M/S.Oriental Select Granite Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

The facts of the case are taken from Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23678 of 2004 (M/s.Oriental Select Granite Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.) which was argued as the lead case in the batch.

(portions in italics indicate emphasis laid on behalf of the petitioner) 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 Karnataka 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 order, dated June 24, 1994. The relevant extract from this order is as follows :

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 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 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 Single Judge took the matter in appeal in W.A.Nos.538-539 of 1993 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 Granites. It is an admitted position that the six petitioners presently before this Court had also filed appeals against the decision of the Karnataka 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 :

The matter did not stop there. After all the appeals were dismissed by this Court on January 18, 1996, two of the lessees covered by the decision, namely, M/s.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 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 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 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- 3619 of 1999. The appeals were finally dismissed by judgment and order dated January 23, 2004.

In view of the facts and circumstances noted above, the very 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 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 State Government on June 18, 1991, were struck down 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 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 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 Court. The High Court, thus unaware of those developments, passed the final order, without any adjudication on the issues involved in the case, directing the parties to maintain status quo. It is thus to be seen that the petitioners' contention that they carried on quarrying operations on the basis of the interim order 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 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 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 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 to or at variance with the decision of this Court would survive.

Mr.Hegde in support of the demand relied upon two decisions of this Court, one in Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs. U.P.State Electricity Board & Ors. [(1997) 5 SCC 772] and the other in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.& Ors. [(2003) 8 SCC 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. In view of the discussions made above we find no merit or substance in these petitions for special leave. All the Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.