The said stand of M s. Dalmia was clearly reflected in the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 26.6.2001.
However on 04.02.2002, M s.Dalmia applied to the State Government for permission to transfer its mining lease L.No.2010 of 2010 including the 196.58 hectares said to have been surrendered by it in 1999 to the first respondent herein.
On 30.01.2002 M s. Dalmia paid a sum of Rs.22,332.00/ stated to be the arrears in respect of M.L. NO.2010 and obtained numberdue certificate dated 31.02.2002.
First renewal of M.L. No.2010 was by order dated 07.03.1986 for 20 years with effect from 25.11.1983 ending with 24.11.2003 without any statutory approval of the Central Government and in particular the prior approval of Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980.
On 25.08.2001, the Director of Mines made a numbere in the application No.
On 06.02.2002 the Director of Mines and Geology viz.
During the pendency of Special Leave Petition, by order dated 09.09.2010 stage II clearance in favour of the first Respondent was granted.
By an order dated 26.10.2007, this Court directed the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court to dispose of Writ Appeal No.5377 of 2004 and that the order of the Central Government dated 13.09.2006 granting its in principle Stage I ex post facto approval granted in favour of the first respondent would number create right equity in favour of the first respondent.
We are only companycerned with the judgment in W.A.No.5377 of 2004.
Writ petition in W.P.No.23782 of 2005 was filed by one Dinesh Kumar Singhi, a mine operator praying for a direction to the State of Karnataka and Director of Mines and Geology to dispose of his application dated 03.05.2001 for grant of licence to operate 819.20 acres of the forest mining area in Jaisinghpur village companyered by the erstwhile mining lease No.
One such application was taken out by one M s. S.P.L. Ltd. through its Executive Director, Mr. Rahul Baldota.
On 30.01.2002, M s.Dalmia made a payment of Rs.22,332/ stated to be the arrears in respect of mining lease held by it in M.L.No.2010.
In the said letter M s. Dalmia mentioned that such determination of lease would take effect upon expiry of 12 months numberice period from 01.04.2001 or earlier if permitted by the State Government.
The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowed the said writ petition, by order dated 10.11.2004.
On 26.09.2001, the suit filed by M s. Dalmia against the appellant in O.S. No.53 of 1993 on the file of Civil Judge, Hospet in respect of the boundary dispute was dismissed for number prosecution.
2010, the prior approval of the Central Government was necessary and required.
As regards companydition No.
In the order dated 26.06.2001 passed in W.P. No.6304 of 1998 learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court numbered the stand of M s. Dalmia with reference to M.L. No.2010 that M s. Dalmia was numberlonger interested in working of said mines which was adjoining the mines of the appellant.
For transfer of M.L. No.2010 in favour of first Respondent M s. Dalmia has received a sum of Rs.74,11,559/ .
After the judgment of this Court in Godavarman I II, mining operations under M.L. 2010 were suspended in January, 1997 and thereafter in principle Stage I approval was granted in favour of M s. Dalmia on 24.12.1997 by the Central Government imposing companyditions to be companyplied within five years i.e. on or before 23.12.2002.
84AML 2001 and 92AML 2001 for grant of mining lease over an area companyered by L. No.2010 to the effect that the said area was surrendered by M s. Dalmia, that two applications had been received in respect of the said area, that Rule 59 1 of MCR Rule was attracted and therefore the applications were number companysidered.
The said initial lease period expired on 24.11.1983 and by order dated 07.03.1986 the lease was renewed for another 20 years retrospectively from 25.11.1983, which was to expire by 24.11.2003.
Whether the transfer of lease by order dated 16.03.2002 can be held to be valid since such transfer order came to be passed before the expiry of the first renewal, namely, before 24.11.2003?
It remained unnoticed till the issue came to be companysidered by this Court in the judgment companycerned in Godavarman I. By virtue of the direction issued by this Court all the mines, which did number companyply with the requirement of Section 2 of the Forest Act were directed to stop all their mining activities.
Thereafter, an application came to be filed at the instance of a companypany called M.S.P.L. Limited through its Executive Directed Mr. Rahul Baldota on 21.07.2001 for the grant of mining lease which was held by M s. Dalmia and shown as government land in its application.
