Central Government who is a shareholder, and does not want to renew the leases, should be rejected. 30. We are not inclined to examine the aforesaid contentions in great depth and detail for several reasons, including the apparent incongruity in the submissions. On the one hand, it is pleaded that the leases should be 16 (1983) 4 SCC 269. 17 (2015) 3 SCC 745. Civil Appeals a/o. SLP (C) Nos.7315-7316 of 2021 Page 10 of 14renewed in favour of BPMEL. Contradictorily, reliance is also placed on Rule 23(1)18 and Rule 23(3)19 of the 2016 Rules for the transfer of composite licence in favour of OMDC. 31. As noted above, OMDC has been operating the mining leases throughout. The undertakings with respect to the mining leases were vested with BPMEL, which had executed a power of attorney in favour of OMDC to continue the mining activities. BPMEL itself never undertook any winning or mining activities from the three mines. On liquidation of the holding company, BPMEL, the power of attorney stood