M/S Balasore Alloys LTD vs. Union Of INDIA

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK AFR W.P(C) NO. 14204 OF 2023 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. --------------- M/s. Balasore Alloys Limited, Balasore & Anr. ..… Petitioners -Versus- Union of India & Ors. ….. Opp. Parties For petitioners : Mr. N. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Mr.S. P.Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Pami Rath,Sr. Advocate, Mr. N. Kumar, Sr. Advocate along with M/s. S. Mishra, R.K. Agrawal, M. Mishra, G.N. Parida & O. Panda, Advocates For opp. parties : Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGY along with Mr. S.S. Kashyap, CGC [O.P.1] Mr. A.K. Parija, Advocate General, Odisha, along with Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA, [O.Ps.2-5] P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R.SARANGI AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN // 2 // Date of Hearing: 30.10.2023:: Date of Judgment: 03.11.2023 DR. B.R. SARANGI, ACJ. Petitioner no.1-M/s. Balasore Alloys Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, represented through petitioner no.2, who is a shareholder of petitioner no.1-company, has filed this writ petition seeking following prayers:- “a) Allow the present Writ Petition and pass an appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order directing the Opposite Party No. 1 to expeditiously grant the formal letter of Stage-II Forest Clearance to the Petitioner in respect of the Subject Mineral Block over an area of 64.463 ha. situated in Kaliapani Village in Sukinda Tehsil of Jajpur District in the State of Odisha in a time-bound manner within a period of 3 months, in view of the fact that the Petitioner has already complied with all the essential and necessary conditions of Stage-I Forest Clearance; And/Or b) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order directing the Respondent No. 2 to grant permission to the Petitioner Company to resume its mining operations in the Subject Mineral Block over an area of 64.463 ha. situated in Kaliapani Village in Sukinda Tehsil of Jajpur District in the State of Odisha in view of the fact that the Petitioner has paid NPV and has also substantially complied with all the requirements of Stage-I Clearance and only formal approval letter is awaited for issuance of Stage-II Forest Clearance; And/Or c) Pass an appropriate writ, orders or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the State Govt. of Odisha not to deny the required and necessary transit passes/permit to the Petitioner Company for removal/transportation of minerals from the Subject Mineral Block to the Petitioner No. 1: And/Or // 3 // d) Pass any other further orders/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present set of facts and circumstances.” 2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (for short “TISCO”) is the original holder of the subject mineral block over an area of 64.463 hectares, which is a part of larger area of Sukinda Chrome Valley, from the year 1953 till 1993. It had applied to the Raja of Sukinda Block, Odisha for grant of a prospecting licence and the same was granted in the year 1952. Thereafter, on 22.10.1952, TISCO was granted a mining lease over an area of 1813 hectares for mining of Chromite, which was renewed for a period up to 1993 over reduced area of 1261.476 hectares. 2.1. Pursuant to the judgment dated 23.07.1996 of the Supreme Court of India in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., (1996) 9 SCC 709, a part of the Sukinda Chromite Block was retrenched from TISCO and was granted to other Chrome-based Industries, one of which is the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company was granted mining lease over an // 4 // area of 100.063 hectares, which consists of 64.463 hectares non-forest land and 35.600 hectares forest land for which terms and conditions were issued, vide letter dated 24.05.1999, and it was accepted instantly by the petitioner-company on 25.05.1999. 2.2. The petitioner-company, vide letter dated 03.12.1999, requested for splitting of the mining lease area into two parts, i.e., 64.463 hectares of non-forest area and 35.600 hectares of forest land. In pursuance of the request letter, the ML area granted to the petitioner- company was splitted into two blocks i.e. 64.463 hectares of non-forest block and 35.600 hectares of forest block, vide order dated 16.02.2000 issued by the State, and petitioner-company was requested to furnish two separate mining plans with due approval of IBM. Accordingly, the subject mineral block consisting of 64.463 hectares non-forest land was granted to petitioner-company and a lease deed was executed on 15.07.2000. After having obtained all the required clearances, petitioner-company commenced with the mining operations from September, 2000. The said // 5 // mining lease was granted as captive mining lease and the minerals produced from the subject mineral block are entirely consumed in the two captive ferro chrome plants of petitioner-company, of which one is situated at Balasore, having a capacity of 145000 TPA (Ton Per Annum) with an investment of Rs.615 crores with 2000 employees