Holding

The petitioners are liable to pay the value of the granite excavated and the demand notices are upheld.

Summary

The petitioners, Mis. Oriental Select Granite Pvt. Ltd., challenged demand notices requiring them to pay the value of granite excavated between 27 August 1993 and 18 January 1996, contending that they were protected by interim orders of the Karnataka High Court dated 24 October 1990 and a status‑quo order of 24 June 1994. The Supreme Court held that those High Court orders became ineffective when the State Government renewed the leases on 18 June 1991 and were later set aside by the High Court, and that the petitioners, like all other lessees, continued quarrying only under the Supreme Court’s interim order of 27 August 1993 in the Alankar Granites case. Consequently, the petitioners are liable to make good the value of the granite and the demand notices are valid. The Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on the High Court orders and on selective passages of the Alankar Granites and Karnataka Rare Earth judgments. All six Special Leave Petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

The validity of the demand notices requiring the petitioners to pay for granite excavated between 27‑08‑1993 and 18‑01‑1996.
Whether the petitioners were protected by the Karnataka High Court interim order of 24‑10‑1990 and the status‑quo order of 24‑06‑1994.
Whether the petitioners’ quarrying operations were authorised by the Supreme Court interim order of 27‑08‑1993, making them liable under the Karnataka Rare Earth decision.

Subjects

mining leasegraniteinterim orderdemand noticeliabilityKarnataka Minor Minerals Concession RulesSupreme CourtHigh CourtSpecial Leave Petitionquarrying

Judgment

;
-+- I

MIS. ORIENTAL SELECT GRANITE PVT. LT:i:>. A
f VS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
DECEMBER 11, 2007
[G.P. MATHUR AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] B

