Holding

The State's policy, incorporated in the amended subordinate legislation, is a valid exercise of executive power that does not create a monopoly or violate Article 14, allowing the appellant to continue its existing lease for the remaining term but not beyond.

Summary

Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., a private mining firm, applied for a ten‑year lease for minor minerals under Rule 9‑A of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. After the bifurcation of Uttar Pradesh, the new State of Uttarakhand adopted the rules with modifications and introduced a policy that, as far as possible, granted excavation leases to government corporations, rejecting the appellant's application. The appellant challenged the policy and the rejection as a violation of its rights under the Minor Minerals Development (Regulations) Act, 1957, Article 14 and Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the policy did not create a monopoly, did not contravene the parent statute or the Constitution, and was a bona‑fide exercise of executive power; consequently the appellant could continue its existing lease for the balance of the ten‑year term but could not claim renewal beyond that. The appeal was partially allowed, while two related appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The validity of the State's policy granting minor‑mineral leases preferentially to government corporations and its compatibility with the Minor Minerals Development (Regulations) Act, 1957 and the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963.
Whether the State can impose a complete ban on private mining of minor minerals through executive policy without legislative sanction.
Whether the policy violates Article 14 (equality) and Article 19(6) (right to trade) of the Constitution.
Whether the amendment of the rules under Section 87 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, and the subsequent policy constitute valid subordinate legislation.
Whether the appellant's pre‑existing lease right is protected by the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Whether the State's power to change policy under executive authority is permissible when not pre‑empted by statute.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 19(6), s. Article 348(3)
Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000s. 87

Subjects

minor mineralsmining leasegovernment monopolyexecutive policysubordinate legislationArticle 14Article 19(6)legitimate expectationUttarakhandUttar Pradesh Reorganisation ActMines and Minerals Actpolicy changeequality

Judgment

DOIWALA SEHKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMIT! LTD. A
v.
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS.

DECEMBER 12, 2006

[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] B

Uttaranchal Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001 (Adaptation and
Modification) Order, 2001-Rule 1(5)-Application for lease for mining of
minor mineral by private party - Rejection based on policy whereby such C
lease had to be granted to Government Corporations-Correctness of-
Held-No monopoly in favour of Government Corporation/Departments was
created as policy also permitted grant of license to private parties and no
genera/full restriction was imposed-After formation of State of Uttaranchal,
Order of 200 I was issued pursuant to Article 348(3) of Constitution of India,
1950, and notification regarding same was issued for general information- D
Therefore, changed conditions could be given effect to since suitable provisions ·
were incorporated in statutory rules-Amended rules and policy decisiun
were bona fide exercise of executive power of State Government and not its
misuse to advance own self interest~Rule 9A of U.P. Minor Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 1963.
E
Government Policy-Change of-Held-Government has a right to
denial of its policy from time to time according to the demands of time and
in public interest-However, power to change policy under executive power
is only when it does not preamble by any statute or rules-Also, policy
decision cannot come in the way as rights fructified much before it came into F
being.

Subordinate legislation-Validity of-Held-Nature, object and scheme
ofparent stature, afld also area, over which power has been delegated under
statute, has to considered and then decision is to be taken whether subordinate
legislation conforms to parent statute-it has to be struck down where it is G
_directly inconsistent with a mandatory provision of parent statute-However,
if issue is of its inconsistency of non-conformity not with reference to any
specific provision of parent statute, but with object and scheme of parent
statute, Court should proceed with caution before declaring invalidity.

807 H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14-Equal treatment-Concept-""'
of-Held-Two wrongs cannot make on right -No one can claim that since
something wrong has been done in another case, directions should be given·
for doing another wrong-It would not be setting a wrong right but could
be perpetuating another wrong and in such matters, there is no discrimination
involved-Concept of equal treatment pre-supposes existence of similar· legal
B foothold-It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring
wrongs at par-Affected parties have to establish strength of their case on
some other basis and not by claiming negative quality.

Appellant is engaged in business of mining minor minerals. They
C applied for grant of lease for mining of minor mineral under Rule 9-A of the
U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The erstwhile State of U.P.
got bifurcated and the impugned area fell under the newly formed respondent
State, which exercising power under Section 87 of the U.P. Re-organization
Act, 2000 extended to itself the Rules of 1963 with certain modification/
amendment. Respondent introduced a new policy of mining of minor mineral
D whereby as far as possible the lease for excavation/mining was to be granted
to the Governmerit Corporations. Based on this policy, the District Magistrate
rejected the application of appellant stating that the lease of excavation of
impugned areas had to be granted to Garhwal Manda! Vikas Nigam. Appellant
challenged the rejection order as well the Policy of the respondent by filling
E a Writ Petition. However, High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the
present appeal.

Appellant pleaded against the policy of respondent contending that (i) it
imposed complete ban of mining of all minor mineral by private persons and
created monopoly (ii) respondent was not competent to create monopoly by a
F policy decision exercising its powers as delegated authority under Section
15 of Minor Mineral Development (Regulations) Act, 1957 (iii) it was only an
exercise of its executive powers whereas it required legislative sanction (iv)
it was against Section 17A(2) of Act of 1957 that required the State before
reserving any area exclusively for itself to obtain approval from the Central
Government which had n'ot been done (v) the policy decision cannot come in
G the way of grant of lease to them as their right fructified much before the
policy came into being (vi) rejection of their application was violative of Art.
14 of the Constitution of India as several other persons have been granted .
mining lease.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court
DOIWALA SEHKARI SHRAM SAMVIOA SAMIT! LTD.''· STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 809

