SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA .
Bench: RANJAN GOGOI,PRAFULLA C. PANT,A.M. KHANWILKAR
Case number: W.P.(C) No.-000562-000562 / 2009
Diary number: 35856 / 2009
Advocates: PRASHANT BHUSHAN Vs
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A.NOS.259 & 263 IN I.A.NO.259
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.562 OF 2009
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
I.A.NO.259 of 2016 1. This application has been filed by the Karnataka Iron
and Steel Manufacturers Association seeking the following
reliefs:-
a) Allow the instant application and direct
NMDC to restrain from adopting differential
pricing mechanism for the iron ore sold in
the e-auction in the State of Karnataka.
b) Direct the CEC/Monitoring Committee to fix
the floor price of iron ore on realistic
Page 2
2 grounds and to ensure that NMDC does not
take undue advantage of acute shortage of
iron ore availability in the State of
Karnataka.
c) Pass any such further orders/directions
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice.
2. Specifically it is contended on behalf of the
applicant-Association that the NMDC had all along been
fixing the floor price/sale price by adopting PAN India
Uniform pricing. However, since April, 2016 by taking
advantage of an increased demand a differential pricing
policy has been adopted so far as State of Karnataka is
concerned and the identical floor price/sale price that was
prevailing in respect of the States of Chhattisgarh and
Karnataka has been altered and the floor price for Karnataka
has been increased. Hence the prayers made.
3. Comments of the C.E.C. on the prayers made in I.A.
No.259 of 2016 have been called for and received. The stand
of the NMDC and the State of Karnataka has also been
submitted in writing. One M/s. Vedanta Limited, a lessee of a
'B' category mine, has filed an application for permission to
Page 3
3 file reply to I.A. No.259 and has opposed the prayers made
therein.
4. The response of the C.E.C. to the said application filed
by M/s. Vedanta Limited has also been duly received and
considered.
5. By our previous orders passed in the Writ Petition (C)
No.562 of 2009 titled Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. vs.
State of Karnataka & Ors., out of which these miscellaneous
matters/applications have arisen, we had held that the issue
of base price should be left to be decided by the concerned
lessee. This has been affirmed in our final order dated
18.04.2013 disposing of the Writ Petition [paragraph 7(E)]. A
somewhat similar prayer made by the present
applicant-Karnataka Iron and Steel Manufactrurers
Association to tag/fix the base price to the sale price fixed by
the NMDC in a situation where private leaseholders were
artificially hiking their prices, was rejected by this Court on
24.02.2014 in I.A.No.209 with the following order :
“The grievance of the applicants is that
the leaseholders are jacking up the base price
of iron ore and as a result the industrial
consumers of iron ore are suffering a lot of
Page 4
4 prejudice.
We find from the judgment of this Court
in Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of
karnataka and Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 154 that the
lessees have been given the right to fix the base
price.
Hence, we are not inclined to pass any
orders on this application filed by the
applicants.”
6. The above apart, it is the stand of the NMDC before the
Court that the base price/floor price fixed by it has been
determined by market conditions and despite the higher
price in Karnataka than in Chhattisgarh, the cost of landing
in Karnataka is lower than in Chhattisgarh.
7. The C.E.C. in its response has indicated that as NMDC
is working under a special dispensation granted by this
Court, until such dispensation continues it should not be
allowed to resort to dual pricing. While it is correct that the
special dispensation granted to NMDC by this Court cannot
continue in perpetuity and the regulatory measures
prescribed by this Court for other leaseholders must also
apply to NMDC, the working of its leases by NMDC under the
special dispensation, by itself, cannot be a legitimate ground
Page 5
5 for not resorting to a dual price mechanism if the same is
dictated by market forces. There is nothing in the report of
the C.E.C. to indicate otherwise. We, therefore, do not accept
the said part of the recommendation of C.E.C. The issue of
continuity of the special dispensation in favour of NMDC will
be considered in due course.
8. Insofar as the statements made on behalf of M/s.
Vedanta Limited are concerned, all we would like to observe,
at this stage, is that the inability of M/s. Vedanta Limited to
sell the output from its leases, as expressed, could very well
be because of the pricing patterns adopted by it. Inability to
sell on account of higher prices cannot be a ground for export
of the mineral, at least at this stage of developments
pursuant to the final order dated 18.04.2013. Permission for
export must be governed by norms and parameters of general
application as distinguished from ad hoc decisions in
individual cases. Until such guidelines are framed, the prayer
of M/s. Vedanta Limited for export of its iron ore cannot be
granted. So far as issue of framing of guidelines/norms for
exports are concerned, the same will be dealt with separately
at an appropriate time and stage. Consequently and in light
Page 6
6 of the foregoing, I.A. No. 259 is dismissed.
9. Shri Shyam Divan, learned amicus curiae, may at an
appropriate stage, mention the matter so for as the issues
relating to continuance of the special dispensation in favour
of NMDC and norms to govern exports are concerned.
I.A. No.263 IN I.A.NO.259
10. In view of the dismissal of the I.A. No.259 of 2016, no
separate orders will be called for on I.A. No.263 of 2016 and
is dismissed accordingly.
……….....................,J. (RANJAN GOGOI)
……….....................,J. (PRAFULLA C. PANT)
……….....................,J. (A.M. KHANWILKAR)
NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 1, 2016.