BURN STANDARD CO LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs. Hema Sampath, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P. Wilson, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the respondents 1 and 2, Mr. P. S. Raman, the learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents 3 to 9 and Mr. Vijayan for M/s. King and Partridge, appearing for the respondent 10.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and it is a Government of India undertaking. The petitioner company had started mining operations in Salem and has continued to do so, for the past several decades. The petitioner company is mining Magnesite from its lease hold lands and the mined Magnesite is processed in its factory at Salem. The products manufactured in the said factory at Salem are used by all major steel plants, as well as copper, glass and cement industries in India and in other countries. With a turnover of more than 65 crores the petitioner is earning valuable foreign exchange by exporting its various products like Calcinated Magnesite, refractory bricks and refractory bulk materials. The petitioner company has invested huge amounts of money in installing modern equipments for the mining and manufacturing process and has employed more than 250 employees to carry on its activities. The petitioner company is the only company in the country manufacturing refractories. The petitioner company has been mining Magnesite in Jagir Amma Palayam and Thathiyangarpatti areas in Salem, under three lease deeds. The present writ petition is relating to the mines in the lands in Jagir Amma Palayam Village covered by two lease deeds, dated 01. 09. 1981 and 14. 12. 1982. The period of both the leases was twenty years. The petitioner had applied for renewal for a further period of twenty years, as per the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (in Short `the Rules' ). The District Collector, Salem District, the 8th respondent herein had also recommended for the renewal of the lease in favour of the petitioner company. Since the fresh lease had not been executed by the State Government, under Rule 25a of the Rules, the lease is deemed to have been renewed. However, Government of Tamilnadu had passed a Government Order in G. O. Ms. No. 114 Revenue (Ni. Mu. 7), Department, dated 07. 03. 007, proposing to convey the land to ELCOT for establishing an information Technology Park, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to raise objections. In such circumstances, the petitioner company had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, challenging G. O. Ms. No. 114 Revenue (Ni. Mu. 7), dated 07. 03. 2007, as ultravires, illegal and invalid in the eye of law.

(3.) SINCE the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents have raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court, without the petitioner having placed the matter before the High Powered Committee, as contemplated by the Supreme Court in its decision, reported in Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A. P. Vs. Collector and others (AIR 2003 S. C. 1805), it has become necessary for this Court, without going into the merits of the case, to decide the preliminary issue, by consent of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned.