The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 1. M/s. Balasore Alloys Limited (Formerly known as Ispat Alloys Limited), a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office and works at Balgopalpur, P.O. Rasulpur, Via-Mitrapur, Balasore, District: Balasore, Orissa- 756020, represented through its President (Finance & Accounts) Sri Ram Gopal Agarwal, S/o-Late Ganpat Ram. …Petitioner -Versus- 1. State of Odisha, represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Steel and Mines, At./P.O.- Bhubaneswar- 751001, Dist.- Khurdha, Odisha. 2. Odisha Mining Corporation Limited, having its registered office At-OMC House, Unit-V, Bhubaneswar-751001 represented by its Managing Director. 3. Director (Operations), Odisha Mining Corporation Limited, At OMC House, Unit-V, Bhubaneswar-751001. Advocates appeared in the case: For the Petitioner : …Opposite Parties Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Senior Advocate Mr. S. P. Mishra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 1 of 25 For Opposite Party No.1 : For Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 : Mr. S. D. Das, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Advocate Smt. Suman Pattanayak, Additional Government Advocate Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Pravat Kumar Muduli, Advocate For Intervener : Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate Ms. Pallavi Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 07.01.2025 Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ. 1. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is one of the pioneer manufacturers of different types of high carbon ferro chrome and has its factory at two places, one at Balgopalpur in the district of Balasore and the other at Sukinda in the district of Jajpur, Odisha. Chromite ore is the main raw material required for the ferro chrome, which is manufactured by the W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 2 of 25 petitioner. The petitioner had applied for mining lease of chromite mines at Kaliapani, which was allowed by the State with the condition, inter alia, that the mineral raised from such mines shall be used by the petitioner purely for captive purposes i.e., the minerals so raised could only be used at the end-use-plant of the petitioner’s company set up in the State of Odisha; whereafter, it was continuing mining operations over the mining lease area since September, 2000, upon obtaining all statutory permits/approvals including Environmental Clearance (‘EC’ in short). 2.
Legal Reasoning
In the background of facts set out in the writ petition, the petitioner is seeking, in the present writ petition, direction to the Odisha Mining Corporation Limited (‘OMCL’, in short) to allocate chrome ore to the petitioner in terms of the Sales Agreement dated 20.04.2022 (Annexure-3) to the writ petition, and to allow the petitioner to participate in the national e-auction for chromite ore in terms of Long Term Linkage (‘LTL’ in short) Policy of minerals for Odisha-based industries through OMC-2022 and 2023. It is the petitioner’s case that to ensure raw materials supply to the industries set up inside the State, the Government of Odisha had formulated a policy for LTL of Iron, Chrome Ore and other minerals through OMC Limited in 2014 (LTL Policy, 2014), which was subsequently amended W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 3 of 25 through Notifications dated 30.04.2015, 18.11.2015 and 10.08.2018. The petitioner being eligible under the said policy had approached for LTL with the OMCL for allocation of chrome ore to both of its plants set up in the district of Jajpur and Balasore as noted above. The petitioner was communicated LTL for a period of five years by the OMCL with an intimation that annual sales quantity allotted in favour of the petitioner was 55091MT of chrome/chrome concentrate. The petitioner was asked to sign LTL sales agreement for the period January, 2020 to December, 2020. An agreement was accordingly executed for LTL of chrome ore. After expiry of the term, the petitioner again applied for execution of its agreement in terms of the LTL Policy in vogue. Pursuant thereto, two “Sales agreement for Chrome Ore” were executed between the petitioner and OMCL for a period of five years from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2027 in respect of the two plants at Sukinda and Balgopalpur. Though the said sales agreements were to remain valid for a period of five years in terms of Clause 16 thereof, it clearly envisaged that if either of the parties desired for any extension, they could request the other party with prior notice in writing of its such intention, at least one month before expiry of the period stipulated in the agreement. W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 4 of 25 2.1. There was, however, a condition in the agreements that the same was on year-to-year basis depending on the performance of the buyer every year and was liable to be extended to the next year at the discretion of OMCL. The said stipulation in the agreements was admittedly in the light of the General Principle of LTL Policy, 2014 which required annual review, based on the performance of the linkage in terms of ‘off take’ trends, plant capacity enhancements, regularity of off take and ability to make payments on time, etc.. 3. It is the petitioner’s contention that the said terms of the agreements are at conflict with each other inasmuch as though the terms/duration of the agreement was agreed to be ‘five years’, the same was on year to year basis subject to extension at the sole discretion of OMCL. Later, the