Shree Chandrashekhar,J. - (1.) This writ petition was filed with the following prayers: (i) For a declaration that the petitioner in terms of Clause 8 of the indenture of lease dated 20.08.2005 has the full right to select a sublease and that the State Government cannot in exercise of its executive power interfere with the process of grant of sublease and/or reopen the transactions relating to the grant of sublease that have already been concluded with the due approval of the State Government at various levels save and except in the manner and extent provided for in the indenture of lease dated 20.08.2012. (ii) Further writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or directions commanding upon the Respondent State to act strictly within the parameters of Sec. 7D and 7E of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the BLR Act) and the terms and covenant of renewed indenture of lease dated 20.08.2005 executed by the State in favour of the petitioner Company to continue to carry out the mandate of Section 7D and 7E and not to interfere and/or act in any manner contrary to and in breach of the provisions of Sections 7D and 7E and the covenants of the terms of the registered Lease (hereinafter referred to as the renewed indenture of lease); and (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the Report of Mr. Debashish Gupta, Respondent No.5 dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure 10) and all letters issued pursuant there viz. a. the letter No. 5/Tata Lease Bhoomi Parivad10/ 103058/Ra, dated 17.09.2012, issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, respondent no.1 to the Divisional Commissioner, Kolhan, respondent no.2, which has been subsequently forwarded to the Dy. Commissioner, East Singhbhum, respondent No.3 under Memo No. 473/Go, dated 18.09.2012 issued under the signature of the respondent No.2, whereby it has been communicated, inter alia, that the construction activities on the plots subleased should be stopped and statusquo should be maintained. b. the letter No. 394/TL dated 21.09.2012 issued under the signature of the Dy. Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been asked to ensure stoppage of the construction activities on the subleased plots mentioned in Schedule 'Ka' enclosed with the letter dated 21.09.2012. (iv) Further an appropriate writ or writs, order or direction commanding upon the Respondent State to restrain from acting in any manner on the basis and in furtherance of the said Sri Debasish Gupta Committee Report (Annexure 10) during the pendency of the writ application. (v) For issuance any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) as deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.
(2.) Initially, this writ petition was tagged with W.P.(C) No.6138 of 2012 and Batch cases however, Mr. Vinod Kanth, the learned senior counsel appearing for the M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. submitted that the issues involved in the present writ petition are substantially different from the issues raised by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6138 of 2012 and Batch cases and therefore, this writ petition should be heard separately. Accordingly, after the hearing in W.P.(C) No.6138 of 2012 and Batch cases, which were allowed permitting the State Government to conclude the enquiry on or before 31.03.2015, with a further direction to issue individual show-cause notices to the petitioners therein, Mr. Vinod Kanth, the learned senior counsel for the petitionerM/ s. Tata Steel Ltd. resumed the argument in the present writ petition. However, when the order passed in W.P.(C) No.6138 of 2012 and Batch cases was brought to the notice of Mr. Vinod Kanth, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, he sought time for seeking further instruction in the matter. Accordingly, the matter was fixed for today. At the beginning itself, Mr. Vinod Kanth, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-M/ s. Tata Steel Ltd. submitted that in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6138 of 2012 and Batch cases, a liberty may be given to the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition with permission to file a fresh writ petition insofar as, prayers at Clauses (i) and (ii) are concerned. He further submits that this Court also may clarify that in the proposed enquiry, which is required to be concluded on or before 31.03.2015, if the State Government decides to take some action against the petitioner M/ s. Tata Steel Ltd., a notice would be issued to the petitioner with sufficient opportunity for replying the same and the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court by filing a separate writ petition challenging the decision of the State Government.
(3.) Permission is accorded.;