working, and the other at Sukinda, having a capacity of 15660 TPA with an investment of Rs.31 crores with 250 employees working. Throughout the mining operations, the subject mineral block was treated as a non-forest area, right from the beginning, i.e., from September, 2000 till 2015. The State Government, Central Government, IBM, MoEF & CC and all other concerned entities accepted the position that the subject mineral block consisted entirely of non- forest area. 2.3. For the first time in the year 2014, the MoEF & CC, vide its letters dated 19.02.2014 and 07.05.2014, was of the view that the change of kisam of land from forest (in the sabik records) to non-forest land (in Hal settlement) after 25.10.1980 would require prior // 6 // approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short “F.C. Act”), in view of judgment dated 12.12.1996 of the apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (W.P.(Civil) No.202 of 1995). 2.4. Petitioner-company assailed the said letters dated 19.02.2014 and 07.05.2014 before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 25350 of 2014. When the matter was sub-judice before this Court, the MoEF & CC issued further guidelines on 10.03.2015, wherein the MoEF & CC held that prior approval of the Central Govt. shall be required under the F.C Act for areas falling in the mining leases, which were or are recorded as ‘forest' in the Government record on or after the day the F.C. Act came into force, i.e., on or after 25.10.1980. But, it was directed that the mining operations would be allowed to continue in already broken up area of all such lands for a period of one (1) year from the date of issuance of the guidelines, i.e. up to 09.03.2016. // 7 // 2.5. In adherence to the guidelines issued by the MoEF & CC, the Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Odisha issued directions to the Divisional Forest Officers (for short “DFO”), vide notification dated 30.03.2015, to inter alia take follow-up actions, pursuant to the Guidelines dated 10.03.2015 and to verify the position of the broken-up area and instruct the lease holders to ensure compliance of the said Guidelines. As a consequence thereof, the DFO, Cuttack, vide his letter dated 09.04.2015, intimated the petitioner-company that non-forestry activities may only continue till 09.03.2016, as per the MoEF & CC’s guidelines, and the petitioner-company was advised to approach the MoEF & CC seeking diversion of the area as per the provisions of the F.C. Act. 2.6. In view of the guidelines of MoEF & CC dated 10.03.2015 and the notification of the Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Odisha dated 30.03.2015, the petitioner-company withdrew W.P.(C) No.25350 of 2014 on 15.04.2015 with liberty to approach this Court, if any future action of any or all // 8 // the opposite parties so demands. After withdrawal of the said writ petition, petitioner-company started the process for obtaining the forest clearance and accordingly, vide its letter dated 18.05.2015, approached the DFO, Cuttack seeking appropriate direction for allotment of non-forest land for the purpose of compensatory afforestation, which is a mandatory pre-requisite for prior approval of diversion proposal under Section 2 of the F.C. Act. Pursuant to said letter, the DFO, Cuttack, vide letter dated 19.05.2015, issued a demand for Net Present Value (for short “NPV”) to the tune of Rs.4,68,06,870/-, which was to be deposited in the Compensatory Afforestation Funds Management and Planning Authority (for short “CAMPA") fund. On the request of petitioner-company, the DFO, Cuttack, vide letter dated 28.05.2015, informed the Collector, Jajpur, Odisha that the petitioner-company had applied for providing non-forest land for raising compensatory afforestation over an area of 64.119 hectares and the DFO requested the Collector, Jajpur to allocate the non- // 9 // forest land for the purpose of Compensatory Afforestation. 2.7. Petitioner-company, vide its letter dated 27.07.2015, again approached the Collector and District Magistrate, Jajpur, seeking allotment of non-forest land over 64.119 hectares for the purpose of compensatory afforestation. Petitioner-company again requested for allotment of compensatory afforestation land so that it could expedite the process of filing of forest diversion proposal, vide another letter dated 27.07.2015. Petitioner-company had made a detailed representation to the Deputy Director of Mines, Jajpur, requesting that the joint survey of the mining lease area could be conducted so that DGPS survey is completed, which is another mandatory pre-condition for applying for the forest diversion proposal. 