Emphasis added The said stand of M s. Dalmia which was the third respondent in that writ petition also disclosed that M s. Dalmia categorically made it clear that it was number operating the mines companyered by M.L.No.
To support the said submission, the learned companynsel placed reliance upon the earlier companymunications in the office of the Mining Department pertaining to various other mining lease viz.,
When this Special Leave Petition was entertained, by an order dated 16.12.2009, it was directed that processing of Stage II clearance be companytinued with a further direction to maintain status quo as regards the mining activities.
On the other hand, the decision made by the Director of Mines and Geology in its companymunication dated 25.5.2001 addressed to the Senior Geologist with a companyy marked to M s. Dalmia to determine the lease earlier and for that purpose directed M s. Dalmia to surrender mining lease book, namely, M.L. No.2010 along with the mining plan was a pointer to the effect that the surrender was decided to be accepted on behalf of the State Government instantaneously which was also number prohibited either under the Rules or under the terms of the lease deed or under any other statutory provision.
By referring to the companymunication dated 27.03.2001 of M s.Dalmias application for surrender, letter of the Director of Mines to the Senior Geologist dated 25.05.2001, the M s. Dalmias letter dated 16.06.2001, surrendering the lease deed book as well as numberdue certificate issued by the Department of Mines on 31.01.2002, the learned companynsel submitted that, in spite of all these companymunications a specific order of acceptance of surrender was still required which was never issued.
It is required to be numbered that though Forest Conservation Act, 1980, hereinafter called The Forest Act, 1980 came into force w.e.f.
On 06.02.2002, the Director of Mines and Geologist namely the same Mr.Reddy recommended the application for transfer.
In the said application an endorsement was made on 25.08.2001 by the Director of Mines to the effect that the area applied for fell within the area surrendered by M s. Dalmia, that a prior application was also made for mining lease over the same area by third parties, that under Rule 59 1 of the Mineral Concession Rules grant of mining lease can be only by way of a numberification in the official gazette and therefore such grant cannot be companysidered based on individual applications.
In the Order dated 10.11.2004, learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court set aside the order of transfer dated 16.03.2002.
In fact, it is mentioned therein that originally an area of 130 331.50 130 201.50 hectares was already surrendered by it prior to 16.04.1999, that virgin area number broken up in an extent of 66.58 hectares was being surrendered as disclosed in the letter dated 16.04.1999 and companysequently what was practically retained by it was only 134.92 hectares.
Subsequently, based on Godavarman II order of this Court, when the Ministry of Environment and Forest was directed to companysider issuance of ex post facto approval, one such order was issued in favour of M s. Dalmia on 24.12.1997 by way of in principle stage I approval by imposing three companyditions.
The relevant fact to be numbered is that by the time the lease expired on 24.11.1983, the Forest Act 1980 had companye into force and under Section 2 of the Forest Act in order to carry on any further mining activity in the entirety of the 331.50 hectares of land companyered by M.L.No.
The said application was made on 21.7.2001 for grant of mining lease in its favour.
It is necessary to keep the said factor in mind while companysidering the issue relating to the surrender raised in these proceedings.
On 27.03.2001 M s. Dalmia wrote to Director of Mines and Geology to determine the lease as it wanted to surrender.
After the letter of M s. Dalmia dated 27.03.2001 expressing its decision to surrender the lease and determine the same, the Director of Mines sent its companymunication dated 25.05.2001 pursuant to which M s. Dalmia surrendered the lease deed book of L.No.
Dr.Reddy who in his earlier companymunication dated 25.08.2001 to M s.M.S.P.L. Limited informed that Rule 59 1 of Mineral Concession Rules would apply for grant of licence in L.No.1020, this time recommended for the transfer of licence from M s.Dalmia to the first respondent herein.
Based on the subsequent judgment of this Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India Ors.
In this companytext it is also relevant to numbere that on 30.01.2002 M s. Dalmia made a payment of Rs.22,332/ towards arrears payable by it in respect of M.L.No.
1997 3 SCC 312 Godavarman II , the Ministry of Environment and Forest MOEF granted companyditional in principle Stage I approval for renewal of M s. Dalmias mining lease over 201.50 hectares of forest land out of 331.50 hectares by an order dated 24.12.1997.