State Government introduced “LTL Policy of Minerals for Odisha Based Industries through Odisha Mining Corporation Limited-2022” (‘LTL Policy, 2022’ in short) in order to meet the practical problems faced in course of implementation of LTL Policy, 2014 and considering increase in raising of minerals by OMCL. 4. One year after the date of execution of the said sale agreements dated 20.04.2022, the same were reviewed by the OMCL and amended sales agreements dated 06.04.2023 were executed with W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 5 of 25 reduced annual sales quantity of 1,44,100MT for the factory at Balgopalpur and 14,300MT for the plant at Sukinda. Other terms of the sales agreements dated 20.04.2022 remained unaltered, valid upto 31.03.2024. It is further case of the petitioner that consequent upon the aforesaid amendment, the petitioner was receiving the chrome ore as agreed till 31.03.2024 and as envisaged under the sales agreements dated 20.04.2022 mandating review of the agreements in respect of annual sales quantity of the petitioner, it submitted an application on 29.02.2024 before the Director, OMCL (O.P. No.3) for LTL allocation for the financial year 2024-25. The petitioner in his LTL allocation application disclosed its monthly requirement to be 13,662MT for Balasore plant and 1,475MT for Sukinda plant. It further mentioned in the application the total annual requirement of both the plants of the petitioner was 40,650 TPA and the underground mines of the petitioner being yet to be functional, only 2,19,997MT of chrome ore was available for the captive mines of the petitioner at Kaliapani mines and as such there was deficit of 1,81,653 TPA. The petitioner accordingly applied for allocation of LTL chrome ore in terms of sales agreements dated 20.04.2022 since it was valid for five years, upto 31.03.2027. Finding no response from the opposite parties, the petitioner again wrote a letter to the OMCL stating that though the petitioner had a W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 6 of 25 captive chrome ore mines at Kaliapani, Jajpur district and had an EC for quantity of 6,00,000 MTPA, but owing to on site problems at mines site, such as severe scarcity of dumping space, delay in start up of underground mining and reaching ultimate pit limit for open cast mining method, the petitioner was unable to meet its captive requirement of 3,50,000 MTPA. In the said communication dated 30.04.2024, the petitioner also mentioned that it had approached the State Government way back in 2016 for immediate allotment of ore from OMC to meet shortfall quantity. The mining operations for captive mines of the petitioner were suspended by the Deputy Director Mines, Jajpur (‘DDM’ in short) vide letter dated 06.06.2022 for want of statutory clearance until further orders and as a result of which, the plants could not run properly. The situation worsened as Tata Power Northern Odisha Distribution Limited disconnected power supply to both the plants of the petitioner for non-payment of dues. The forest clearance was subsequently granted and accordingly the order of suspension of mining was revoked by the DDM, Jajpur by a communication dated 15.02.2024, according to the petitioner. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that in its communication dated 30.04.2024, it had stated that taking all options available with it till expiry of temporary working permit on 02.02.2025, there still W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 7 of 25 remained a gap of 1,81,653 MTPA and accordingly had requested for supply of an earlier allotment of the said amount of chrome ore, and, to allow it to take part in e-auction as usual for uninterrupted operation of its plants. It is the petitioner’s grievance that the opposite parties have not responded to its communication dated 30.04.2024 as regards non- allocation of the chrome ore from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025 nor the petitioner is being allowed to participate in the e-auction for chrome ore, though other similarly situated industries are being permitted to participate in e-auction. The petitioner has grievance against the opposite parties that even if the clause in the sales agreements dated 20.04.2022, to the effect that the same was on year-to-year basis depending on the performance of the buyer every year was to be applied on the ground that the OMCL was not satisfied with the performance of the buyer (petitioner), it was incumbent upon the OMCL to issue notice to the petitioner calling for its explanation or at least bringing to the knowledge of the petitioner about its underperformance. Abrupt stoppage of allocation of chrome ore in terms of the sales agreements in the absence of any notice or intimation and at the same time prohibiting the petitioner from participation in e- auction for procurement of chrome ore is unsustainable, being violative of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner contends. It is also the W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 8 of 25 petitioner’s case that in view of the prevailing policy formulated by the State in its Steel and Mines Department, the petitioner had a legitimate expectation that in the event, there was a shortfall of minerals from its captive mines or for another reason, it would be made available an assured quantity of chrome as agreed. Relying on the General Principle for sustained supply of minerals to State based industries through OMCL as contained in LTL Policy 2022, which according to the petitioner was in vogue on the date of execution of sale agreement, the petitioner