-/, Mines and Minerals - Mining leases - Grant of, for mining
Granite - Litigation regarding grant/renewal of mining leases -
High Court set aside the grant/renewal of leases - Quarrying
operations allowed by Supreme Court by interim orders dated c
27.8.1993 -Appeals of lessees ultimately dismissed by Supreme
Court on 18.1.1996 - Thereafter, transport permits granted to
lessees for transportation of granite excavated prior to dismissal
of appeals by Supreme Court - Subsequently, demand notices
issued to lessees to make good the value of granite so transported D
- Plea of lessees that they continued mining operations under
interim orders dated 24.10.1990 and 24.6.1994 passed by High
Court and they could not be clubbed with those carrying on mining
operations under interim order dated 2 7. 8.1993 passed by Supreme
Court - Held : Claim of lessees is not tenable - Interim order E
dated 24.10.1990 became ineffective with renewal of lease and
lost all its force when grant/renewal of leases was struck down by
High Court - Besides, once the same issues between the same or
similarly placed parties are decided by Supreme Court, no order
or direction passed by High Court contrary to or at variance with F
decision of Supreme Court would survive - Karnataka Minor
Minerals Concession Rules, 1969 - r. 34-Karnataka Minor Minerals
Concession Rules, 1994.
Prior to 1990, the petitioners held lease for mining granite. G
On its expiry, the State Authorities did not renew the lease, in
view of the bar created by rule 3A of the Karnataka Minor
Minerals Concession Rules, 1969. The petitioners filed a writ
petition seeking renewal of the lease. On 24.10.1990 the High
85 H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A Court passed an interim order in the writ petition. Operation of
Rule 3 A was stayed and the respondents were restrained from
interfering with petitioners' right to carry on quarry operations.
While the writ petition was pending, on 18.06.1991 the State
Government granted/renewed mining leases to different parties,
B incmding the petitioners. Certain other writ petitions were filed
challenging the action of the State Government. The Single Judge
of the High Court set aside the leases granted/renewed by the
State Government. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld
the judgment of the Single Judge. Appeals were filed before the
c Supreme Court and the same were referred to as Alankar
Granites' case. The present petitioner's appeals also formed
part of the batch of Alankar Granites, wherein the Supreme
Court passed an interim order on 27.08.1993 to the effect that
renewals of existing grants in favour of the petitioners would
D continue till further orders of the Court. Meanwhile, the 1969
Rules were replaced by.Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 1994, and in the writ petition filed by the petitioners, the
High Court by its order dated 24.07.1994 passed directions to
maintain status quo and disposed of the writ petitions. Ultimately,
E by order dated 18.01.1996, the appeals were dismissed by the
Supreme Court and the grant of quarrying leases by the State
Government was held to be bad and illegal.
Thereafter, two of the lessees Mis. God Granites and
p Karnataka Rare Earth, covered by the aforesaid decision dated
18.1.1996 applied for and were granted transport permits by the
State authorities for transportation of granites quarried before
the dismissal of the appeals by the Supreme Court. Later on,
the authorities issued notice to the lessees to make good the
G value of granite that so transported. The demand notice was
challenged. Both the Single Judge as also the Division Bench of
the High Court upheld the demand raised. In the Karnataka
Rare Earth ·& Anr v Senior geologist, department of Mines &
Geology & Anr (2004) 2 SCC 783, this Comt held that the
I-I grantees were liable to make good to the State the value of
MIS. ORIENTAL SELECT GRANITE PVT. LTD. v. 87
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
granite excavated by them during the said period. A
In the instant SLPs, the six petitioners challenged the
demand notices to pay the value of the granite excavated and
transported by them during 27.08.1993 to 18.01.1996, issued in
the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of B
Karnataka High Court and upheld in appeal by the Supreme
Court in Karnataka Rare Earths case.
Dismissing the SLPs., the Court
HELD: 1.1 The petitioners' contention that they carried C
on quarrying operations on the basis of the interim order of the
High Court dated 24.10.1990, coupled with the final order of
status quo dated 24.06.1994 passed by the High Court in some
earlier case, and, therefore, no demand could be raised against
them and they were protected by certain observations made in D
the decisions in Alankar Granites and Karnataka Rare Earth, is
untenable. First, the writ petition seeking direction to the
concerned authorities in the State Government for renewal of
their quarrying leases was rendered infructuous on 18.06.1991
when the petitioners' leases were renewed by the State E
Government. The interim order dated 24.10.1990 became
ineffective with the renewal of the leases and it lost all force
when the grant/renewal of leases by the State Government was
struck down by the High Court. No reliance can also be placed
" on the final order in the writ petition as it was passed in a F
petition that was infructuous. Secondly, it was passed without
any adjudication on the issues involved in the case and without
determining the rights and liabilities of the parties. Thirdly, it
was passed without the Court being informed about the
developments that took place during the pendency of the case G
and the matter being pending before this Court. Most
importantly, it is basic and elementary that once the same issues
between the same or similarly placed parties are decided by this
Court, no order or direction passed by the High Court contrary
H
\.,
~-
\

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A to or at variance with the decision of this Court would survive.
(Para 13) [95-A, B, C, D, E]
1.2. The petitioners, like all other lessees in Alankar
Granites, carried on their quarrying operations on the basis of
B
the interim order dated 27.08.1993 passed by this Court and the ....
petitioners are fully covered by the decisions in Alankar Granites
and Karnataka Rare Earth. (Para 14) [95-E, F]
Alankar Granites Industries & Ors v P.GR. Scindia, MLA &
Ors (1996) 7 SCC 416; Karnataka Rare Earth & Anr v Senior
c geologist, department of Mines & Geology & Anr (2004) 2 SCC
783 - relied on.
Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. and Ors. vs. U.P.
State Electricity Board and Ors. 1997 (5) SCC 772; South Eastern
D Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of MP. and Ors. 2003 (8) SCC 648 -
referred to.
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(C) No.23678 of 2004