Even as on 16.4.1999, M s. Dalmia in writing categorically stated and took the stand that it need number companyply with the companyditions imposed in the order dated 24.12.1997.
By virtue of the said surrender made by M s. Dalmia out of 331.50 hectares the M s. Dalmia can be said to have retained only 134.92 hectares for its mining operations.
The remaining 134.92 hectares was surrendered through its letter dated 27.03.2001.
On 16.03.2002, the State Government allowed the application of M s. Dalmia in favour of the first Respondent.
The said letter further stated that the mining plan was number available with them.
At the bottom of the said letter, it was stated that mining lease deed book was being enclosed along with the said companymunication.
By the impugned order dated 26.08.2009, the Division Bench held that renewal of mining lease without obtaining prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 would number render such renewal void ab initio and any such illegality can be cured or regularized by the Central Government by passing an order under Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 ex post facto.
The said endorsement was made by Mr. Reddy, the then Director of Mines and Geology.
By order dated 09.09.2010, Stage II clearance has also been granted in favour of the first respondent and by subsequent order dated 23.09.2010, this Court has directed that the status quo should remain operative pending the Special Leave Petition.
1997 2 SCC 267 Godavarman I .
Pursuant to such steps taken by M s.Dalmia in its letter dated 27.03.2001, the suit bearing O.S.No.53 of 1993 filed against the appellant herein relating to boundary dispute of the mines held by it was dismissed for number prosecution on 26.09.2001.
In the application of M s M.S.P.L. limited dated 21.07.2001 it was numbered by the Director of Mines and Geology, namely, one Dr.Reddy on 25.08.2001, stating among other things that grant of mining lease of surrendered lands can only be companysidered as specified in Rule 59 1 of the Mineral Concession Rules.
While marking the said companymunication, it was stated that it was being forwarded for information and with an instruction to surrender the lease deed book in respect of M.L. No.2010 along with the mining plan approved by Indian Bureau of Mines immediately for taking further action.
But by the Supreme Courts order dated 23.09.2010 the first Respondent was directed to maintain status quo.
By 25.5.2001, the Director of Mines in response to M s. Dalmias desire to determine the lease, directed it to surrender the lease book of M.L. No.2010 as well as the mining plan, and that M s. Dalmia surrendered the lease book while stating that mining plan was number available with it at that point of time.
A companyy of the said letter dated 25.5.2001 was marked to M s. Dalmia.
In response to the said letter of Director of Mines and Geology M s. Dalmia forwarded its letter dated 16.06.2001 directly addressed to the Director of Mines and Geology mentioning that as instructed by the said authority, they surrender the lease deed book, namely, M.L.No.
Consequently by order dated 25.01.1997 the second respondent herein namely Director of Mines and Geology called upon M s. Dalmia to stop all mining activities pertaining to M.L. No.2010 and the mining activities were stopped by M s. Dalmia.
It was also stated in the said letter that when such was the position relating to the actual land area retained by M s. Dalmia with reference to which any demand by way of penal companypensation aforestation charges companyld be claimed, the same companyld number have been claimed for 201.50 hectares as mentioned in the stage I in principle approval granted in the order dated 24.12.1997.
On 04.02.2002 M s. Dalmia applied to the State Government the application for transfer of M.L. No.2010 to the first Respondent.
Challenging the same, the first respondent preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.5377 of 2004.
The writ appeal was preferred by the first respondent herein against the judgment in W.P.No.31690 of 2003 of the learned Single Judge dated 10.11.2004 in and by which the order of transfer of mining lease from the original licencee M s. Dalmia Cements Bharat Limited hereinafter called M s. Dalmia to and in favour of the first respondent herein was set aside.
In response to the said letter dated 27.3.2001, the office of the Director of Mines and Geology in their letter dated 25.5.2001 addressed to the Senior Geologist of the State Government, Department of Mines and Geology instructed him by stating that M s. Dalmia had stopped mining operations in the area companyered by M.L. No.2010 since 1997, that they wanted to surrender the lease with the Department of Mines and Geology and, therefore, intimate as to whether any arrears were due from M s. Dalmia.
In effect M s. Dalmia was number operating its right of carrying out any mining activity in respect of the entirety of 334.40 hectares after the first renewal effected in the year 1983.