asserts that in terms of Part (A), Sub-Clause-(d), in case an end-user industry is unable to produce the mineral in its own lease as per the authorized production capacity due to reasons beyond its control, the Allotment Committee has authority to allow linkage of shortfall quantity by OMC through annual supply agreement to such eligible State-based end-user industries. Further, Part (C) of LTL Policy 2022, which deals with Chromite Ore Linkage stipulates that State-based end-user plants having long-terms linkage can also take part in National e-auction and OMCL is required to endeavour to meet requirements of supply of chromite ore to such industries. This is the factual background in which the writ petition has been filed seeking direction, as has been noted hereinabove. W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 9 of 25 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the OMCL resisting the petitioner’s claim. It has been stated that in order to ensure supply of raw materials to industries set up inside the State, LTL Policy was framed by the State Government by a notification dated 17.09.2014 for supply of iron ore, chrome ore and other minerals to the MoU signed steel plant companies of Odisha through OMCL. The said policy was superseded by the LTL Policy, 2022 dated 16.08.2022. The said LTL Policy was further superseded by LTL Policy, 2023 vide notification dated 21.06.2023, which is in force. 7. The LTL Policy, 2023 provides that the quantity to be assured under LTL will be determined by an Allotment Committee consisting of the Secretary, Steel & Mines Department, Secretary, Industries, Director of Mines, Government of Odisha, MD, IPICOL and MD, OMCL. The said Committee in its meeting held on 07.03.2024, fixed the allotment criteria and decided that allotment be made after deducting the EC Capacity of the end-user own mines. The petitioner has a captive mine at Kaliapani and the quantity permitted in the EC is 6 lakh MT per annum, which is sufficient to meet the requirement of both the plants of the petitioner. After deduction of the quantity mentioned in the EC and taking into consideration the fact that requirement of chrome ore of the petitioner is sufficient from its own W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 10 of 25 captive mines matching the EC capacity, no allotment has been made in favour of the petitioner for the year 2024-25 by the Allotment Committee. If the petitioner, who is having an existing mining lease with all clearances to operate the mines without any hindrance, is allowed to lift the chrome ore under the LTL agreement, then each and every mining leaseholder of the State will claim execution of LTL Sales Agreement and in that process, the main object of grant of mining lease by the State Government for earning revenue will get frustrated. 8. This is how opposite party No.2 has justified its action of non- execution of LTL agreement for the year 2024-25 with the petitioner. Since the petitioner is not an LTL holder for the year 2024-25, it cannot be permitted to participate in the national e-auction. 9. It has been reiterated that the object of the LTL Policy is that where a State based end-user industry after lifting of the LTL quantity falls short of its requirement of ore, in such a case, the State based end- user industry is allowed to participate in the National e-auction process so that the short fall quantity can be made good. In case each and every State based end-user industry is allowed to participate in the National W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 11 of 25 e-auction process, the very aim and object of grant of mining lease will be frustrated. 10. The chrome ore being a scarce commodity, is allotted judiciously and, therefore, those end-users having their own mines of chrome ore are encouraged to produce chrome ores from their own mines to cater to their end use requirements so that other end user industries of the State who are having no captive mines for their captive requirement and in need of chrome ore, can be allotted with the chrome ore. 11. The Board of Directors of OMC in its meeting held on 13.07.2018 had decided not to allow the chrome ore lessees without LTL agreement to participate in the National e-auction for chrome ore and chrome concentrate. 12. It has also been asserted that the two sales agreement for chrome ore for a period of 5 years were signed but with clear stipulation that the said agreement was between the parties on year-to- year basis. Clause 21 of both the sales agreements provide that notwithstanding anything contained in any of the clauses of the sales agreements, the agreements shall be reviewed every year. Accordingly, in consonance with such clause of the sales agreement, the sales W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 12 of 25 contracts were reviewed and fresh sales agreements were executed with the petitioner for the year 2023-24. 13. Further, the order of suspension of mining operation has been revoked by the DDM, Jajpur by an order dated 15.02.2024 and thus, the petitioner is allowed to continue with the mining operation. It has also been stated that the production capacity of the mines at Kaliapani is 5,12,746 MTPA as per the approved mining plan. The production envisages 3,00,107 MTPA from opencast mining. Accordingly, the production capacity of the petitioner is much more than the quantity of minerals required. 