HELD: 1.1. No monopoly of mining of minerals in favour of the A
Government Corporations/Departments has been created, nor have the
fundamental rights as enshrined under the Constitution been violated. In
paragraph 2.5 of amended Mineral Policy announced by Government Order
No. 3498 dated 17.10.2002 there is a provision for grant of license permitting
private parties for mining of the minerals and nowhere the general and full B
restriction has been imposed. [820-D, El

1.2. The Uttaranchal Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001
(Adaptation and Modifications) Order, 2001 was issued in pursuance of the
provisions of clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India. The
Governor ordered publication of the Notification dated 30.4.2001 for general C
information. Under Sub-Rule (5) of rule 1 of the above amended Rules of 2001
the rights of the Government to get the mining activities done by the
Government Departments, Government Corporations etc. was not affected.
Therefore, the changed conditions can be given effect to since suitable
provisions were incorporated in the statutory rules. (828-D, El
D
1.3. The amended Rules and the policy decision of the Government are
in bona fide exercise of executive power of the State Government and not in
its misuse to advance its own self interest. (824-G-HJ

State o/Tamil Nadu v. Mis, Hind Stone & Ors,, [198112 SCC 205, relied
on E
2.1. The Government has a right to denial of it policy from time to time
according to the demands of the time and in the public interest. (825-F)

1982 All Law Journal 582, relied on.
F
2.2. The State Government has a power to change the policy under
executive power only when it does not preamble by any statute or rules.

Union ofIndia & Anr v. International Trading Company & Anr., (2003)
5 sec 437, relied on.
G
3.1. The policy decision would not have come in the way of grant of lease
and fructified much before the policy came into being. The appellant would be
entitled to have the lease till the expiry of ten years from the date of the grant
of lease in their favour. The rights of the appellants get crystalised on the
date of commencement of the litigation and, therefore, the appellant is entitled
H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. IO S.C.R.

A to the relief of continuing the lease till the expiry of the lease for ten years.
The appellant must be allowed to operate the mine for the full period oflease
subject to adjustment for the period for which he has already operated and
subject to the payment of lease amount and other dues etc. 1816-D; 827-C-D]

Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., 12003) 1SCC726 and Union of
B India & Anr v. International Trading Company & Anr., 12003) 5 SCC 437,
relied on.

3.2. The appellant shall not be entitled to continue the lease or renewal
thereof after the expiry of the period of ten year~. {827-D, E]

C 4. Two wrongs do not make one right. The appellant cannot claim that
since something wrong has been done in another case, directions should be
given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right but could
be perpetuating another wrong and in such matters, there i.s no discrimination
involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Art. 14 cannot be
D pressed into service in such cases. But the concept of equal treatment pre-
, supposes existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition
of a wrong action to bring wrongs at par. The affected parties have to establish
strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative quality.
In case, some of the persons have been granted permits wrongly, the appellant
cannot claim the benefit of the wrong done by the Government.1824-C-D]
E
Union ofIndia & Anr v. International Trading Company & Anr., (2003)
5 sec 437 relied on

5. The Court considering the validity of a subordinate legislation will
have to consider the nature, object and scheme of the enabling Act, and also
F the area over which power has been delegated under the Act and then decide
whether the subordinate legislation conforms to the present statue. When a
rule is directly inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the statute, then,
of course, the task of the Court is simple and easy. But where the contention
is that the inconsistency or non-conformity of the rule is not with reference
G to any specific provision of the enabling Act, but with the object and scheme
of the parent Act, the Court should proceed with caution before declaring
invalidity. (828-B-CJ

State of TN. & Anr. v. P. Krishnamurthy & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 517 and
Govind Prasadv. R.G. Parsad & Ors., [1994) l SCC 437, referred to.
·H
001\VALA SEHKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD."· STATE OF UTTARANCHAL (LAKSHMANAN. J.( 811.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 800 of2005. A
, From the Final Judgment and Order dated 3.12.2003 of the High Court
of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 48 (MIB) of 2003.

WITH
B
Civil Appeal Nos. 678 & 679 of 2005.

Amit Kumar, Amit Anand Tiwari and Shobha for the Appellants.

Avtar Singh Rawat;AAG, State ofUttaranchal, Rajeev Kumar Bansal,
D. Bharathi Reedy, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Irshad Ahmad forthe Respondents. C

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Civil Appeal No. 800 of 2005 was filed
against the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ
petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of the District Magistrate D
refusing to grant lease to the appellant as well the Policy dated 17.10.2002 of
the State of Uttaranchal whereby the State created monopoly in respect of
mining of minor minerals.

Civil Appeal No. 678 of 2005 was filed by Maya Ram against the final
judgment and order dated 3.12.2003 passed by the High Court ofUttaranchal E
in W.P. No. 258(M/B) of2003 vide which the writ petition filed by the appellant
was dismissed.

Civil Appeal No. 679 of 2005 was filed by one Yograj Singh against the
judgment and order dated 3.12.2003 passed by the High Court o(Uttaranchal
in Writ Petition No. 70(M/B) of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the F
writ petition filed by the appellant.