E From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2004 of the High
Court ofKamataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 2628 of2004
(GM-MM-S).
WITH
S.L.P.(C) Nos. 23686 of2004, 24313-24314 of2004, 19352-
F 19354 of 2004, 25275 of 2004 and 21130 of 2005.
Altaf Alunad, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar
K. Swami a11d Prabha Swami for the Appellant.
Sanjay R. Hegde and Amit Kumar Chawla, for the Respondents.
G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. In all the six petitions for Special Leave
to Appeal, challenge is made to the same demand notice (of course
with varying amounts in regard to different petitions). In all cases the
H challenge to the demand notice is on the same grounds. Hence, all the
--f-
MIS. ORIENTAL SELECT GRANITE PVT. LTD. v. 89
STATE OF KARNATAKA& ORS. [AFTABALAM, J.]
six cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common A
, I order.
2. By the impugned demand notice, the petitioners were asked
to pay the value of the granite excavated and transported by them
during the period August 27, 1993 to January 18, 1996. The demand
B
is raised on the basis that though the grant of quarrying leases by the
State Government (in all 302 in number, including those in favour of
+ the petitioners), was eventually held to be bad and illegal by the
Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court (vide judgment and
order in Alankar Granites Industries & Ors. vs. P.GR. Scindia,
MU &Ors. ((1996) 7 SCC 416], nonetheless, the lessees, including c
the petitioners, were able to carry on quarrying operations on the basis
of the interim order passed in the case by this Court on August 27,
1993 till the appeals were finally dismissed on January 18, 1996. Here
it may also be noted that the question regarding the grantees' liability
to make good to the State the value of granite excavated by them D
during the aforesaid period has been settled by the Supreme Court in
the decision in Karnataka Rare Earth & Am: Vs. Senior Geologist,
Department of Mines & Geology & Anr. [(2004) 2 SCC 783). But
on behalf of the six petitioners, presently before this Court, it is
contended that during the period in question they carried on the E
excavation of granite not on the basis of the interim order passed by
this Court in A/anakar Granites but on the basis of certain orders
passed by the High Court. The ground on which the impugned notice
is based, therefore, does not apply to them and as a matter of fact the
.
' petitioners are protected in view of some observations made in the F
decisions in Alankar Granites and Karnataka Rare Earth. In our
view the contention is not sustainable either on facts or in law. This
would be evident ifthe relevant facts are put in proper sequence.
3. The facts of the case are taken from Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.23678 of2004 (Mis.Oriental Select Granite Pvt. Ltd. Vs. G
State ofKarnataka & Ors.) which was argued as the lead case in the
batch.
4. Prior to 1990 the petitioner held a mining lease for granite. On
expiry of the lease period, sometime in the year 1990 its request for H
\
~-
\

90- SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A renewal of the lease was not allowed by the concerned authority in
).--

view of the bar created by Rule 3-A that was introduced in the
Kamataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969. At that stage the
petitioner went to the Kamataka High Court in Writ Petition No.20939
of 1990 questioning the constitutional validity of Rule 3-A and seeking
B appropriate directions to the concerned authority for renewal of the
quarrying lease granted in its favour, besides some other incidental
reliefs. On October 24, 1990, a learned Single Judge of the Court
passed an interim order in the writ petition in the following terms :

c "Pending disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petition it is hereby
ordered by this Court on 24.10.90, the operation of Rule 3-
A of K.MMC.Rules insofar as the petitioner is concerned,
be and the same is hereby stayed.
Further, that the Respondents be and are hereby restrained
D from interfering with the petitioner :S right to carry on quarry
operation in the schedule land on payment of royalty and
transportation of the granite."
(portions in italics indicate emphasis laid on behalf of the petitioner)
E 5. The writ petition lay pending in the High Court for over 3-1/
2 years. In the meanwhile Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
1969 that contained Rule 3-A was replaced by Kamataka Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 w.e.f. May 23, 1994. Taking note of
the legislative development the writ petition was finally disposed of by )-