14. Responding to the averments made in paragraph 18 of the writ petition that owing to on site problems, the petitioner was unable to meet its captive requirement of 3,50,000 MTPA, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the same is incorrect. The scarcity of dumping space, delay in start-up of underground mining and non-reaching of the ultimate pit limit, cannot be a ground not to continue with the mining operation. The chrome ore production is limited. 14.1. The sum and substance of the stand of the OMCL in its counter affidavit is that as per the declaration dated 04.03.2024 of the petitioner, the existing captive production capacity of its mines is W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 13 of 25 5,12,746 MT per annum which is much more than the annual ore requirement of 4,01,650 MT as per Consent to Operate (CTO) and, accordingly, the Allotment Committee in its meeting held on 07.03.2024 did not allot any quantity for the year 2024-25 in favour of the petitioner. 15. It has also been asserted that since no allotment was decided to be made in favour of the petitioner for the year 2024-25, no LTL agreement was signed for the said period. The petitioner being not an LTL holder for the year 2024-25, cannot be permitted to participate in the National e-auction. 16. A rejoinder has been filed to the counter affidavit, wherein by
Decision
reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, it has been asserted that the reasons assigned by the Allotment Committee for non- allotment of mineral and rejection of the request of the petitioner to participate in e-auction was not communicated to the petitioner. The reasons disclosed in the counter affidavit for denial of allotment of mineral cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi: AIR 1978 SC 851. Various statements have been made in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 14 of 25 concerning the circumstance because of which the petitioner had to face problems for operationalization of the mining lease from the year 2014 because of which the petitioner had decided to enter into some agreement with the OMCL to procure the raw material. Despite the best efforts, the petitioner was unable to produce minerals from its mines and thus, was constrained to close its plants. The petitioner genuinely requires such ore for operationalization of its two plants and it has no other source for procurement. 17. Detailing the circumstance in which the captive mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner is not fully operational because of which it requires supply of the raw materials by the OMCL, it has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit that in terms of the mining plan approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines, chrome production is bifurcated into two parts, namely, opencast mining and underground mining. The opencast mining is further bifurcated with reference to boundary pillars. The boundary pillar mining is not feasible as on date because of various geological and logistical issues. As regards the underground mining, no one in the State of Odisha has been successful to commence and carry out the underground mining. In such circumstance, the petitioner is unable to meet its requirement and satisfy the need for the mineral in its plants, which factual scenario has W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 15 of 25 been ignored by the OMCL and has acted purely on mathematical formula without any reference to legitimate and genuine need of the petitioner. It has been asserted that refusal by the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to participate in the National e-auction for procurement of mineral is akin to blacklisting of the petitioner from participating in e-auction process. Because of lack of raw materials, both the plants of the petitioner have been closed. Mere fact that the petitioner holds a captive mining is not a valid ground for not allotting the ore and debarring the petitioner from participating in e-auction, in the absence of any allocation that the petitioner is selling the said mineral or hoarding the same. 18. An intervention application has been filed vide I.A. No.8784 of 2024 on behalf of M/s. Arrk Ferro Alloys, which is said to have set up a Ferro Chrome plant at Sarua in the district Khurdha wherein, it has been using chrome ore as the raw material. It has no captive mines of chrome ore. It is the case of the intervenor that it is totally dependent upon the OMCL for supply of chrome ore. It is further the case of the intervenor that if the writ petitioner is allowed to lift chrome ore under the LTL agreement by the OMCL and participate in the e-auction for the ore, the plant of the intervenor-petitioner and other plants of the W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 16 of 25 State will be closed down and will suffer irreparable loss as they have no captive mines. 19. We have heard Mr. Pinaki Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. S.P. Misra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Naveen Kumar and Mr. Haripad Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. We have also heard Mrs. Suman Pattanayak, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1, Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties No.2 and 3 and Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Pallavi Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor. 20. Mr. Pinaki Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the refusal by the OMCL to supply minerals to the petitioner and to allow it to participate in the National e-auction is wholly arbitrary. He has submitted that it is true that the petitioner has been granted mining lease of chromite mines at Kaliapani purely for captive purposes, i.e., for use at the two plants of