The respondents in all the appeals are one and the same. The appellant
in Civil Appeal No. 800 of2005 is Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd.
which is engaged in mining business and has vast experience of minor
minerals with expertise, applied for grant of lease for mining of minor mineral G
under Rule 9-A of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 for a
period of ten years in respect of 25 acres in Lot No. 2 on Tons River in Kalsi
Block and 28.42 acres in Lot No.3 Block No. I village Rampur Mandi, District
Dehradun. According to the appellant, the Samiti is the discoverer of the
H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A aforesaid two areas and entitled for preferential treatment under the Rules.
The District Magistrate after finding the application of the appellant complete
in all respect vide order dated 3.8.1998 directed the sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Division Forest Officer and Deputy Director, Geology and Mining to submit
their report on the application. The Divisional Forest Officer, sub-Divisional
Magistrate and the Deputy Director, Mining and Geology submitted their
B report dated 22.8.1998, 9.9.1998 and 11.9.1998 respectively recommending the
grant of lease in favour of the appellant for ten years. The Divisional Forest
Officer, in pursuance ofNotification No. 2380 dated 5.6.1997 which requires
the decision on the application to be taken by a Committee headed by District
Magistrate and consisting of Divisional Forest Officer and Deputy Director,
C Mining and Geology, wrote a letter dated 4.12.1998 to constitute the committee
to take a decision on the application as delay was causing monetary loss to
the Forest Department. Despite these recommendations, no Committee was
constituted by the District Magistrate as required for decision on the application .
<•

of the appellant. The appellant preferred an appeal under Rule 77 of the Rules
before the Court of Commissioner, Garhwal for constitution of the Committee.
D The appeal was allowed vide order dated 9.8.2001 by reviving the applications
of the appellant and directed the District Magistrate to decide the application
of the appellant for grant of lease. While the appeals of the appellant were_
pending, the State ofU.P. passed order dated 4.9.1999 granting lease to the
U.P. Forest Corporation for ten years. The appellant challenged the order for
E grant of lease before the High Court of Allahabad by filing a writ petition.
The High Court vide order dated 25.9.2002 directed the District Magistrate to
consider the application of the appellant. On 30.4.2001, the erstwhile State
of U.P. was bifurcated and the area under question fell under the newly
formed State of Uttaranchal which exercising power under Section 87 of the
U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 extended the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession)
F Rules, 1963 with certain modification/amendment to the newly formed State
of Uttaranchal. On 17.10.2002, a new policy creating complete and general ,'
ban of mining of minor mineral by private persons was introduced by the
State executive. The salient features of the policy decision are as under:

"In the State of Uttaranchal, the Mineral Policy, 2001 dated
G 30.04.2001 was formulated to ensure the mining of various mineral by
modem methods, to conserve the environment and to explore new
mineral by modern Techniques and also to do away the monopoly in
excavation/ mining of minor minerals.

(2) That having considered the necessity of extensive review of mineral
H
DOJWALA SEHKARI SHRAM SAMVIOA SAMITI LTD."· STATE OF UTTARANCHAL ILAKSHMANAN. J.J 813

the policy 2001 of the State in view of impeding needs of Environment A
conservation, Revenue income easy availability of minor minerals at
proper rate to the consumers and development institutions and to
create opportunity of employment for the local people. The Government
has taken following decision to make the present mineral policy more
effective and development oriented in respect of the minerals available
in the State : B
2.1. To remove the possibility of monopoly in respect of mining for
the areas full of minor minerals and for ensuring the conservation
of environment and for the mining/excavation work by scientific
method.
c
22. As far as possible the lease for excavation/mining shall be granted
to the Government corporations on river wise basis so as to
ensure better co-ordination and control. For this purpose lease
for mining/excavation in respect of all areas in district Dehradun
shall be granted to Garhwal Commissionary Development
Corporation and in respect of all areas in River Gola shall be D
granted to Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation. But
because of excessive availability areas full of minor mineral in
District Haridwar, the lease of excavation/mining in forest areas
shall be granted to Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. and
in revenue areas to Garhwal Commissionary Development E
Corporation.
2.3. The excavation/mining work in respect of the left out areas
under the Mineral Policy 200 l, that is, Tanakpur (Sharda), Ram
Nagar, Kotdwar Satpuli and Shrinagar (Alaknanda) shall also be
carried out by the aforesaid Corporation. The concerned District F
Magistrate in respect of these rivers/areas is required to consult
with the officers of Forest Development Corporation/Garhwal
Commissionary Development Corporation/Kumayun
Commissionary Development Corporation and submit a proposal
to the Government forthwith.

2.4. The small lots of minor minerals in Hill and plan regions where G
excavation/mining was being done and it is possible to do such
excavation/mining but is not being carrying out because of
absence of permission from the Government of India under the
Forest Conservation Act, 1980, than district wise proposals shall
be prepared by the concerned Corporations or Uttaranchal State H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006J SUPP. IO S.C.R.

A Cooperative Distribution Organisation and through the District
Magistrate same shall be communicated to the Government of
India for permission. In the event of permission from the
Government of India under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980
for excavation/mining in the said areas the excavation shall be
carried out by the Government Corporations/Uttaranchal State
B Cooperative Distribution Organisation. If for some reasons
aforesaid institutions are not in a position to carry out mining
activities themselves than same shall be ensured by aforesaid
institutions with the help of local people/institutions afte'r
obtaining the consent of the Government.
c 2.5. The land of private measurements except the land mentioned in
aforesaid paras 2.2. and 2.3 or for grant of licence for mining of
minor - minerals/lease for mining/short term mining, it is
compulsory to get prior permission from the Govt.
2.6. In addition to the aforesaid paras 2.2 and 2.3 in any other
D condition the prior approval from the Government shall be
necessary for the grant of lease/short time permit for excavation
mining of minor minerals on the district level.
2.7. With the object to prevent misuse of minor minerals and loss. of
revenue, the District Magistrate shall ensure time to time checking
E of the quantity of minor minerals into stone crushers and the
entering of goods prepared and effective invigilation on exit of
minor minerals from the stone crushers.

