015, the Government of India, in response to the communication of the State Government dated 06.06.2015 sought some information/clarification, to which the State Government responded on 14.01.2016 requesting the Central Government to allow the State Government to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the amended Section 10A(2)(c) of the Act, 1957, which now did not require the permission of the Central Government for grant of mining lease of iron ore. The Central Government, instead of allowing the State Government to proceed to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner company in terms of the amended provision of the Act, 1957, on 12.04.2016 raised certain queries for clarification from the State Government. At this stage, when the lease deed was not being executed in favour of the petitioner company, even for the reduced area, and clarification was being sought by the Central Government which, according to the petitioners, was not necessary after the amendment came into effect from 12.01.2015, the petitioners approached this Court with the prayer for quashing the communication dated 12.04.2016 issued by the Central Government raising certain queries and clarifications. A further prayer has also been made for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to execute the lease deed in accordance with the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (for short “the Rules, 2016”) which had come into force w.e.f. 04.03.2016, whereafter the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 stood repealed. A further prayer has also been made for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to execute the lease deed in accordance with the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (for short “the Rules, 2016”) which had come into force w.e.f. 04.03.2016, whereafter the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 stood repealed. It may be noted here that in response to the communication dated 12.04.2016, the State Government submitted its reply to the Central Government on 23.08.2016 (during pendency of this writ petition), but no orders have been passed by the Central Government as yet. 3. We have heard Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. I.A. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. B. Nayak, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for opposite party no.1; and Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for opposite party no.2 and perused the records. Pleadings between the parties having been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 4. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the urgency in the matter is because according to Rule 8(4) of the Rules, 2016, where an order for grant of mining lease has already been issued, the mining lease shall be executed and registered on or before 11th January, 2017, i.e., within two years of the coming force of the Amendment Act 10 of 2015, which has amended the various provisions of the Act, 1957 w.e.f. 12.01.2015. It is stated that since the case of the petitioner company would be governed by the amended provisions of the Act, 1957 and the freshly famed Rules, 2016 (after the Mining Concession Rules, 1960 has been repealed), in case the lease deed is not executed on or before 11.01.2017 the matter would become infructuous, and merely because of the inaction on the part of the opposite parties, the petitioner company should not be made to suffer. On merits it has been submitted that by Amendment Act 10 of 2015, Proviso to Section 5(1) has been inserted and, according to the said Proviso, there would be no necessity of prior approval being taken from the Central Government with regard to mining leases relating to iron ore. On merits it has been submitted that by Amendment Act 10 of 2015, Proviso to Section 5(1) has been inserted and, according to the said Proviso, there would be no necessity of prior approval being taken from the Central Government with regard to mining leases relating to iron ore. It was next submitted that as per the amended Section 10A(2)(c) of the Act, 1957 also, prior approval of the Central Government would not be required, as admittedly the case of the petitioner company is covered under clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 10A and not clause (b), for which alone prior approval of the Central Government would be required. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has further contended that though the prior approval of the Central Government is no longer required, but even then, in the case of the petitioner company, approval of the Central Government under the unamended Section 5(1) of the Act, 1957 for the entire area of 1519.980 hectares had already been granted on 07.01.1999 and no fresh approval would in any case be required after the area has been reduced to 475.457 hectares, as the reduced area is only a part of the larger area for which the approval had already been granted by the Central Government. This argument has been made by Sri Mohanty without prejudice to his right that the approval of the Central Government is no longer required. In support of his contention, Mr. S. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi v. K.S. Jagannathan, AIR 1987 SC 537 . 5. Sri B. Nayak, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 has submitted that even after the coming into force of the Rules, 2016 and the amending Act 10 of 2015 (whereby the provisions of the Act, 1957 have been amended), then, since the application for grant of mining lease of the petitioner company was pending consideration prior to such amendment, the requirement of prior approval of the Central Government would still be there and, as such, the State Government had rightly sought for clarification from the Central Government on 10.12.2015, which is pending consideration before the Central Government. It is also contended that on 14.01.2016 the communication issued by the State Government would not be relevant, as the Central Government has already issued certain queries seeking clarifications from the State Government on 12.04.2016, to which the clarification has already been given by the State Government on 23.08.2016, which is pending consideration before the Central Government. It is further contended that the petitioners’ case is to be considered according to the Rules in force on the date of application. To substantiate the same, reliance has been placed on State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone etc. etc., AIR 1981 SC 711 and M/s. K.P. Granite Industries v. State of Orissa, 2013 (Supp. II) OLR 563 : AIR 2013 Ori 80 . 6. Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State opposite party has not disputed the fact that after the amendment of the Act, 1957 by Act 10 of 2015 and the coming into force of the Rules, 2016, there is no requirement for any approval to be taken from the Central Government with regard to mining lease relating to iron ore and has stated that the communication dated 06.06.2015 had been inadvertently sent by the State Government to the Central Government seeking their approval, whereas in terms of Proviso to the amended Section 5(1) of the Act, 1957, such approval was not required. The State Government had then written to the Central Government on 14.01.2016 for allowing the State Government to proceed in accordance with the amended provisions of Section 10A (2)(c) of the Act, 1957, as such approval was no longer required from the Central Government. It is submitted that as a matter of abundant precaution, the State Government has also given its reply on 23.08.2016 to the queries raised by the Central Government on 12.04.2016. 7. The petitioner company does not challenge the reduction of its area from 1519.980 hectares to 475.457 hectares and as such the same has become final. It is submitted that as a matter of abundant precaution, the State Government has also given its reply on 23.08.2016 to the queries raised by the Central Government on 12.04.2016. 7. The petitioner company does not challenge the reduction of its area from 1519.980 hectares to 475.457 hectares and as such the same has become final. The only question required to be considered by this Court now is:- “Whether, after the coming into force of the Rules, 2016 with effect from 04.03.2016 and the amendment in the Act, 1957 with effect from 12.01.2015 by Act 10 of 2015, the State Government would still be required to take permission or approval of the Central Government prior to execution of lease deed with regard to iron ore ?” If the answer to the above question is against the petitioners, this Court would then be required to consider the other question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, if the prior approval is still required for grant of approval of mining lease of iron ore, then would the approval granted for the larger area on 07.01.1999 still hold good for reduced area out of the same larger area. 8. For proper appreciation of this case, the following relevant provisions are being extracted below: THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 “5. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting licences or mining leases. - (1) A State Government shall not grant a reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease to any person unless such person – (a) is an Indian national, or a company as defined in clause (20) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013; and (b) satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided that in respect of any mineral specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule, no reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted except with the previous approval of the Central Government.” “10-A. Rights of existing concession holders and applicants. - (1) All applications received prior to the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, shall become ineligible. - (1) All applications received prior to the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, shall become ineligible. (2) Without prejudice to sub-section (1), the following shall remain eligible on and from the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015:— (a) applications received under section 11A of this Act; (b) where before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land for any mineral, the permit holder or the licensee shall have a right for obtaining a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease, or a mining lease, as the case may be, in respect of that mineral in that land, if the State Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee, as the case may be,— (i) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations, as the case may be, to establish the existence of mineral contents in such land in accordance with such parameters as may be prescribed by the Central Government; (ii) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the reconnaissance permit or the prospecting licence; (iii) has not become ineligible under the provisions of this Act; and (iv) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, within a period of three months after the expiry of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence, as the case may be, or within such further period not exceeding six months as may be extended by the State Government; (c) where the Central Government has communicated previous approval as required under sub-section (1) of section 5 for grant of a mining lease, or if a letter of intent (by whatever name called) has been issued by the State Government to grant a mining lease, before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, the mining lease shall be granted subject to fulfilment of the conditions of the previous approval or of the letter of intent within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the said Act: Provided that in respect of any mineral specified in the First Schedule, no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted under clause (b) of this subsection except with the previous approval of the Central Government.” THE MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1960. “27. Conditions :- (1) xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx (3) xx xx xx (4) xx xx xx (5) If the lessee makes any default in the payment of royalty as required under section 9 or payment of dead rent as required under section 9A or commits a breach of any of the conditions specified in sub-rules (1), (2) and (3), except the condition referred to in clause (f) of sub-rule (1), the State Government shall give notice to the lessee