Subsequently, M s. Dalmia in its letter dated 27.03.2001, expressed its desire to surrender the remaining area held by it indicating that such numberice being given for determination of the lease as required under the terms of the mining lease deed and that the lease would expire after 12 months numberice period from 01.04.2001 or any time earlier if permitted by the State Government.
After the receipt of the order dated 24.12.1997 M s. Dalmia surrendered 196.58 hectares of land out of 331.50 hectares to the forest department of the State Government through their letter dated 16.04.1999.
The said stage I approval was subject to fulfillment of specific companyditions within six months from the date of the order.
It was also specifically mentioned that only after receipt of companypliance report of the companyditions stipulated in the stage I approval, companysideration for grant of final approval under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act would be made and issued.
The said lease expired on 24.11.1983.
When we make a reference to M s. Dalmias earlier letter dated 16.04.1999, the intention of M s. Dalmia of its decision to surrender 196.58 hectares out of 331.50 hectares was explicitly stated.
Along with its letter dated 16.04.1999 surrender of 196.58 hectares was effected.
In order to companysider the first question as to whether M s. Dalmia surrendered the mining lease M.L. No.2010 and whether such surrender has become final and companyclusive, we have to recapitulate certain basic facts relating to the said lease.
On 25.05.2001, the Director of Mines while marking a companyy of its letter addressed to the senior Geologist to M s. Dalmia simultaneously instructed to surrender the lease book in respect of M.L. No.2010 along with the Mining Plan.
Subsequently, one M.S.P.L. Limited, through its Executive Director Mr. Rahul Baldota applied for grant of mining lease of the area held by M s.Dalmia through its application dated 21.07.2001.
At the instance of the appellant herein a writ petition came to be filed in Writ Petition No.6304 of 1998 in the High Court of Karnataka as against the Mine Authorities and Chief Conservator of Forest as well as M s. Dalmia.
While responding to the said order, M s. Dalmia in its letter dated 16.04.1999 mentioned that as far as companyditions i and ii of the Government of India dated 24.12.1997, numberaction need be taken since it decided to surrender nearly 196.58 hectares and what was to be retained was only 134.92 hectares.
In fact the said writ petition was disposed of by numbering the said factor also.
It was specifically mentioned at the bottom of the said letter that mining lease deed book was being enclosed along with the said letter.
M s. Dalmia gave 12 months numberice from 01.04.2001 or earlier if permitted by State Government.
In response to M s.Dalmias letter dated 27.03.2001 by letter dated 25.05.2001, the office of the Director of Mines while companymunicating to one of its officers marked a companyy of its letter dated 25.05.2001 calling upon M s.Dalmia to surrender its lease deed book and mining plan.
By letter dated 16.04.1999 M s. Dalmia surrendered 196.58 Hectares of land out of 331.50 Hectares to the Forest Department of State Government.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. Leave granted.
On 09.01.2002, the Director of Mines ordered the Deputy Director, Hospet to survey and demark the area companyered by the appellants lease, since O.S. No.53 of 1993 was dismissed and M s. Dalmia surrendered its lease.
In response to the said companymunication of M s. Dalmia, the State Government through the office of the Director of Mines and Geology in its letter dated 25.05.2001 addressed to the Senior Geologist of the State Government stated that M s. Dalmia has stopped all its mining activities from 1997 and that it has number expressed in its letter dated 27.03.2001 to surrender the lease, namely, M.L.No.
That apart, in the Writ Petition which was pending before the High Court of Karnataka in WP 6304 of 1998 as between the first respondent and the Director of Mines, as well as, Chief Conservator of Forest where M s. Dalmia was also a party respondent, namely, third respondent, on its behalf its companynsel represented before the High Court that M s. Dalmia was numberlonger interested in the working of the mines situated in the land adjoining the writ appellant, namely, the first respondent therein and, therefore, as on that date, numberboundary dispute was existing as between them.
In that writ petition, the issue pertained to a boundary dispute as between the appellant and M s. Dalmia.
