IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 W.P.(C).No.34272 of 2007(S) ---------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS:- ---------------------- 1. SHIBU BABY JOHN , AGE 44, S/O.BABY JOHN, BABY JOHN SHASTHIYABDAPURTHI SMARAKA MANDIRAM, CHAVARA. 2. DARIOUS D'CRUZ, AGE 48, S/O.MELBY D'CRUZ, KARUKASSERIL HOUSE, KULANGARABHAGAM, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 3. K.G.RAVI, AGE 65, S/O.K.G.GOPALAN, RAMA BHAVAN, PADA-SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES AND CHAIRMAN, THE KERALA MINERALS & METALS LIMITED, (A GOVT. OF KERALA UNDERTAKING), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA. W.P.(C).NO.34272 OF 2007-S - 2 - 3. ROSOBORON EXPORTS, 21 GOGOLEVSKY BLVD, 119992, RUSSIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, MR.ALEXEI.V.ALESHIN. * 4. MR.ELAMARAM KARIM, MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (DELETED). 5. THE KERALA MINERALS & METALS LIMITED (A GOVT. OF KERALA UNDERTAKING), SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA-691583, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. * (4TH RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY, AS PER ORDER DATED 20.11.2007 ON MEMO FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER DATED 20.11.2007) R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. R5 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.34272 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 12th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Petitioners in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, have sought for the following reliefs. They are as under: “(a) issue a writ, order or direction prohibiting the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and/or their agents from going ahead with and/or implementing Exhibit P3 Memorandum of Understanding dated 17th 17th May, 2007 entered into with Roseboron (R-3); (b) issue a writ, order or direction authorizing an independent, external agency to investigate the irregularities in the MOU-Agreement formalized between the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Rosoboron (R-3); (c) issue a writ, direction or order prohibiting the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to cancel the expansion projects of the Respondent No.5 forthwith; (d) issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing any decision of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to terminate the agreements entered into for the expansion projects of Respondent No.5; (e) issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing any decision and/or action of Respondents Nos.1, 2 and 5 to proceed with new tenders and/or award of any new contracts in connection with the expansion projects of the Respondent No.5; W.P.(C) No.34272 of 2007 2 (f) issue a writ, order or direction prohibiting the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 from divulging the technology of Respondent No.5 to third parties and/or their agents and/or their associates; and/or; (g) award cost of the present proceedings; and (h) pass such other further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit resisting the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the writ petition. In paragraph 10 of their counter affidavit they have stated as under: “10. It is most respectfully submitted that Ext.P3 MOU has got nothing to do with any of the aforementioned projects of the 5th Respondent. Projects of the 5th Respondent and the project under Ext.P3 MOU are mutually independent and separate from each other. There is sufficient space and scope for all the projects to go on stream subject to the reservations as expressed in this Counter Affidavit. Expression of interest called for by the 5th Respondent and Ext.P3 MOU are distinct and separate. However there have been certain discussions with regard to coordinating and establishing the 10,000 MT Titanium Sponge Plant. It is not the 5th Respondent which has entered into the MOU with the 3rd Respondent, but it is the State Government and the project envisioned there under is not as a substitute or a challenge to the projects of the 5th respondent. On the other hand what is to be examined under Ext.P3 MOU is the possibility of an effective utilization of the abundant mineral wealth in the State for value added W.P.(C) No.34272 of 2007 3 products. Expansion projects contemplated by the 5th respondent Company will in no way be affected on account of Ext.P3 MOU or the project envisaged thereunder. It is only a feasibility study that is being undertaken under Ext.P3 MOU and the Government will take a final decision only after considering all aspects relating to the matter. All the apprehensions expressed by the Petitioners are totally baseless, misplaced and they do lack in merit.” 3. In view of the statements made by respondents 1 and 2 in paragraph 10 of their counter affidavit, Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that placing on record the statements made by the respondents in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, the writ petition may be disposed of. By accepting the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the petitioners it would cause no prejudice to the respondents. 4. Therefore, placing on record the statements made by respondents 1 and 2 in paragraph 10 of their counter affidavit, this writ petition is disposed of as having become unnecessary. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE vns