2.8 In response to the application of petitioner- company, the Deputy Collector, Revenue Collectorate, Jajpur, vide letter dated 05.08.2015, requested the Tahasildar, Darpan/Dharmasala to identify the area of // 10 // 64.119 hectares of Government non-forest land under his jurisdiction in lieu of forest land to be diverted for the mining lease. Petitioner-company had also deposited an amount of Rs.4,68,06,870/- as NPV and informed the same, vide its letter dated 21.09.2015, to the DFO. On 30.10.2015, the Tahasildar, Sukinda sent to petitioner-company the certificate of the land schedule dated 29.10.2015 in respect of the Kaliapani Chromite Mines having an area of 64.463 hectares. Having completed the mandatory pre-requirements for applying the forest diversion proposal, petitioner-company submitted an online proposal dated 01.01.2016 seeking prior approval of the Central Govt. under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act and, thereafter, an online application dated 06.01.2016 was submitted with regard to details of land identified for compensatory afforestation. Since the forest diversion proposal, its preparation, ancillary requirements and processing took multiple processes by different agencies at district level, State level and Central Govt. level and it was an inherently lengthy, cumbersome, complex and time // 11 // consuming process, petitioner-company, vide its letter dated 21.01.2016, requested the Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Odisha seeking extension of 1 (one) year from the time granted, which was due to expire on 09.03.2016. Petitioner- company therein listed out all the steps taken for obtaining required approval and then requested for extension of the time limit in the light of the delay by the various Government agencies, whom petitioner- company had been vigorously pursuing to ensure an early completion of the Forest Diversion Proposal. 2.9. The apex Court in Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, [I.A Nos.204 & 219, 223 & 224 in WP. (C) 562 of 2009], vide its order dated 01.09.2014, recognised that even if all the processes are completed timely by a lessee, the process for obtaining Stage I and Stage II approval takes almost two and a half years. The letter dated 08.09.2014 from the Forest and Environment Department, Government of Odisha to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Odisha goes to show that the Government of Odisha // 12 // was well aware of this order of the apex Court and the amount of time it would take to process both Stage I and Stage II approvals under the F.C. Act. Request of the petitioner-company was forwarded by the DFO, Cuttack to Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Angul, which was further forwarded to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Odisha and, ultimately, it was forwarded to the MoEF & CC. While the process on the Forest Diversion Proposal was in advance stage, petitioner-company and other similarly situated lease holders received letter dated 22.02.2016 from DDM, Jajpur Road directing them to stop raising and transportation of minerals w.e.f. 10.03.2016 inasmuch as the time granted by the Guidelines dated 10.03.2015 was due to expire on 09.03.2016. Challenging the said letter issued by the DDM, Jajpur Road suspending mining operations, petitioner-company and other similarly situated lease holders filed writ petitions. The writ petition of the petitioner-company was numbered as W.P. (C) No. 4157 of 2016. On 04.03.2016, this Court // 13 // passed an interim order granting status quo with regard to operations of the mines. 2.10 The State Govt., vide its letter dated 29.06.2016, forwarded the forest diversion proposal of the petitioner-company to MoEF & CC. In the said letter, the State Govt. had clearly recorded that the area was treated as non-forest area right from the beginning till the issuance of the Guidelines dated 10.03.2015. The State Govt. and all other concerned agencies have always regarded the subject area as non-forest. The position was changed only in view of the Guidelines issued by the MoEF & CC in the year 2015. The State Govt. also recorded that there is no violation on account of the petitioner-company in the present area. 2.11 The Forest Advisory Committee (for short ”FAC") considered the forest diversion proposal of the petitioner-company and recommended the proposal for clearance under the F.C Act with certain guidelines. The State Govt. and the petitioner-company have always maintained that there has been no violation of the F.C. // 14 // Act by the petitioner-company in respect of the subject mining block and accordingly, the petitioner-company protested some of the observations made by the FAC, vide its letter dated 07.10.2016. The said letter was duly forwarded by the State Govt. to the MoEF & CC inter alia accepting the position that there is no violation by the petitioner-company and accordingly, the FAC was requested to review its observations with regard to alleged violations of the F.C. Act. Pursuant to the recommendations made by the FAC, the MoEF & CC granted Stage-I forest clearance to the petitioner- company, vide letter dated 18.11.2016 stipulating as many as 32 conditions, which were to be complied by the petitioner-company. The request of the petitioner- company seeking review of the observations made by the FAC with regard to the alleged violations by the petitioner-company was reconsidered by the FAC and the FAC, vide its Agenda No. 5, bearing File No. 8- 14/2016-FC dated 25.04.2017, accepted the request of the petitioner-company and agreed to constitute a high power committee to decide the policy framework and // 15 // quantum of penalty to be imposed in case of unavoidable violations of provisions of the F.C Act. The FAC further held that the quantum of penalty shall be imposed on the petitioner-company as per the recommendations of the committee so constituted by the FAC. 2.12. The MoEF & CC, vide its letter dated 25.07.2017, issued a modified Stage-I Forest Clearance replacing two conditions stipulated in earlier Stage-I clearance dated 18.11.2016 with regard to alleged violations and it was stipulated in the said letter that the further action will be taken on the issue of the alleged violations only after the receipt of the recommendations of the committee. On 26.10.2017, the committee rendered its final recommendations holding that where the forest land has been changed to non- forest land in Govt. records, as it was done in the present case, no penalty shall be imposed if the violation is not attributable to user agency. Later on, vide Guidelines dated 29.01.2018, the said recommendations were issued by MOEF & CC. // 16 // 2.13. Petitioner-company was constrained to stop mining operations by virtue of order dated 20.05.2022 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4157 of 2016, wherein the interim order dated 04.03.2016 passed by this Court was not extended, by which, as an interim measure, petitioner-company was allowed to carry out mining operations and the said writ petition was disposed of as infructuous, vide order dated 12.09.2022. The apex Court, vide order dated 06.06.2022 in SLP (C) No. 10237 of 2022 declined to interfere with the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4157 of 2016. The interim order dated 04.03.2016 was extended from time to time. However, due to inadvertence on the part of the Advocate of petitioner-company, there was no express order to extend the interim order after 17.12.2019. At the same time, on 20.05.2022, there was no order expressing to vacate or discontinue the order dated 04.03.2016. The State Govt. was also under belief that the interim order dated 04.03.2016 continued to operate inasmuch as prior to 06.06.2022, the State Govt. // 17 // allowed the petitioner to continue its mining operations. Thereafter, a letter dated 06.06.2022 was issued by the Deputy Director of Mines, Jajpur to petitioner-company suspending the mining operations in the subject mineral block due to want of statutory clearance. The position of petitioner-company, since the mining operation was suspended on 06.06.2022, has further developed, inasmuch as, at the time when the order dated 20.05.2022 was passed in W.P. (C)) No. 4157 of 2016 read with the order dated 06.06.2022 in SLP (C) bearing No. 10237 of 2022, there was one condition of Stage I Forest Clearance which was pending for compliance, i.e., the transfer and mutation of land in favour of the Forest Department for compensatory afforestation. But, all the conditions had been complied with and only the formal letter of Stage II Forest Clearance was awaited. Petitioner-company has fully complied with all the conditions stipulated by the MoEF & CC, while granting Stage-I Forest Clearance, and in total the petitioner-company has made payment of Rs.17,39,88,515/- for obtaining the required forest // 18 // clearances. It also obtained all the required statutory clearances, approvals, permissions for resuming the mining operations. It has also made huge investments for restarting its plant, which was closed due to shortage of raw materials, and consecutive operational losses. Now the petitioner has started its operations with great difficulty and is unable to sustain its operations in the absence of source of raw material, i.e. Chromite Ore. It also made huge payments including Rs.69,09,20,000/- to the TP Northern Odisha Distribution Limited Company since 23.09.2022 for the purpose of restarting its plant which was lying non- operational due to shortage of raw material. 2.14. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Nodal Govt. of Odisha, vide letter dated 08.12.2022, reported to the MoEF & CC that petitioner-company has fully complied with all the conditions imposed by the MoEF & CC while granting Stage I clearance. After providing a detailed list of point-wise compliances, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Odisha recommended that in view of the compliance of the // 19 // conditions by the petitioner-company, the MoEF & CC may grant final approval under Section 2 of the F.C. Act for diversion of forest land in the subject mineral block. The authorities have been delaying the process of granting formal approval, which is evident from the letters dated 14.01.2023, 16.02.2023, 21.02.2023 and 20.03.2023 despite clear and unequivocal recommendation by the State Government vide letter dated 08.12.2022. In terms of the CEC’s report dated 26.04.2010 submitted to the apex Court in I.A. No.2746-2748 in W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995, the NPV was to be for the entire forest falling within the mining lease and it had to be deposited in the Compensatory Afforestation Fund as a condition for permitting mining in forest land. 2.15. The petitioner-company having complied with all the conditions stipulated by the MoEF & CC and having paid the NPV, it was advised to approach the Forest Bench of the apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra), wherein the apex Court allowed continuation/resumption of mining operations in // 20 // already broken up area subject to payment of NPV and compliance of other conditions. Accordingly, on 28.01.2023, petitioner-company filed I.A. No.21531 of 2023 and I.A. No.21636 of 2023 before the Forest Bench of the apex Court. On 15.03.2023, the apex Court issued notice in the aforesaid I.A. and directed the opposite parties to file their response, but no response was forthcoming nor was the same filed by the opposite parties. 