BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD v. RAJESH VERMA & Ors.

1.3. The respondents cannot raise a plea to avoid implementation of the directions contained in the judgment. It is significant to note that there is a judgment, inter partes, which has become final. Even when the civil appeal was being heard, certain other parties claiming their interest in these very lands had moved intervention G applications which were dismissed. At that time also it was mentioned that there are 195 applicants. However, notwithstanding the same, this Court issued firm directions to the State Government to recommend the case of the petitior:iers for mining lease in both the areas. H In view of such categorical and unambiguous directions BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. v. RAJ ESH VERMA 497 -giv~!'.I in the judgment which has attained finality, merely A because another judgment has been delivered by this Court in Sandur Manganese case, cannot be a ground to undo the_ directions contained in the judgment dated 14.3.2012. [Para 20 and 24] [512-B-C; 515-C-E] T.R. Dhananjaya vs J. Vasudevan 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 64 = (1995) 5 SCC EM~; Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Others; 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 740 = (2004) 7 SCC 261; Bihar Finance Service H. C. Coop. Soc. Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami and Ors.; (2008) 5 sec 339 - relied on. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore vs State of Karnataka 2010 (11) SCR 240 = (2010) 13 SCC 1 - referred to, B c

1.4. In so far as law laid down in Sandur Manganese is concerned, that may be applied and followed by the D State Government in respect of other applications which are still pending. However, that cannot be pressed into service qua the appellant whose rights have been crystallised by the judgment rendered in its favour. It cannot be 're-opened, that too at the stage of E implementation of the said judgment. [Para 24] [515-E-F]

1.5. Once the respondents are bound to implement the direction contained in judgment dated 14.3.2012, in so far as the State Government is concerned, it is obliged to comply therewith and such matters, alongwith other F relevant considerations, can be left to the wisdom ,of the Central Government while taking a decision on the recommendation of the State Government. [Para 25] [516- B-C]

1.6. This Court, therefore, holds that the respondents/ contemners are in contempt of orders dated 14.3.2012 passed by this Court, in not complying with the directions in respect of Keora area. However, they are given one final · opportunity to purge the contempt by transmitting H G 498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 5 S.C.R. A requisite recommendations to the Central Government. It would be for the Central Government to consider the said recommendations on its own merits and in accordance with law. In case the recommendation is sent within one month, the respondents/ contemners shall stand B discharged from the contempt petition and no further action will be taken. However, in case the respondents do not purge in the manner suggested, it would be open to the petitioners to point out the same to this Court by moving appropriate application and in that event the c contemners shall be proceeded against. [Para 27] [517- 8-E]

#2. In so far as three writ petitions are concerned, they claim on the basis of parity with the appellant. However, on the basis of such a plea, the petitioners in the said D petitions cannot approach this Court directly under Art. 32 of the Constitution by filing writ petitions, as no fundamental right of the petitioners is violated by non granting of mining lease. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the High Court in the first instance E and/ or any other forum which is available, as per law. [Paras 29 and 30] [517-F, G-H; 518-A, C-0]