the petitioner’s company set up in the State of Odisha with the EC for W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 17 of 25 raising 6 lakh MTPA, because of various circumstances as mentioned in the writ petition and the rejoinder affidavit, it could not raise adequate amount of mineral from the said mines to cater to the needs of the two plants, which was the reason why the petitioner had to approach the OMCL for supply of raw materials under the LTL Policies, 2014, 2022 and 2023. He has argued that the aforesaid two sales agreements between the petitioner and the OMCL were for a period of 5 years with effect from 01.04.2022. He has further argued that after one year of the sales agreements, the same were reviewed and fresh agreements were entered into on 06.04.2023 for one year. Considering the requirement of the raw materials, the petitioner had again requested for LTL allocation for the Financial Year 2024-25. The opposite parties maintained silence and did not communicate their decision to the petitioner as regards refusal for LTL allocation for the said period. He has argued that the requirement per annum of both the plants of raw material is 4,39,150 MTPA. Since underground mining of the petitioner is yet to be functional, only 2,19,997 of chrome ore can be produced up to 02.02.2025 from the petitioner’s captive mines. There is thus deficit of 2,19,153 MTPA. The denial to allocate LTL on the sole ground that the petitioner has statutory clearance of 6 lakh MTPA and, therefore, cannot participate in the National e-auction, is W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 18 of 25 arbitrary as there has been no objective assessment and considered view of the Allotment Committee of the petitioner’s inability to produce mineral from its mines, the operations of which are critically hit by various logistical factors such as water logging, requirement of underground mining and resources. He has argued that in all the LTL Policies of the State Government, it has been clarified that the State based end-user plants having Long Term Linkage (LTL) can also take part in the National e-auction. It means, he contends that State based end-user plants without LTL or with LTL can take part in the National e-auction. He has argued that in LTL Policy, 2022, there was restriction as well as exemption with respect to approved limit under the EC in a manner that EC limit could be excluded from LTL allotted quantity. It was, however, subject to exemption to the effect that if the entity was unable to achieve the approved limit under the EC due to events beyond its control, the short fall can be made good by way of allotment under LTL. In LTL Policy, 2023, however, the exemption clause has been deleted and thus, all the LTL beneficiaries have been left at the mercy of the OMCL, which can act arbitrarily based on purely mathematical calculations. He argues that deletion of exemption of clause is arbitrary and confers whimsical power on OMCL to deny supply of mineral as per its wishes. He has also submitted that W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 19 of 25 according to the opposite parties, the Allotment Committee in its meeting held on 07.03.2024, had fixed the allotment criteria and had decided and recommended that allotment be made after deducting the EC capacity of the end-user own mines. The said decision, he contends, contradicted LTL Policy, 2023 notified on 21.06.2023, which has no such provision. 21. Refuting the stand that the Board of Directors of OMC in their meeting held on 13.07.2018 had decided not to allow the chrome ore lessees without LTL agreement to participate in the National e-auction for chrome ore and concentrate, Mr. Mishra submits that as per the LTL Policy, 2023, only the Allotment Committee has the jurisdiction to decide the allotment quantity of LTL and the National e-auction. Therefore, he contends that the decision of the Board of Directors of the OMC dated 13.07.2018 has no legal value as on date. 22. Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties No.2 and 3 submitted that the relief which the petitioner is seeking in the present writ petition should not be entertained on the sole ground that it has statutory clearance of around 6,00,000 TPA and has the permission to commence the mining operations and, therefore, it is not eligible under the LTL Policy and W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 20 of 25 consequently, it cannot participate in the national e-auction by opposite party No.2. He has reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had signed two sales agreements for the chrome ore for a period of five years with effect from 01.04.2022 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the agreement between the parties is on year-to- year basis. Clause-21 of both the sales agreements provide that notwithstanding anything contained in any clauses of the sales agreement, the agreement shall be reviewed every year. In consonance with the said Clause of the sales agreements, the sales contracts for the year 2023-24 were reviewed and fresh sales agreements were executed with the petitioner for the year 2023-24. He has argued that the Allotment Committee has not allowed any chrome ore in favour of the petitioner to meet its requirements as it had already captive mining lease with EC capacity of 6,00,000 MT and with production capacity of 5,12,746 MT. He has argued that no case of discrimination is made out in the decision of the Allotment Committee in its proceeding held on 07.03.2024 whereby cases of three mining lease holders were recommended for allotment after deducting the EC capacity of end- user owned mines. Taking into account the fact that the requirement of chrome ore of the petitioner was sufficient from its own captive mines matching EC capacity, no quantity has been allotted in favour of the W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 21 of 25 petitioner for the year 2024-25 by the Allotment Committee. He has reiterated that as no LTL agreement for the year 2024-25 has been executed with the petitioner for the year 2024-25 as was done for the year 2023-24, the petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the national e-auction. 23. Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener has relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in case of Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (1982) 1 SCC 39 with special reference to paragraph-32 thereof. He has submitted that the fundamental right to carry on trade or business guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution has its own limitations. He has further argued that liberty of an individual to do as he pleases is not absolute rather it must yield to the common good. He has submitted that if the persons having captive mining licenses are allowed to participate in national e-auction also, it will adversely affect the rights of such players, who have small plants as well as other plants of the State who have no captive mines will be closed down and will suffer irreparable loss. 24. The foremost question which arises in the present writ petition is as to whether the petitioner which has captive mines of chrome ore W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 22 of 25 with the permitted quantity above the meeting requirements of both the plants of the petitioner can claim by way of height its participation in national e-auction for further allotment of the chrome ore for the purpose of meeting the requirement of the said two plants. The LTL Policy, 2023 clearly provides that the LTL will be determined by the Allotment Committee which has been empowered to determine the allotment criteria, final allocation quantity, tenure and other terms and conditions. The Allotment Committee in its proceeding held on 17.03.2024 has fixed the allotment criteria and it had been decided that the allotment of ore be made after deducting the EC capacity of the end-user owned mines. Whether such criteria fixed by the Allotment Committee can be said to be arbitrary or violative of any legal right of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances noted above, is a question. 25. Chrome ore is a scarce mineral resource. In one of the affidavits filed on behalf of opposite parties No.2 and 3 (reply affidavit to the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner), it has been asserted that the petitioner is in habit of artificially inflating its captive requirement. For the financial year 2022-23, the petitioner had submitted an application on 27.02.2022 for a total quantity of 4,01,650 MT. However, pursuant to the decision of the Allotment Committee, without any objection the petitioner signed the agreement for a total W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 23 of 25 quantity of 2,23,971 for its both the plants. Similarly, for the financial year 2023-24, the petitioner made an application on 28.01.2023 for a total quantity of 3,77,460 MT. But, pursuant to the decision of the Allotment Committee, the petitioner signed the agreements for a total quantity of 1,58,400 MT. In the LTL policy issued on 21.06.2023, procedure for allotment of chrome ore has been prescribed whereunder expression of interest (EoI) is issued by OMC Limited for LTL for eligible State based end-user industries of the State for purchase of chrome ore before commencement of each financial year. Thereafter, interested eligible State based end-user industries submit their respective requirement of ore. The quantity allocation is determined by a committee constituted as per the LTL policy known as the Allotment Committee. The Allotment Committee has been granted the liberty to determine the allotment criteria, final allocation quantity, tenure and other terms and conditions. The applications received pursuant to the EoI are placed before the Allotment Committee for consideration. Considering the recommendations of the Allotment Committee, the OMC executes the sales agreements with the State based end-user agency. The Allotment Committee decided not to recommend the petitioner’s case, taking into consideration the petitioner’s requirement, which was sufficient from its own captive mines matching the EC W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 24 of 25 capacity for the financial year 2024-25. The reasons have been clearly disclosed in the proceeding dated 07.03.2024. 26. In our considered view, the failure on the part of the petitioner to produce the mineral from its captive mines as is being claimed in the writ petition cannot be a ground for this Court to hold the decision of the Allotment Committee arbitrary and therefore, unsustainable. The decision of the allotment committee is in accordance with the LTL Policy 2023. In the facts and circumstances noted above, no interference is required in the present case under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India. 27. This writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed accordingly. 28. All pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice Savitri Ratho, J. I agree. (Savitri Ratho) Judge M. Panda S. Behera S.K. Guin Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Jan-2025 09:35:47 W.P.(C) No.14221 of 2024 Page 25 of 25