2.8 ·····················
2.9 ·····················
F
2.10
Sd/-
(illegible)
S.Krishnan
Chief Secretary"
G
Pursuant to the order dated 25.9.2002, the District Magistrate decided
the application and rejected the same in view of policy dated 17 .10.2002. The
rejection Order reads as follows:

From : District Magistrate. Dehradun.
H
DOIWALA SEHKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA S,\l>tlll LTD. v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL ILAKSHMANAN. !.I
815
To A
Sri Sushil Kumar,
President,
Doiwala Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd.,
Markhand Grand, P.O. Doiwala,
District Dehradun. B
Sub: Regarding Applicatio~s dated 3.8.98 for excavation lease of
minor minerals, available in Lot No. 2 & 3 ofChakrata Forest Division.

Sir,

In compliance of order, passed on Writ Petition No. 1206/MB/2001 C
dated 25.09.2002, filed by you in Hon'ble High Court Nainital, on the
subject mentioned above, it is to infonn you that an amendment has
been made in mineral policy vide Uttaranchal State G.O. No. 3498/
0.V./22-kha/2001dated17.10.2002.

According to paras 2.1 and 2.2, in respect of all the areas of D
District Dehradun, lease of excavation has to be granted to Garhwal
Manda! Vikas Nigam. In the light of above order both of your
applications for excavation lease dated 3.8.98 has been dismissed.
Sincerely,
Sd.1- E
(Illegible)
(Radha Ratani)
District Magistrate
Dehradun."
We heard Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Amit F
Kumar and Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned counsel and Ms. Shobha, leameCI
counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, learned
Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttaranchal and Mr. Jatinder
Kumar Bhatia and Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
G
Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in
C.A.No. 800 of 2005 submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate
that the State in exercise of its executive powers cannot put a complete and
· general ban of mining of all minor mineral by private persons. He submitted
that the complete and general ban of mining of all minor mineral by private H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. JO S.C.R.

A persons would require legislative sanction. For this proposition, he relied on
the judgment of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Mis Hind Stone & Ors.,
[1981] 2 SCC 205 and in State ofT.N. & Anr. v. P. Krishnamurthy & Ors.,
[2006] 4 sec 511.

Learned senior counsel further submitted that the policy of the State
B imposing complete ban and creating monopoly is without any legislative
sanction, against the provisions of Statute. Moreover under Section 17 A(2)
of the Minor Mineral Development Regulation Act, 1957, the State before
reserving any area exclusively for itself h25 to obtain approval from the
Central Government which has not been done in the present case. Therefore,
C the policy does not conform with the requirements as stipulated by the
statute as well as law laid down by this Court and, therefore, the same is ultra
vires. For this proposition, he relied on the judgments of this Court in Indian
Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
[l 985] 1 SCC 641 and Union of India & Anr. v. International Trading Co. &
Anr., [2003] 5 SCC 437. He further submitted that the State Government is not
D competent to create monopoly by a policy decision exercising its powers as
delegated authority under Section 15 of MMDR Act, 1957. The policy
decision would not have come in the way of grant of lease to the appellants
as their right was fructified much before the policy came into being. He
submitted that this Court has held consistently that the ordinary rule of law
E is that the rights of the parties stand crystalised on the date of commencement
of litigation and right of relief should be decided by reference to the date on
which the appellant entered the portals of the Court as held in Beg Raj Singh
v. State of U.P. & Ors., [2003] I SCC 726. Since in the present case, the
appellants were consistently prosecuting their case with diligence, the
subsequent policy could not have prevented the grant of lease to the appellants.
F
Arguing further, learned senior counsel submitted that the High Court
upheld the policy solely on the ground that the policy is in public interest.
It was submitted that the policy which do not conform to the requirement of
law laid down by this Court was bad. He also submitted that the High Court
G failed to appreciate that the State by creating monopoly through a policy
decision had rendered Rule 9A of the Rules giving preferential rights to
certain private persons, otiose and hence the policy is contrary to the statute.

Ms. Shobha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal
No. 678 of2005 after adopting the arguments of Mr. L.N. Rao submitted that
H the view taken by the High Court is contrary to the consistent view taken by

t,
DOIWALA SEHKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD."· STATE OF UTTARANCHAL ILAKSHMANAN. I.I 817

this Court that the executive orders can be issued to fill up the gaps in the A
Rules if the Rules are silent on the subject provided the same is not inconsistent
with the Statutory Rules already framed as was held in the case of Indra
Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1992] Suppl. 3 SCC 217 and to
Laxman Dhamanekar & Anr. v. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti
& Anr., [2001] 8 sec 378. She also submitted that the statutory Rules cannot
be overridden by executive orders or executive practice and merely because B
the Government had taken a decision to amend the Rules does not mean that
the Rule stood obliterated and till the rule is amended, the Rule applies as
observed in K. Kuppusamy & Anr. v. State ofT.N. & Ors., [1998] 8 SCC 469.

The High Court though found force in the submission of the appellant C
that the earlier Notification dated 30.4.2001 does not impose a complete ban
over grant of lease to private persons, but despite this failed to appreciate
that if that is so then no such ban can be imposed by way of a Government
Order issued in contradiction to the said Gazette Notification.

She also invited our attention to the rejection order dated 21.5.2003 D
wherein it has been stated that in view of Government Order No. 3498/
Industrial Development-22 Kha/200 I dated 17. I 0.2002 in connection with the
amendment of Mining Policy-200 I issued by the Government in continuati9n
of Uttaranchal Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 200 I that mining work from
the rivers/lots situated in the District be carried out by Garhwal Manda)
Development Corporation Dehradun and in the forest areas the said work E
should be got done through Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation
' alone. The Additional District Magistrate, therefore, rejected the application
made by the appellant for grant of mining lease for ten years and informed
the appellant to take back his application fee and preliminary expenses of
Rs.3000/-. She also submitted that the State before reserving any area F
exclusively has to obtain approval from the Central Government which has
not been done in the present case.

Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, learned Additional Advocate General, in reply
to the arguments, submitted that the State Government amended the Rules
and the policy decision of the Government is in bona fide exercise of executive G
power of the State Government and not in its misuse to advance its own self
interest. It was submitted that the State Government has a power to change
the policy by executive action when it is not trammeled by any statute or rule.
He further submitted that the Government has constituted a Committee of
Cabinet Council for making recommendations for amending the Mining Policy
H
I
r
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A 2001 and after accepting the recommendations by the Uttaranchal Council !lf
Ministers the amendment has been made in the Mining Policy 2001 by the
Government Order No. 3498 dated 17. 10.2002. It was further contended that
the State Government has not misused any of its rights for establishing the
monopoly of the Government Companies/Corporations in the mining sector.
The factual position is that under para 2.5 of the amendment dated 17.10.2002
B the provision has been made to grant mining permits/mining lease to the
private parties on their private lands also. The learned Additional Advocate
General further submitted that the recommendations by the Council of Ministers
constituted for amendment in Mining Policy 2001 have been approved and
admitted and that the State Government while exercising the powers conferred
C under section 87 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 and the U.P. Sub-
Mineral (Remission) Regulations, 1963 has been adapted by the Council of
Ministers by making the same conformable/adaptable in the light of Uttaranchal
State, in sequence of which itself, Government's Order No. 1187 dated 30.4.2001
has been issued by which Uttaranchal sub-Mineral (Remission) Regulation
has been made. It was further submitted that by exercising the powers
D conferred under Section 87 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act~ .2000, the U.P.
Sub-Mineral (Remission) Regulation 1963 has been formulated. Section 87 of
the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 reads as under:

"87. For the purpose of facilitating the application in relation to the
State of Uttar Pradesh or Uttaranchal of any law made before the
E appointed clay, the appropriate Government may, before the expiration
of two years from that day; by order, make such adaptations and
modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as
may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon every such law shall
have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made until
F altered, repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other
competent authority.

Explanation - In this section, the expression "appropriate
Government" means as respects any law relating to a matter enumerated
in the Union List, the Central Government, and as respects any other
G law in its application to a State, the State Government."

Relying upon Section 87, learned Additional Advocate General submitted
that under the above Section, U.P. Sub-Mineral (Remission) Regulation, 1963
has been formulated by the Council of Ministers while making the same
adaptable in the light of the Uttaranchal State. It was further submitted that
H the State Government while exercising the powers conferred under Section 87
.. OOIW ALA SEHKARI SH RAM SAMVIDA SAMIT! LTD. v. STATE OF UTI ARANCHAL (LAKSHMANAN. I.) 819
of the Reorganisation Act has adopted.the U.P. Upkhanij (Parihar) Niyamavali, A
1963 in the perspective of the State of Uttaranchal, in pursuance whereof the
Government Order No. 1187 dated 30.4.2001 has been issued by which the
Uttaranchal Upkhanij (Parihar) Niyamavali has been formulated. As already
stated, the policy decisions were taken by the Council of Ministers and after
approval of Council of Ministei;s, the mining policy 200 l has been amended B
by Government Order No. l 031 4ated 30.4.2001 and the Government Order No.
3498 dated 17.10.2002 has been 'ssued and any general and full restriction has
not been imposed on the mining of the. Upkhanijs.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the parties
with reference to the records, the Government Orders and annexures filed in C
these appeals.

The Parliament has enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation &
Development) Act, 1957. Section 4 of the Act prohibits all prospecting or
mining operation except under a licence or a lease granted under the Act and
Rules made thereunder. Section 15 empowers the State Government to make D
Rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases and other
mineral concessions in respect of minor mineral and purposes connected
therewith. Pursuant to the powers vested in it under Section 15 of Mines and
Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 the State ofU.P. has made
U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 which has been adopted by the
State ofUttaranchal with certain modifications on 30.4.2001 exercising power E
under Section 87 ofU.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. The State ofUttaranchal
further amended its policy decision on 17 .10.2002 whereby it was decided that
as far as possible the lease for excavation/mining shall be granted to the
Government Corporations on river wise basis so as to ensure better
coordina~ion and control. This decision was taken keeping in view the F
excavation of the minor mineral with the modem techniques, to do away with
the monopoly in the excavation/mining and for the purpose of the conservation
and development of minor mineral available at the reasonable rate as also to
increase the employment opportunity apart from the aspect of revenue.
However, the provision was included if for some reasons the Government
Institutions are not in a position to carry out mining activities themselves G
. then the same shall be ensured by the Institutions with the help of local
people/institutions after obtaining the consent of the Government. Thus it
was submitted that no policy decision has been taken by the State Government
against the Rules and the Act. It was also submitted that the High Court is
fully justified in upholding the policy and that the policy is not contrary to H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A Rules and the provisions of the Act. It is pertinent to notice that an argument
advanced by the learned counsel that the High Court fell in error in holding
that the State Government is competent to frame a policy creating a monopoly
in favour of Government Companies/Corporations exercising delegated
legislative power conferred by the Parliament under Section 15 of the Mines
and Minerals (Regulations) Act, 1957. This argument, in our view, is without
B any basis. The State Government, in the instant case, has not amended the
mining policy for creating any monopoly of the Government company or
Government Corporation.

The Government has not made any exclusive provlSlon for State/
C Companies/Corporations etc. in the mineral policy under the amended Mineral
Policy dated 17.10.2002. In this context, our attention was drawn to Para 2.5
of the amended Mineral Regulation dated 17.10.2002 reproduced in paragraph
supra.

In paragraph 2.5 provisions have been made for sanction mining/
D collection leases/short term mining licenses on private "NAAP" land under
which short term mining leases/temporary mining licenses have been
sanctioned in the different Districts in Uttaranchal State. In our view, no
monopoly of mining of minerals in favour of the Government Corporations/
Departments has been created, nor have the fundamental rights as enshrined
under the Constitution been violated. As already noticed, by Government
E Order No. 3498 dated 17.10.2002 in paragraph 2.5 there is a provision for grant
of license permitting private parties for mining of the minerals and nowhere
the general and full restriction has been imposed. In the instant case, the
State Government has exercised its right as conferred under Section 87 of the
U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 for the first time and U.P. Sub-Minerals Remission
F Regulation (Exemption), 1963 were adapted and in sequence of which the
Government's order No. I 187 dated 30.4.2001 has been issued. The newly
created Uttaranchal State in view of making Mineral Policy more effective and
developing for ensuring the mining/collection work of sub minerals available
in the State in a scientific manner while keeping the environment preserved
and for ruiing out the possibility of monopoly in mining area covered with
G the sub-minerals as far as practicable, provisions are made to sanction river
wise mining/collection leases to the Government Corporations so that better
coordination and control might be ensured. The Mineral Policy, 200 I of
Uttaranchal State has been declared by the Government Order dated 30.4.200 I
under which in the Forest Areas, keeping in view the Forest Conservation,
H provisions have been made for getting the work of mining and collection of
DOIWALA SEHKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA Sl\MITI LID.'· STATE OFUTIARANCHAL ILAKSHMANAN, J.I 821

the sub-minerals, done through Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation. A
The area in question applied for by the appellant is concerned with forest
area.

We may also usefully reproduce the Notification dated 30.4.2001 issued
by the Government in pursuance of the provisions of Clause (3) of Article 348
of the Constitution of India. The Notification reads as under: B
"In pursuance of the provision of clause (3) of Article 348 of the
Constitution of India the Governor is pleased to order the publication
of the following English translation of the notification No. 1187/Ind.
Dev./2001-22Kha/2001 Secretariat, Dehradun dated April 30, 2001 for
general information. c
Notification

Whereas under the provision of the Section 86 of the Uttar Pradesh
Reorganisation Act, 2000 the Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession)
Rules, 1963 is applicable to the State of Uttaranchal. Now, therefore, D
in the exercise of the power conferred under Section 87 of the Uttar
Pradesh, Reorganisation Act, 2000 (Act No. 29 of2000), the Governor
of Uttaranchal is pleased to direct that the Uttar Pradesh Minor
Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 shall have applicability to the State
of Uttaranchal subject to the provisions of the following order :-
E
The Uttaranchal Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001 (Adaptation
and Modification) Order, 2001.

l. Short title and commencement

(i) This order may be called the Uttaranchal Minor Mineral F
(Concession) Rules; 2001 (Adaptation and Modification) Order,
2001.

(ii) It shall come into force at once.

2. Uttaranchal to be read in place of Uttar Pradesh :
G
In the Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963
wherever the expression "Uttar Pradesh" occurs, it shall be read as
"Uttaranchal".

In the sub-Rule (5) of Rule I of the above amended Uttaranchal Minor
H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. -
A Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001 the following shall be added:

"In the sub-rule (5) of the Rule 1 of the above amended Uttaranchal
Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001, the following shall be added:-

"Thi~ rule shall not affect the right of the Government to get the
B mining activities done by the Government Departments, Government
Corporations or Judicial Corporations".

In the sub rule (2) of the rule J of the above amended The
Uttaranchal Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001 before the word
"any''. the following shall be added :-
c "Excluding where the mining activities are done by the Government
Departments, Government Corporations or Judicial Corporations".

It is thus seen that under the above amended Rule, the rights of the
Government to get the mining activities done by the Government Departments,
D Government Corporations etc. was not affected. The rights of the Government,
as already noticed, mining trade in respect of the minor minerals and lease is
regulated by Section 15 of the Mines· and Minerals (Regulation and
Development) Act, 1957 under which the State Government has been
empowered to make Rules to give effect to the provisions of the Aci: There
is no restriction under the Act that the minor minerals lease would be confined
E to State or its agencies and as such the policy decision of the State of
Uttranchal which creates an embargo on the right of the appellant is ultra
vires the provisions of 1957 Act and the Rules. The right to trade is guaranteed
under Article 19(6) of the Constitution oflndia and that can only be regulated
by means of a valid law and n.ot by the notification, which has been done
by the State of Uttranchal in the present case. It is also seen from the
F Notification dated 30.4:2001 that it did not deprive the appellants' right of
consideration of his application as no monopoly or right was created excluding
any private person.

It was argued by the learned senior counsel that the appellant has
G preferential right of consideration under Rule 9(a) of 1963 Rules and the
District Magistrate while rejecting the application has not considered this
aspect. To appreciate the argument of Mr. L.N. Rao, it will be proper to
mention certain provisions of 1957 Act and the Rules of 1963.

Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, "
H 1957 gives power to State Government to make rules in respect of minor
.... DOIWALA SEHKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD. v. STATE OF\fITARANCHAL (LAKSHMANAN. J.(
823
minerals. A
The State ofU.P. framed the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules:
1963 under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development)
Act, 1957.

