- (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 challenge to the demand notice is on the same grounds. Hence, all the six cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common 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 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.G.R. Scindia, MLA & Ors. [(1996) 7 SCC 416], nonetheless, the lessees, including 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 during the aforesaid period has been settled by the Supreme Court in the decision in Karnataka Rare Earth & Anr. 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 excavation of granite not on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court in Alanakar 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 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 if the relevant facts are put in proper sequence. 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. 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 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 Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969. At that stage the petitioner went to the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.20939 of 1990 questioning the constitutional validity of Rule 3-A and seeking 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 : "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.M.M.C.Rules insofar as the petitioner is concerned, be and the same is hereby stayed. Further, that the Respondents be and are hereby restrained 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)
(3.) 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 : "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 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. In the light of the later developments the respondents have to consider the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of the 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. Learned counsel however submits under the new Rules renewal is not automatic and therefore the position as regards status quo 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 off accordingly." (words in italics indicate emphasis laid on behalf of the petitioners);