2.16. The apex Court, vide order dated 19.04.2023 passed in I.A. No.21531 of 2023 and I.A. No.21636 of 2023 filed in W.P.(Civil) No.202 of 1995, granted liberty to the petitioner-company to approach this Court. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr. N. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. N. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the apex Court, vide order dated 19.042023, granted liberty // 21 // to the petitioner-company to approach this Court. It is further contended that the petitioner-company has fully complied with all the 32 conditions of Stage-I forest clearance and is entitled to be granted formal Stage-II forest clearance expeditiously and in a time-bound manner inasmuch as it has already complied with all the requisite conditions of the Stage-I forest clearance. It is further contended that the petitioner-company, having deposited the NVP, payment of compensatory afforestation and other levies, there is no impediment on the part of the Central Government to grant Stage-II forest clearance. Non-grant of forest clearance is an arbitrary action of the authority. It is further contended that the subject mineral bearing area consists of large stretch of already broken up area and the petitioner- company was allowed to continue its mining operations in the said broken up area. Since the petitioner- company has fully and substantially complied with the requirements of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, it may be allowed to conduct its mining operations till its application is being processed by MoEF & CC for // 22 // issuance of the formal Stage-II forest clearance. It is further contended that 61.968 hectares out of the total 64.463 hectares is already broken up, as per IBM approved mining plan and worked upon area and, therefore, keeping the same into consideration, the petitioner-company ought to be permitted to resume the mining operations in such worked upon and broken up area till the grant of formal letter of Stage-II forest clearance. It is further contended that the petitioner- company has excavated and stored different grades of Chromite Ore, i.e., approximately 40,000/- MT, which is evident from the closing balance of the month of May, 2022, as per statutory returns filed with IBM. Therefore, it may be allowed to transport and dispose of the said legally excavated minerals for use in its captive plant. It is further contended that the petitioner-company has large number of employees in its plant and mines, who are entirely dependent on the operation of the said plant and the mines for their livelihood. Unless the permission for resumption and to remove and dispatch mineral intended to be used in the Ferro Chrome Plants // 23 // is granted, the employees engaged and employed by the petitioner-company will be heavily prejudiced. It is further contended that the State Government would receive huge amount of revenue in terms of royalty, District Mineral Fund and State GST in case the petitioner-company is allowed to resume its mining operations. As such, it has already made a total payment of approximate Rs.17,39,88,515 for obtaining the required forest clearance. But inaction on the part of the MoEF & CC causes immense difficulties for survival of the industry. It is further contended that in cases where the mining operations were closed due to expiry of lease or due to expiry of statutory clearances, this Court as well as the apex Court has allowed transportation of minerals taking into account the legislative policy enshrined under Rule 12(1)(gg) of the MCR 2016, even where mining operations were closed due to expiry of the mining lease or due to any other reason. It is further contended that as per Rule 12(1)(gg) of the MCR 2016, the lessee may after paying rents, rates and royalties payable under the Act and Rules // 24 // made thereunder or under lease deed, at the expiry or sooner termination of the lease term or within six calendar months thereafter (unless the lease is terminated for default of the lessee, and in that case at any time not less than three calendar months nor more than six calendar months after such termination) take down and remove for its own benefit, all or any ore mineral excavated during the currency of the lease, engines, machinery, plant, buildings structures, tramways, railways and other works, erections and conveniences which may have been erected, set up or placed by the lessee in or upon the leased lands and which the lessee is not bound to deliver to the State Government or which the State Government does not desire to purchase. To substantiate their contentions, reliance has been placed on Chowgule and Company Private Limited v. Goa Foundation and Others, (2020) 12 SCC 56. 4. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India along with Mr. S.S. Kashyap, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for opposite // 25 // party no.1 vehemently urged before this Court that the State Government, vide letter dated 08.12.2022 submitted the compliance report vis-à-vis conditions stipulated in Stage-I approval dated 18.11.2016 read with letter dated 25.07.2017, after elapse of six years. But, this opposite party after examination of the compliance report, sought clarification from the State Government, vide letter dated 14.01.2023, as the said report was not complete. It is further contended that the compliance report vis-à-vis Stage I approval dated 18.11.2016 was received from the State Government after a lapse of six years. Sub-rule (2) of Rule-8 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003 provides certain requirements to be followed and the same having not been done so, no action has been taken from the side of MoEF & CC. It is further contended that the State Government reiterated that the mining operations were running up to 06.06.2022 without a valid approval under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Therefore, the penalties, as prescribed in the conditions of approval, are required to be realized by the State and intimated to // 26 // the MoEF & CC for further necessary action in the matter. Therefore, the MoEF & CC requested the State Government to furnish the requisite information, vide letter dated 20.03.2023 and the reply of the same is awaited. It is further contended that the role of the Central Government is limited, but that has to be in consonance with the provisions of the Act and Rules and more particularly, the State Government has to make compliance so as to extend the benefit to the petitioner-company. The same having not been done so by the State Government till now, the Central Government is not able to take necessary steps for grant of Stage II forest clearance nor grant any permission to the petitioner-company to go on mining operations over the broken up area. 5. Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Advocate General of Odisha along with Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that the Government of India, Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change will take into consideration of the matter after careful // 27 // examination for approval of Stage II under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Moreover, the calculation of value of penal NPV is in process of calculation on the basis of evaluation of quantity of excavated mining material done in violation to the said Act by the petitioner-company. No non-forest activity can be permitted unless final approval granted by the Govt. of India, MoEF & CC as per order dated 06.06.2022 of the apex Court that “under the guise of the order of status quo, the petitioner, who is not having the Forest Clearance cannot be permitted to excavate and/or continue the mining activities”. It is further contended that the excavated stock of minerals were produced without forest clearance by the petitioner-company. Till now the petitioner-company has not obtained forest clearance from MoEF and CC. Therefore, the contentions raised that the petitioner-company to remove and dispatch those excavated materials in absence of forest clearance is not permissible in view of the provisions of F.C. Act, 1980 and the aforesaid order of the apex Court. It is further contended that the plea // 28 // taken by the petitioner-company that continuation/resumption of mining operations by some of the lease holders without having forest clearance is not a fact. It is further contended that in the order of the apex Court, not only the payment of NPV or Compensatory Afforestation are important, but also satisfactory compliances of all the conditions/observations raised by the authorities, prior to Stage II approval are equally important for final approval of diversion of the forest land for non-forest uses, i.e. forest clearances. In the instant case, the payment of penal NPV by the petitioner-company is still outstanding as observed by the MoEF & CC and under process. It is further contended that in the order dated 06.06.2022, the apex Court clearly observed that “under the guise of the order of status quo, the petitioner, who is not having the Forest Clearance cannot be permitted to excavate and/or continue the mining activities”. Therefore, without Stage II clearance, the petitioner- company is not entitled to operate the mines as well as removal of ore. It is further contended that the // 29 // petitioner has not complied with the conditions of payments of penal NPV, and still in process of representation to MoEF & CC to consider for exemption and any mining activities without forest clearance will violate the aforesaid ruling of the apex Court and the provisions of the F.C. Act, 1980. Thereby, it is contended that unless the petitioner-company complies with the statutory requirements, it cannot be granted permission either to operate the broken up area or to go for mining. 