Rule 3 Sub-clause 1 of the rules provides that no person shall undertake B
any mining operation in any area within the State except under and in
accordance with the terms and conditions of a mining lease or mining permit
granted under these Rules. Rules 3 sub-clause II speaks that no mining lease
or mining permit shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the
provisions of the Rules. Rule 9(A) gives preferential right to certain persons C
in respect of mining lease for sand etc. Rule 27 provides procedure for grant
of lease by auction. Under Rule 72 if any area, which was held under a mining
lease, under Chapter-II or as reserved under Section 17(A) of the Act becomes
available fo; re-grant on mining lease, the District Officer shall notify the
availability of the area through a notice inviting for applications for grant of
milting lease specifying a date. Rule 77 provides appeal before Divisional D
commissioner against the order of District Officers Committee passed under
the Rules. Thereafter under Rule 78 revisions shall lie before the State
Government.

Under Section 86 of U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000, the U.P. Mining
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 are applicable in the State of Uttaranchal. E
The State of Uttaranchal exercising power under Section 87 of U.P. Re-
organisation Act. 2000 issued notification on 30.02.2001 amending the rules
by adding rule 1 Sub-Rule 5 as under:-

"This rule shall not affect the right of the Government to get the
mining activities carried out by the Government Departments, F
Government Corporations or Judicial Corporations".

Further before Rule 3 Sub rule 2, the following was added:-

"Excluding where the mining activities are done by the Government
Departments, Government Corporation or Judicial Corporation". G
We have already reproduced the relevant clauses of the amended Policy
and noticed that the effect of Amendment of2000 is that it does not completely
exclude the private persons from getting lease. The effect of the Amendment
is that the Rule shall not have any application on the right of State Government
H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A to get the mining work done through Government Departments, Government
or statutory Corporations. It was further argued by learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant that several other persons have been granted
mining lease, however, the appellant has been refused on the ground of
change of policy by the State Government. Therefore, the action of the State
Government is violated to Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
B
This Court in Union of India & Anr. v. International Trading Company
& Anr., (supra) has held that two wrongs do not make one right. The
appellant cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another
case, directions should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be
C setting a wrong right but could be perpetuating another wrong and in such
matters, there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment
on the logic of Art. 14 cannot be pressed into service in such cases. But the
concept of equal treatment pre-supposes existence of similar legal foothold.
It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring wrongs at par.
The affected parties have to establish strength of their case on some other
D basis and not by claiming negative quality. In view of the law laid down by
this Court in the above matter, the submission of the appellant has no force.
In case, some of the persons have been granted permits wrongly, the appellant
cannot claim the benefit of the wrong done by the Government.

After the Amendment, the amended Rules reads as under:
E
"Rule I, Sub-rule 5:- These rules will have no application on the right
of State Government to get the excavation of minor mineral done
through Government Department, Government Corporations or
Statutory corporations.

F Amended Rule 3, Sub-rules 2:- Except where the mining is being
done by Government Departments, Government Corporations or
Statutory Corporations no mining lease or mining permit shall be
granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of these
rules."

G We are of the opinion that the Rules amended and the policy decision
of the Government are in bona fide exercise of executive power of the State
Government and not in its misuse to advance its own self interest. This Court
in State of Tamil Nadu v. Mis Hind Stone & Ors., (supra) has held that in
case, the Rule has been made in bona fide exercise of the rule making power
H of the State Government and not in its misuse to advance its own self-interest
001\V ALA SEHKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMIT! LTD. "· ST ATE OF UTTARANCHAL (LAKSHMANAN. J.( 825

cannot be considered a misuse of the rule making power merely because it A
advances the interest of a State, which really means the people of the State.

In State of Tamil Nadu v. Mis Hind Stone & Ors., this Court while
allowing the appeals and upholding the validity of the Rule held as under:

"(l) Reading Section 15 in the context of Sections 4-A, 17 and 18 of B
the Act it is clear that Rule 8-C was made in bona fide exercise of the
rule-making power of the State Government and not in its misuse to
advance its own self interest. However, this does not mean that
making a rule which is perfectly in order is to be considered a misuse
of the rule-making power, if it advances the interest of a State, which
really means the people of the State. C
(2) Monopoly in favour of State Government can be created even by
subordinate legislation. It is not possible to accept the contention
that monopoly, even in favour of a State Government, can only be
created by plenary power and that Parliament not having chosen to
exercise its plenary power, it was not open to the subordinate legislating D
body to create a monopoly by making a rule.

(3) G.O. Ms. No.1312 dated December 2, 1977, which introduced Rule
8-C, cannot be said to have involved a major change of policy.
Whenever there is a switch over from 'private sector' to 'public
sector' it does not necessarily follow that a change of policy requiring E
express legislative sanction is involved. It depends on the subject
and the statute. If a decision is taken to ban private mining of a single
minor mineral for the purpose of conserving it, such a ban, if it is
otherwise within the bounds of the authority given to tht; Government
by the statute, cannot be said to involve any change of policy." F
It is also well settled law that the Government has a right to denial. This
Court in 1982 All Law Journal 582 has held that it cannot be disputed that
the Government has a right to denial of its policy from time to time according
to the demands of the time and in the public interest.
G
The judgment in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. International
Trading Co. & Anr., (supra) was relied on by the learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant for the applicability of the doctrine "Legitimate
expectation". According to Mr. L.N. Rao, by grant of lease to the appellant
their right was fructified much before the policy came into being and, therefore,
H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A their rights of mining cannot be taken away before the expiry of the period
in view of the policy decision.

