CALCOM CEMENT INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioners praying for setting aside and quashing the Memorandum of Understanding ('MoU') entered into between Assam Mineral Development Corporation ('AMDC') (respondent No. 6) and M/s. Jayprakash Associates Ltd. (respondent No. 8) in so far as it relates to utilization of limestone and coal deposits available in the mines of the AMDC at New Umrangshu and North Cachar Hills district and further for restraining the Respondents from giving effect to the MoU entered into by the said Respondent No. 6 with Respondent No. 8 without first making available limestone and coal to the Petitioners from the mines of AMDC at New Umrangshu and North Cachar Hills district on requirement basis and also for direction to the Respondents to make available limestone and coal to the Petitioners from the mines of AMDC at New Umrangshu and North Cachar Hills District respectively on requirement basis pursuant to the cabinet decision and commitments said to be made by the State Government.

(2.) HEARD Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Ajitsaria, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. A.K. Phookan, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Ms. H.M. Phukan, learned State counsel appearing for the State -respondents, i.e., Respondent Nos. l, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Mr. M. Bhuyan, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, Mr. A.M. Mazumdar and Mr. S.K. Upadhyaya, learned senior counsel assisted by M. Nath, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 8 and Mr. B.D. Das, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 9. The pleaded case of the Petitioners is that the Petitioner No. l is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and in terms of the MoU dated 8.9.2004 entered into between Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. ('ArDC') and another company, namely, Vinay Cement Ltd. for the purpose of setting up a cement manufacturing project. At para 6.1 of Clause 6 of the MoU it was stipulated that AIDC would be the Co -Promoter in the proposed project to the extent of 10% of equity participation in the new company. Petitioner No. 2 is said to be the Chief of Corporate Communication as well as a shareholder and authorised signatory of the Petitioner No. 1 -company.

(3.) THE Petitioners have also annexed a copy of the Cabinet Memorandum as Annexure 3 to the writ petition which is said to be adopted by the Cabinet in connection with the joint venture envisaged under the aforesaid MoU dated 8.9.2004. Clauses 11 and 12 of the said Cabinet Memorandum which was pointed out and pressed on behalf of the Petitioners in course of argument being relevant are quoted hereunder: