SC breather to Orissa on Tangarpada mines development

Feb. 5, 2010
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has granted time till March 15 to the Orissa government to comply with its earlier order on the development of Tangarpada chromite mines in Dhenkanal district of the state.
While three private bidders - Tata Iron & Steel Company, Jindal Strips and Visa Steel - were earlier shortlisted for the tender, the state government had proposed to develop the mines on its own through a special-purpose vehicle set up by two state-owned concerns, Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd (IDCOL) and Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC), rather than private parties.
The decision to develop the mines on its own was taken after IDCOL had evaluated fresh financial bids from the shortlisted companies following directives from the Supreme Court in February 2008.
A bench, headed by Justice P Sathasivam, while extending the time on IDCOL's request said, " we intend to extend further time and we make it clear that we have not expressed anything either on the conduct of the IDCOL or the state government or the merits of the objection of Jindal in this application. Without expressing any opinion we extend the time till March 15 for compliance. The applications are disposed of accordingly."
It further added that "except the application for an extension, no other petition or issue is pending before us. We are of the view that there is no need to consider the objections raised by the respondents, particularly Jindal."
IDCOL has moved an application for extending the time for compliance of the 2008 order, which directed that the technical bids of all the three parties be treated as valid and had permitted parties to submit revised financial bids within three weeks. The court had also directed the appropriate and authorised committee of IDCOL to consider technical bids and financial bids, keeping in mind the parameters of the advertisement and the best interest of the state.
Jindal Strips senior counsel T Andhyarujina had pointed out that the decision of the state government to reject the bids of the respondents and authorise IDCOL to exploit mining with Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC) was not in accordance with the directions of this Court. Jindal argued that the apex court's order had asked IDCOL to consider financial bids and if the corporation was not inclined to accept its bids, then it shouldn't have sought the extension of time for considering the bids. Visa Steel counsel Vishal Gupta had also supported JSL's argument.