DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department issued show cause notices dated 02.05.2017 under Sub-Section (2) of Sec. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) (herein after referred as 'State Act') to the Writ Petitioner-Company. Challenging the show cause notices, the present writ petitions have been filed by the Petitioner-Company, firstly, on the ground that the State Government has no jurisdiction or authority to initiate any proceedings under the provisions of the State Act. Secondly, the Petitioner-Company is a lease holder under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as 'Central Act'), and such a right conferred under the provisions of the Central Act cannot be taken away by the State Government by invoking the State Act.

(2.) In this regard, Mr. P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner-Company urged that the State Government has no powers over riding the effect of the Central Act, pursuant to which a Lease Agreement was entered between the Writ Petitioner-Company and the State Government. Thereafter, the learned Senior Counsel contended that by giving effect to the provisions of the State Act, Petitioner-Company's right of mining granted under the lease by virtue of the Central Act will be taken away.

(3.) In this context, Mr. Ayyadurai, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the state Government contended that none of those points can be considered, more specifically, at this point of time, and the authority of the State cannot be questioned, since the subject is in concurrent list of the Constitution of India and the State has got powers independently to deal with land acquisition and, such powers vested with the State cannot be taken away either by the Central Act or otherwise. Secondly, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the orders under challenge are show cause notices issued under the provisions of the State Act and it is left open for the Petitioner-Company to submit their explanations/objections, if any, to the competent authorities and the same has to be considered subjectively and the decision has to be taken under the provisions of the State Act. Such being the course of action left open to the discretion of the State Authorities under the Act, it is premature to entertain these kinds of writ petitions and State will suffer and the public interest also will have certain negative impacts, if these writ petitions are entertained at this stage and kept it pending for an unspecified period by this Court. Thirdly, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the lease granted under the provisions of the Central Act is nothing but transfer of right to enjoy the property and such a leasehold right cannot be considered or construed as a Statutory right, more specifically when the State Government has taken a decision to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the State Act.