R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties for final disposal.
(2.) PETITIONER is challenging the advertisement dated 29th September, 2006 (Annexure 10) published by respondent No. 2 - Hindustan Copper Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Company") inviting expression of interest for re -commissioning and operative its Surda Mines and Concentrator Plant etc., situated at Mosaboni, Ghatsila. Mr. V. Shivnath, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as follows. The Labour Union requested the Company for allowing labours to re -start the said mine and plaint on forming a Cooperative, to which the Labour and Mines Department of the Government of India also have no objection. Petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as "MoU") on 11.2.2003 with the Company for the said purpose and the same was acted upon. Therefore, the Company is estopped from inviting expression of Interest from other parties. He further submitted that the action of the Company is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) MR . A.K. Sinha, Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Company submitted as follows. This writ petition is not maintainable. Only fundamental rights can be enforced against the instrumentality of the State. MoU is only an understanding for entering into an agreement. It is not a statutory contract. The Labour Union has been exercising pressure at different levels. Recommissioning the mine and plant requires expertise and huge investment, whereas petitioner is simply a pocket society of few labour leaders. Moreover the MoU is void db inltto being in the teeth of Rules 22, 22A, 22B, 22BB and 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules. It has not been acted upon. The Company is justified in finding out, the best financially and technically competent person. For maintaining transparency in awarding work, advertisement had to be made. He lastly submitted that Company is not precluded from taking a right decision. ;