F order, dated June 24, 1994. The relevant extract from this order is as
follows:
"The Respondents have refused to grant the renewal sought for
on the basis of the said Rule as it stood at the relevant time. The
G said Rule 3A has undergone several changes and it has also been
interpreted by this Court on several occasions. In the meanwhile
the respondents have repealed the old Rules and have introduced
new Rules i.e. Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994
replacing the Rules of the year 1969 in which Rule 3A occurs.
H In the light of the later developments the respondents have to
---~
MIS. ORIENTAL SELECT GRANITE PVT. LTD. v. 91
STATE OF KARN ATAKA & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J .]
consider the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of the A
licence in the light of the law laid down by this Court and in the
light of the Rules. Until then status quo shall be maintained,
subject to relevant Rules. On this basis several petitions have
been disposed off.
B
Learned counsel however submits under the new Rules renewal
is not automatic and therefore the position as regards status quo
t should not be continued. But I do not think that I should detract
from the earlier position now unless respondents themselves take
appropriate action in that regard. Petition shall stand disposed C
off accordingly."
(words in italics indicate emphasis laid on behalf of the petitioners)
6. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of
the petitioner strongly argued that the petitioner carried on the excavation D
and transport/export of granite on the basis of the interim order passed
r
by the High Court on October 24, 1990, long before the interim
direction given by the Supreme Court onAugust 27, 1993 in Alankar
Granites. Further, the petitioner was able to continue the operations
on the basis of the direction of the High Court to maintain status quo E
by its order dated June 24, 1994 while Alankar Granites remained
pending in the Supreme Court. The petitioner was allowed to carry on
excavation and transport/export of granite till January 18, 1996 when
the Supreme Court pronounced judgment in Alankar Granites and all
operations were then stopped by the State authorities. It was thus F
wrong to club the petitioner along with the lessees who were in operation
on the basis of the interim direction given by the Supreme Court on
August 27, 1993 in Alankar Granites and the respondents-authorities
had wrongly raised the demand against the petitioner along with the
demand notices issued to the other lessees. Mr.Ahmad further submitted G
that in the case of the petitioner the interim direction of this Court was
not to simply allow him to continue quarrying but the operation of Rule
3-A itself was stayed and that brought about a material difference in
the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that on June 24,
1994 when the writ petition came up for final disposal before the High H
\
..J.
I,

92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.

A Court the interim direction staying operation of Rule 3-A had lost
relevance but the other interim direction whereby the respondents were
restrained from interfering with the petitioners right to cany on quanying
operation was extended by directing to the parties to maintain status
quo. He went so far as to say that on the basis of the status quo order,
B it was still open to the petitioner to carry on quarrying operation in
case the respondents had not so far considered its application for
renewal of the licence. Learned counsel also referred to certain
observations made in paragraph 8 of the decision in Alankar Granites
and in paragraph 17 in Karnataka Rare Earth and submitted that the
C two decisions of this Court had made a distinction in case of grantees
who carried on operations on a basis other than the interim order
passed by this Court and in their case some room was allowed for
concession.
D 7. The submission appears to be devoid of merit. One or two
sentences picked up from here and there from the decisions in Alankar
Granites and Karnataka Rare Earth referred to by Mr.Ahmad in no
way support or protect the petitioners. Most importantly, the reliance
placed on the two orders passed by .the High Court would appear to
E be wholly misconceived and unfounded when viewed in the totality of
relevant facts and circumstances.
8. It is noted above that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.20929
of 1990 seeking directions to the concerned authority for renewal of
the quarrying licence granted in its favour. The High Court passed
F certain interim orders in the case on October 24, 1990 that are
reproduced above. On June 18, 1991, while this writ petition was
pending the State Government granted/renewed 203 mining leases for
granite to different parties, including the six petitioners presently before
this Court. The action of the State Government in granting/renewing
G the leases (203 in number) came under challenge before the High
Court in several writ petitions filed by way of Public Interest Litigation.
All the writ petitions were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the
Court and all the leases granted/renewed by the State Government
were set aside. Some of the lessees aggrieved by the judgment of the
H
MIS. ORIENTAL SELECT GRANITE PVT. LTD. v. 93
STATE OF KARNATAKA& ORS. [AFTABALAM, J.)