6. This Court heard Mr. N. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. N. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India along with Mr. S.S. Kashyap, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 and Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Advocate General of Odisha along with Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite // 30 // parties in hybrid mode. The pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the factual matrix of the case, as mentioned above. It is the admitted fact that after granting Stage I forest clearance, Stage II forest clearance from the forest authorities is pending and, as such, the conditions stipulated to be complied with and the same has already been done except to which has got relaxation, as has been pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Therefore, there is no impediment on the part of the Central Government to grant Stage II clearance for mining operation. 8. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court passed an order on 15.05.2023 to the following effect: “This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. // 31 // 2. Heard Mr. Pinaki Mishra, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Nabin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for opposite party no.1 and Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate along with Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Advocate General of Odisha appearing for the State-opposite parties no.2 to 4. 3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite party no.1 to grant the formal letter of Stage-II Forest Clearance to the petitioner-company in respect of the Subject Mineral Block over an area of 64.463 ha. situated in Kaliapani village under Sukinda Tahsil of Jajpur district in the State of Odisha in a time-bound manner within a period of three months, as the petitioner-company has already complied with all the essential and necessary conditions of Sage-I Forest Clearance. 4. Mr. Pinaki Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that in a similar case, i.e. Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India), the petitioner therein filed I.A. Nos.168479 and 168463 of 2021 and the apex Court, vide order dated 02.05.2022, issued direction to the following effect: “Subject to the compliance of other conditions to be imposed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate change and payment of Rs.6,15,81,436/-, the State government is directed to pass suitable orders for diversion of 54.668 ha. of forest land for non- forestry use.” It is further contended that the petitioner in the aforesaid case also filed I.A. No.21531 of 2023 and the apex Court, vide order dated 19.04.2023, issued following direction: “1. In view of the subsequent development, learned counsel for the application seeks permission to withdraw this application, with liberty to approach the High Court afresh. 2. Permission is granted. // 32 // 3. The application is, accordingly, disposed of with the liberty as prayed for. 4. The applicant is also at liberty to file a fresh application before this Court, if the grievance of the applicant is not redressed.” It is further contended that in view of the above orders passed by the apex Court, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this writ petition, as the State Government, having considered the petitioner’s application for diversion of 64.119 ha of Sabik Kisam forest land, as on 25.10.1980, within total mining lease area of 64.463 ha for Chromite mining in Kaliapani Chromite Mines of Stage-I, has recommended to opposite party no.1-Central Government vide Annexure-5 dated 08.12.2022, but the Central Government is sitting over the matter without considering such recommendation. It is further contended that the petitioner-unit is using the Chromite mining for captive purpose. Once the petitioner unit is using the Chromite mines for captive purposes, there is no difficulty on the part of the State Government and the Central Government to grant formal letter of Stage-II Forest Clearance to the petitioner-company in respect of the Subject Mineral Block over an area of 64.463 ha. situated in Kaliapani village under Sukinda Tahsil of Jajpur district. 5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for opposite party no.1 contended that he has received the copy of the writ petition and he seeks ten days time to obtain instructions in the matter. 6. Issue notice to the opposite parties both in main case and Interlocutory Application. 7. Let two extra copies of the writ petition be served by tomorrow (16.05.2023) on Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India to enable him to obtain instructions or file counter affidavit. 8. Let four extra copies of the writ petition be served by tomorrow (16.05.2023) on learned Additional Government Advocate, as he appears for opposite parties no.2 to 4 to enable him to obtain instructions or file counter affidavit. // 33 // 9. Put up this matter after 10 days. However, it is open to the petitioners to move before the Vacation Court for interim order, if they are so advised.” 9. On 13.09.2023, this Court passed the