The state government had on June 29, 1997 recommended to the Centre that over 50 per cent of the leftover area measuring 855.476 hectares, be given on lease to four user industries--IMFA/ICCL, Jindals, Ispat Industries and Facor--which covered 50 per cent of their requirements as assessed by the Sharma committee.

The state sought to throw open the remaining 50 per cent area to other claimants for such mining leases as also to the four industries to the extent their requirements were not fully met by the 50 per cent reduction of their estimated requirement.

The government has constituted a high-power committee under the chairmanship of Jagadish Prasad Dash, additional secretary, steel & mines department, to work out the modalities for thedistribution of the remaining 50 per cent area measuring 427.738 hectares.

The Supreme Court, while dismissing a Facor petition, held that the state government's decision of cutting down by 50 per cent the requirement and also reserving the remaining 427.738 hectares for consideration of claims of others will remain binding on the appellant (Facor) as well as on the contesting respondents 3 to 7 (IMFA/ICCL, Jindal, and Ispat).

The court has also observed "the said order also cannot be said to be in conflict with the order of the central government" regarding the distribution of the chrome ore mining leases.

The Supreme Court's observation came in the wake of a petition filed by Facor challenging the dismissal of its writ petition in the Orissa High Court. Facor had filed the writ challenging the assessment of chrome ore requirements of the four user industries by the central government. It had submitted that "its need for chrome ore was more than as assessed and therefore, the central government's orderand the consequent order of the state government were not legal and valid.

The high court rejected the writ viewing that the petition filed by the appellant after the decision rendered by this court in Tisco's case challenging the very same order of the central government which was confirmed by this court in the aforesaid decision, was not maintainable on the ground of res judicata.

The high court had also held that "the order of the central government was legally justified and the subsequent orders of the state government could not be said to be suffering from non-application of mind and the decision making process of the state government was not suffering from any infirmity". Upholding the high court order, the country's apex court has rejected the Facor plea, stating that the "petition does not survive for consideration".