I
Single Judge took the matter in appeal in W.A.Nos.538-539 of 1993 A
and connected matters. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
all the appeals and confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge
by order dated June 25, 1993. Against the decision of the Division .
Bench appeals were taken to this Court. All those appeals were put
together and were referred to by the title of the leading case, Alankar B
Granites. It js an admittedposition that the six petitioners presently
before this Court had also filed appeals against the decision of the
Kamataka High Court and their appeals too were part of the batch of
Alankar Granites. In Alankar Granites this Court passed the
following order on August 27, 1993 : c
"Issue Notice.
Renewals of existing grants in favour of the petitioners shall
continue till further orders of the Court."
D
(
9. Finally, however, all the appeals were dismissed by judgment
and order dated January 18, 1996 and this Court held that the decision
of the High Court striking down the grant of203 leases (including
those in favour of the petitioners) did not suffer from any infirmity.
10. The matter did not stop there. After all the appeals were E
dismissed by this Court on January 18, 1996, two of the lessees
covered by the decision, namely, Mis. God Granites and Karnataka
Rare Earth applied before the concerned authorities of.the State
Government for transport permits for transportation of granites quarried
'
before the dismissal of the appeals by the Supreme Court and permits F
were granted to them under the relevant Rules. Later on, the authorities
issued notice asking the two lessees to make good the value of granite
that was transported after dismissal of the appeals. The demand notice
was sought to be challenged before the High Court in W.P.Nos.5392-
5394/1996. The two writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single G
Judge by order dated March 4, 1996. The matter was taken in appeal
before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, while dismissing the
appeal made the observation that the concerned authorities 'could
have directed the recovery of the whole of the granite excavated
H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007]13 (Addl.)S.C.R.

A during the period of its stay or its price'. Against the order of the
Division Bench, Karnataka Rare Earth & Anr. came in appeal before
this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.3618-3619of1999. The appeals were
finally dismissed by judgment and order dated January 23, 2004.
B 11. The demand notices that are sought to be challenged in this
round on behalf of the six petitioners were issued in light of the
observation made by the Division Bench ofKarnataka High Court and
upheld in appeal by this Court in Karnataka Rare Earth.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances noted above, the very
C premise on which the case of the petitioners' is based appears to be
quite unfounded and unacceptable. It is wrong and incorrect to say
that the petitioners carried on quarrying operations on the basis of the
interim order and the final order of status quo passed by the High
Court in their writ petitions. On June 18, 1991, when the State
D Government renewed the petitioners' leases (besides many others), the
writ petitions seeking direction to the concerned authorities in the State
Government for renewal of their quarrying leases were rendered
infructuous. The renewal of lease by the State Government opened up
a new chapter in the controversy. The leases granted/renewed by the
E State Government on June 18, 1991, were struck do\\11 by a learned
Single Judge of the Court and the judgment was affirmed in appeal by
the Division Bench. In view of this development it cannot be said that
the petitioners carried on their quarrying operations on the basis of the
interim order passed by the High Court on October 24, 1990. In
F appeals from the decision of the High Court this Court in Alankar
Granites passed the interim order on August 27, 1993. It is thus
evident that the six petitioners, like all others covered by the decision
in Alankar Granites, were able to carry on their quarrying operations
on the basis of the interim order of this Court dated August 27, 1993
G and not on the basis of any other order passed by the High Court.
When the writ petition (W.P.No.20939/1990) came up for final disposal
the Court was not informed that it was infructuous. The Court was •
also not informed about the developments taking place during its
pendency and the matter of grant of lease being pending before this
H
~-
MIS. ORIENTAL SELECT GRANITE PVT. LTD. v. 95
STATEOFKARNATAKA&ORS. [AFTABALAM,J.]

.,_ Court. The High Court, thus unaware of those developments, passed A
the final order, without any adjudication on the issues involved in the
case, directing the parties to maintain status quo.
13. It is thus to be seen that the petitioners' contention that
they carried on quarrying operations on the basis of the interim order
B
of the High Court dated October 24, 1990 coupled with the final
order of status quo dated June 24, 1994 is untenable for more reasons
~
than one. First, the writ petition was rendered infructuous on June 18,
1991 when the petitioners' leases were renewed by the State
Government. The interim order dated October 24, 1990 became
ineffective with the renewal of the leases and it lost all force when the c
grant/renewal of leases by the State Government was struck down by
the High Court. No reliance can also J:.e placed on the final order in
the writ petition as it was passed in a petition that was infructuous.
Secondly, it was passed without any adjudication on the issues involved
in the case and without determining the rights and liabilities of the D
parties. Thirdly, it was passed without the Court being informed about
' the developments that took place during the pendency of the case and
the matter being pending before this Court. Most importantly, it is
basic and elementary that once the same issues between the same or
similarly placed parties are decided by this Court no order or direction E
passed by the High Court contrary to or at variance with the decision
ofthis Court would survive.
14. I have, therefore, no manner of doubt that the petitioners,
like all other lessees in Alankar Granites, carried on their quarrying
' F
operations on the basis of the interim order dated August 27, 1993
passed by this Court and the petitioners are fully covered by the
decisions in Alankar Granites and Karnataka Rare Earth.
15. This finding rejects the petitioners' plea that they carried on
quarrying operations under the interim order and the order of status G
quo passed by the High Court and, therefore, no demand could be
raised against them and they were protected by certain observations
~
made in the decisions in Alankar Granites and Karnataka Rare
Earth. But in fairness fo Mr.Ahmad a refere;1ce may also be made to
his submissions based on the two decisions. Ivlr.Ahmad submitted that H
96 . SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [2007] lJ(Addl.)S.C.R.

A in paragraph 8 of the decision in Alankar Granites this Court had
x
observed that no benefit accrued to any lessee by virtue of the stay
orders passed by the High Court because the operation of Rule 3-A
was neither suspended nor struck down. The counsel pointed out that
in the case of the petitioners the operation of Rule 3-A was, as a
B matter of fact, stayed by the High Court by interim order dated October
24, 1990 and, therefore, the petitioners were not liable to pay the
value of the granite.
16. Paragraph 8 of the decision from which the two sentences
c are picked up reads as follows :
"Shri Soli Sorabjee, the learned counsel for some of the
appellants, advanced another argument to support these grants.
He submitted that by virtue of the said order of the High Court
in the earlier writ petitions challenging the further amendments
D made in Rule 3-A, the power under Rule 3(1) was available for
making these grants with the prior approval of the Government
•
which was given by the order dated 18-6-1991. We are unable
to accept this submission. The said order in the earlier writ ·
petitions merely had the effect of requiring the applications of the
E petitioners in those writ petitions to be disposed of without
reference to rule 3-A but the validity of the grant made to those
petitioners had to be adjudicated with reference to Rule 3-A
unless Rule 3-A was struck down leading to its obliteration.
Admittedly, Rule 3-A was not struck down and, therefore, the
F ,
validity of the grant, if any, made e1-·en in favol.ll' of those petitioners
had to be decided with reference to Rule 3-A. This being so, no
benefit accrued to any other person by virtue of those stay
orders. It is clear that the operation of Rule 3-A was not ~--pended ·
and Rule 3-A has not been struck down. The prohibition contained
G in !lule 3-A against making any s:.:.ch grant, therefore, continued
to operate."
17. From the passage quoted above, it is evident that the leases
, ·granted/renewed by the State Government were sought to be defended
H on the plea that in some earlier cases filed before the High Court (like .
I
--+-
MIS. ORIENTAL SELECT GRANITE PVT. LTD. v. 97
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
the ones filed by the petitioners) the High Court had stayed the operation A
i of Rule 3-A and consequently it was open to the State Government
to grant/renew the leases in exercise of its power under Rule 3(1 ). The
submission was turned down by this Court, holding that the validity of
the grant had to be judged with reference to Rule 3-A, unless Rule 3~
A was struck down leading to its obliteration. The observation relied B
upon by Mr.Ahmad was made in that context. Placed in context the
reliance on the two sentences in the judgment appears to be quite
misplaced.
18. Mr.Ahmad also referred to paragraph 17 of the decision in C
Karnataka Rare Earth where this Court observed as follows :
"Neither the appellants prayed for such relief nor the Court
passed any such order. What this Court had not done, could not
obviously have been done by the High Court in exercise of its
writ jurisdiction in view of the earlier judgment of this Court D
having achieved a finality."
19. The counsel submitted that the petitioners had no occasion
to make the prayer because they were already protected by the interim
order of the High Court. It is already seen that that was not the E
position and hence, the submission is quite unacceptable.
20. Mr. Hegde in support of the demand relied upon two decisions
of this Court, one in Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd & Ors.
Vs. UPState Electricity Board & Ors. [(1997) 5 SCC 772] and the F
other in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of MP& Ors.
[(2003) 8 sec 648]. The reliance is well placed but in light of the
discussions made above the case of the petitioners is quite untenable
even without adverting to those decisions.
21. In view of the discussions made above we find no merit or G
substance in these petitions for special leave. All the Special Leave
Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
N.J. Special Leave Petitions dismissed. H