requiring him to pay the royalty or dead rent or remedy the breach, as the case may be, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the notice and if the royalty or dead rent is not paid or the breach is not remedied within the said period, the State Government may, without prejudice to any other proceedings that may be taken against him, determine the lease and forfeit the whole or part of the security deposit.” THE MINERALS (OTHER THAN ATOMIC AND HYDRO CARBONS ENERGY MINERALS) CONCESSION RULES, 2016. “8. Rights under the provisions of clause (c)of sub-section (2) of section 10A – (1) xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx (3) xx xx xx (4) Where an order for grant of mining lease has been issued under sub-rule (2), the mining lease shall be executed with the applicant in the formant specified in Schedule VII and registered on or before 11th January, 2017, failing which the right of such an applicant under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 10A for grant of a mining lease shall be forfeited and in such cases, it would not be mandatory for the State Government to issue any order in this regard. 12. Terms and conditions of a mining lease – (1) Every mining lease shall be subject to the following conditions. (a) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (c) the lessee shall commence mining operations within two years from the date of execution of the lease deed and shall thereafter conduct such operations in a proper skilful and workman like manner; Explanation.-For the purpose of this clause, mining operations shall include the erection of machinery, laying of a tramway or construction of a road or any other operation undertaken for the purpose of winning of minerals; “55. Repeal and saving.- (1) On the commencement of these rules, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 shall cease to be in force with respect to all minerals for which the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2015 are applicable, except as regards things, done or omitted to be done before such commencement. (2) On the commencement of these rules, with respect to the minerals to which these rules apply, any reference to the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 in the rules made under the Act or any other document shall be deemed to be replaced with Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2015, to the extent it is not repugnant to the context thereof.” 9. From the plain reading of proviso to Section 10A(2) of the Act 1957, as inserted by Act 10 of 2015 with effect from 12.01.2015, it is clear that the restriction regarding grant of prospecting licence of mining lease with the previous approval of the Central Government is only with regard to cases covered under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 10A of the Act and not with regard to those leases covered by clause (c). It is not the case of any of the parties that the present case is covered by clause (b). The parties admit that the present case of the petitioner company would be covered by clause (c). According to the petitioner company, the previous approval of the Central Government was already granted on 07.01.1999. The letter of intent was also granted by the State Government in favour of the petitioner company for the entire area on 08.02.1999 and the same was accepted by the petitioner company on 15.02.1999. Both these dates are prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2015. It is also noteworthy (and not disputed by the parties) that on 17.03.1999 the State Government had issued the order for grant of mining lease for iron ore over the entire area of 1519.980 hectares. As such, the mining lease in the case of the petitioner company should be granted within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, 2015 (which is 12.01.2015), subject to the fulfilment of the conditions by the petitioner company. This fact is not disputed by the parties. 10. As such, the mining lease in the case of the petitioner company should be granted within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, 2015 (which is 12.01.2015), subject to the fulfilment of the conditions by the petitioner company. This fact is not disputed by the parties. 10. Rule 55 of the Rules, 2016 clearly specifies that on the commencement of these Rules with effect from 04.03.2016, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 shall cease to be in force with respect to all minerals for which the minerals under the said Rules are applicable. As such, the conditions laid down with regard to grant of license under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 would no longer be applicable, as the case of the petitioner company is to be now considered under the Rules, 2016 and not the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. 11. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 of the Rules, 2016 clearly specifies that where an order for grant of mining lease has been issued under Sub-rule (2), the mining lease shall be executed with the applicant (the petitioner company herein) in the specified format and registered on or before 11th January, 2017. Thus, delay on the part of the opposite parties, either in the grant of mining lease or execution of lease deed, would adversely affect the interest of the petitioner company. As we have already noticed, the State Government had vide order dated 17.03.1999 granted the mining lease for the entire area of 1519.980 hectares, which was, after the judgment of the Supreme Court on 06.03.2013, reconsidered by the State Government in terms of the show cause notice dated 06.02.2007 issued by the State Government and on 06.06.2015 the State Government had, in terms of Supreme Court’s direction, recommended a reduced area of 475.457 hectares, which was accepted by the petitioner company on 26.11.2015. The grant of mining lease was already in existence for the larger area and the State Government does not dispute that the lease stood granted for the reduced area on 06.06.2015. The question at present is not for grant of mining lease or execution of mining lease for the entire area, but it is only with regard to execution of mining lease in respect of the reduced area, as has been already accepted by the petitioner company. The question at present is not for grant of mining lease or execution of mining lease for the entire area, but it is only with regard to execution of mining lease in respect of the reduced area, as has been already accepted by the petitioner company. As we have discussed herein above, the question of consideration of the execution of lease with regard to the reduced area is after the amendment in the Act, 1957 by Act 10 of 2015 with effect from 12.01.2015, and after such amendment, the prior approval of the Central Government is not required. 