This Court held in the above case that change in policy decision must
not be arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, perverse and in public interest and
change in policy, if founded on Wednesbury reasonableness, can defeat a
B substantive legitimate expectation and the reasonableness of restriction must
be determined from the standpoint of general public interest This Court
further held on facts of that case that doctrine of legitimate expectation or
promissory estoppel is not attracted on non-renewal of permits to private
parties.

c The judgment in the case of Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
(supra) was cited by Mr. L.N. Rao. The mining lease was granted for one year
in accordance with the policy decision and when the renewal was sought for
another two years, the lease was granted only for one year when it should
have been for a minimum period of three years. Meanwhile, the State
D Government decided to hold an auction of the mining rights setting aside the
order of Collector. This Court held that Government having incurred obligation
to grant lease for three years in accordance with its own policy decision, it
cannot decline to enforce the same merely because a little more revenue could
be earned by resort to auction. This Court further held that the relief cannot
be denied solely because of loss of time in prosecuting proceedings in judicial
E or quasi-judicial forum. If a litigant was found entitled to right to relief, he
should ordinarily be resorted to the position in which he would have been
done to him. This Court further observed that where the petitioner was
wrongfully disallowed to operate the mining lease for the full lease period but
the lease remained inoperative and no third-party right created, held, petitioner
F must be allowed to operate the mine for the full period of lease subject to
adjustment for the period for which he has already operated.

This Court further observed that a litigant though entitled to relief in
law, may yet be denied relief in equity having regard to subsequent or
intervening events between commencement of litigation and date of decision
G and that the rights of parties get crystalised on the date of commencement
of litigation and, therefore, right to relief should be decided accordingly.

In the instant case, the lease was granted to the appellant in Civil appeal
No. 800 of2005 for a period often years on 14.7.1998 and the appellant's
appeal before the Commissioner for constitution of Committee which was
H
DOIWALA SEHKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD."· STATE OF UTTARANCHAL (LAKSHMANAN, J.j 827

allowed by order dated 9.8.2001 by reviving the application of the appellant A
and directed the District Magistrate to decide the application of the· appellant
for grant of lease. While the appeals of the appellant were pending, the State
of U.P. passed an order on 4.9.1999 granting lease to the U.P. Forest
Corporation for l 0 years. The appellant challenged the order for grant of
lease before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
B
As pointed out by Mr. L.N. Rao, in our opinion, he is right in his
submission. The policy decision would not have come in the way of grant
of lease and fructified much before the policy came into being.

As pointed out by this Court in the judgment of this Court in Beg Raj
Singh v. State of UP. & Ors. (supra), the appellant would be entitled to h~ve C
the lease till the expiry of ten years from the date of the grant of lease in their
favour. The rights of the appellants get crystalised on the date of
commencement of the litigation and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the
relief of continuing the lease till the expiry of the lease for ten years. The
appellant, in our opinion, must be allowed to operate the mine for the full D
period of lease subject to adjustment for the period for which he has already
operated and subject to the payment of lease amount and other dues etc.

We, therefore, allow C.A.No. 800 of 2005 only to the above extent and
not otherwise. The appellant shall not be entitled to continue the lease or
renewal thereof after the expiry of the period of ten years. E
In State of T.N. & Anr. v. P. Krishnamurthy & Ors. (supra), there is a
presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a subordinate
legisl~tion and the burden is upon the party who attacks it to show that it
is invalid. It is also well recognized that a subordinate legislation can be
challenged under arty of the following grounds: F
(a) Lack oflegislative competence to make the subordinate legislation.
(b) Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
(c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution.
G
(d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or
exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act.
·-· (e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment.

(t) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where the
H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A Court might well say that the legislature never intended to give
authority to make such rules).

The Court considering the validity of a subordinate legislation will have
to consider the nature, object and scheme of the enabling Act, and also the
area over which power has been delegated under the Act and then decide
B whether the subordinate legislation conforms to the parent statute. Where
a rule is directly inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the statute, then,
of course, the task of the Court is simple and easy. But where the contention
is that the inconsistency or non-conformity of the rule is not with reference
to any specific provision of the enabling Act, but with the object and scheme
C of the parent Act, the Court should proceed with caution before declaring
invalidity.

In Govind Prasadv. R.G. Parsad & Ors., [1994] 1 SCC 437, this Court
held that administrative order containing policy decision of the government
to change the conditions of promotion could not be given effect to unless
D suitable provisions were incorporated in the statutory rules.

As already noticed, the Uttaranchal Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules,
2001 (Adaptation & Modification) Order, 2001 was issued in pursuance of the
provisions of clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India the Governor
ordered publication of the Notification dated 30.4.2001 for general information.
E Sub-Rule (5) of rule l of the above amended Rules of 2001 has already
reproduced in paragraph supra. Therefore, the changed conditions can be
given effect to since suitable provisions were incorporated in the statutory
rules.

This Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. International
F Trading Company and Anr; (supra) in para 15 while dealing with the executive
power of State Government in respect of change of policy has held as under:-

"While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive
power, when not trammeled by any statute or rule is wide enough
what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that il change
G in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that
it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep
of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for
its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of
the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14
is fairness in action by the State, and non arbitrariness in essence and
H
DOI WALA SEUl\.ARI SHRAM SAM VIDA SAMIT! LTD. 1·. ST ATE OF urr ARANCHAL ILAKSHMANAN. J.j 829

substance is the heart beat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the A
panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act
validly for a discernible reasons, not whimsically for any ulterior
purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness
is more easily visualized than precisely defined. A question whether
the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered
on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious B
test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible
principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does really
satisfy the test of reasonableness."

Thus it is clear that the State Government has a power to change the C
policy under executive power only when it does not preamble by any statute
or rules.

- For the aforesaid reasons, we partly allow C.A. No. 800/2005 as indicated
in paragraph supra and dismiss C.A. Nos. 678 and 679 of 2005. No costs.

vs Civil Appeal 800 of 2005 partly allowed.
D
and CA. Nos. 678 and 679 of 2005 dismissed.