12. Section 5(1) proviso clearly specifies that previous approval of the State Government would be required to be taken only in respect of minerals specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule of the Act of 1957. The Part A of the said schedule deals with Hydrocarbons/Energy Minerals and Part B deals with Atomic Minerals. The case of the petitioners falls in Part C, as it relates to iron ore, which is specified at Sl. No.6 of Part C. As such, in the case of iron ore, the prior approval of the Central Government cannot be said to be necessary. 13. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the apex Court in M/s Hind Stone (supra) by Mr. B. Nayak, learned Central Government Counsel to the extent that the lease has to be granted according to the Rules in force on the date of application made by the petitioner company. However, it has been held by the said judgment as follows: “In the absence of any vested rights in anyone, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the masking of the application.” The ratio of the said judgment is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner company and has no assistance to the contention raised by the learned Central Government Counsel. The reason being, by granting a larger area a vested right has already accrued in favour of the petitioner company. That vested right cannot be divested, the area being reduced subsequently. As such, the Rules of 2016, in force on the date of disposal of the application, would be applicable to the present context. The reason being, by granting a larger area a vested right has already accrued in favour of the petitioner company. That vested right cannot be divested, the area being reduced subsequently. As such, the Rules of 2016, in force on the date of disposal of the application, would be applicable to the present context. Consequentially, the Amended Act, 1957 read with the Rules, 2016 would be fully applicable to the present context. In view of the applicability of the said Act and Rules, there is no need of prior approval of the Central Government for the reduced area. 14. In so far as the case of M/s K.P. Granite Industries (supra) is concerned, where the question of giving reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing the order of cancellation of mining lease was under consideration by this Court, factually the said case is not applicable to the present context. While considering the same, this Court held that opportunity has to be given to the petitioner therein before cancellation of the lease. Therefore, the ratio of the said judgment has no application to the present context, as the case at hand is not a case of cancellation of lease. 15. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (supra) with regard to jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 in exercise of power to issue writ of mandamus. He has specifically referred to paragraph 20 of the said judgment, which reads thus: “There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.” The proposition of law, so far as jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 for issuance of writ of mandamus is concerned, no longer remains res integra, as the same has been dealt with from time to time by the apex Court in various judgments. 16. In Tewari v. Dt. Board, AIR 1964 SC 1680 , the apex Court held that where a statutory authority acted in breach of mandatory obligation imposed by the statute, in that case the Court can compel the said authority to proceed according to law. 17. In Ram Chand v. Union of India, (1994) 1 SCC 44 , the apex Court held that statutory authority has a duty to perform statutory duty within a reasonable time. 18. In R. v. IRC exparte Preston, (1985) 2 All ER 327 it was held that delay in exercising statutory power may throw doubt on the motive of the decision maker to exercise a power or its reasonableness. 19. In Punjab Electricity Board v. Zora Singh, AIR 2006 SC 182, the apex Court held to the extent that if no action is taken within a reasonable time and it is proved that the inaction was intended for a purpose not germane for achieving the object, an inference of mala fide can be drawn. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question in favour of the petitioners and hold that after the amendment in the Act, 1957 by Act 10 of 2015 and the coming into force of the Rules, 2016, no approval of the Central Government is required for grant of mining lease with regard to iron ore. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question in favour of the petitioners and hold that after the amendment in the Act, 1957 by Act 10 of 2015 and the coming into force of the Rules, 2016, no approval of the Central Government is required for grant of mining lease with regard to iron ore. As such, the decision to grant mining lease in favour of the petitioner having already been taken by the State Government for reduced area of 475.457 hectares, which has become final, no further approval of the Central Government is required. The queries and clarifications required by the Central Government vide order dated 12.04.2016 are thus quashed, being without any authority as it was in response to the communication of the State Government seeking approval of the Central Government, which was not required in law. The State Government is thus directed to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner company with regard to 475.457 hectares in accordance with law, without waiting for any approval from the Central Government, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is furnished before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Odisha, Department of Steel and Mines. 21. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated. No order as to cost.