Ultimately, in its letter dated 27.03.2001, it made explicitly clear that it was number operating the mines and, therefore, it wanted to surrender either after expiry of twelve months period from the date of issuance of such numberice or any day earlier that may be acceptable to the State Government.
those dated 12.03.1965, certain other orders passed in December, 1988 and 11.04.1989 and the Notification dated 19.06.1965 and companytended that those companymunications disclosed specific order of acceptance of surrender issued by the State Government.
M s.Dalmia stopped its mining activities from January 1997.
After the order of transfer, the first respondent paid Rs.2,18,42,600/ amount on 11.05.2004 to companyply with the companydition imposed in the earlier in principle stage I clearance of 1997 pursuant to order dated 16.03.2002.
Copy of the said companymunication dated 25.05.2001 was also sent to M s. Dalmia for information and also by way of instructions to surrender the lease deed book in respect of M.L.No.
When the writ appeal was pending, based on the oral application of the first respondent herein, the Division Bench directed the State Government and the Director of Mines and Geology to process its application for transfer of the renewal of the lease in favour of the first respondent under the Forest Act, 1980 within two months and forward its report to the Central Government with a further direction to the Central Government to decide the same within three months.
The said application was companysidered by the Director of Mines and an endorsement was made on the said application by the Director of Mines on 25.8.2001 which has been placed before this Court.
This will have some bearing on the validity of the impugned order dated 06.11.1997 as the entire order is on the assumption that a boundary dispute exists between the petitioner and the neighboring owner.
2010 even earlier than the 12 months period and called upon the said officer to intimate as to whether any arrears were due and payable by M s. Dalmia for taking further action.
By its letter dated 16.04.1999, M s. Dalmia surrendered 196.58 hectares of land out of the leased area of 331.50 hectares to the Forest Department of the State Government.
But the said Writ Petition came to be disposed of by learned Single Judge by order dated 26.06.2001 by stating as under A subsequent development requires to be numbericed at this stage when the matter came up for companysideration on the last date of hearing Shri B.T. Parthasarthy appearing for 3rd respondent stated that the 3rd respondent is numberlonger interested in working in the mine situated in the land adjoining the petitioners land therefore at present numberboundary dispute as such exists between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.
This appeal is directed against the companymon judgment dated 26.08.2009, passed in W.A.No.5377 of 2004 and W.P.No.23782 of 2005.
Whether the order of transfer dated 16.03.2002 was bonafide taking into account the sequence of events?
In response to the companyy of the letter dated 25.5.2001 of the Director of Mines and Geology, M s. Dalmia along with its letter dated 16.6.2001 by referring to the instructions mentioned in the letter dated 25.5.2001 stated that it was surrendering the lease deed book in respect of M.L. No.2010 and that the approved mining plan was number available with it.
We are number companycerned with the said writ petition, as the said writ petitioner has number challenged the order of the Division Bench by which his writ petition was dismissed.
The said mining lease was originally granted in favour of M s. Dalmia on 25.11.1953.
By letter dated 16.06.2001 M s.Dalmia surrendered the lease deed book and informed that its mining plan was missing.
The said stand of M s. Dalmia was the main ground which weighed with the learned Single Judge for setting aside the order dated 16.11.1997 which was impugned before it in the said Writ Petition at the instance of the first respondent.
Based on the application of M s.Dalmia Cements, the mining lease was renewed for 20 years with retrospective effect from 25.11.1983 by an order dated 07.03.1986.
It is necessary to be numbered that the said Rahul Baldota is the husband of Mrs. Lavine R. Baldota the Executive Director of the first respondent herein.
While attempting to find an answer to the above two questions, the submissions of companynsel for both sides necessarily postulate companysideration and examination of the following factors Mining lease in M.L. No.2010 of M s. Dalmia was initially issued on 25.11.1953 which expired on 24.11.1983.
Apart from the above factors, certain other factors relating to the factum of surrender are also required to be numbered.
Having regard to the chequered history of this case, the detailed facts pertaining to the grant of mining lease with reference to M.L.No.2010 over an extent of 331.50 hectares 819.20 acres of forest area in Jaisinghpur village, R.M.Block, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District has to be necessarily stated.
2010, which was acknowledged by the Deputy Director of Department of Mines and Geology in its letter dated 31.01.2002.
By the order impugned in this petition, the Division Bench having set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restored the order of transfer dated 16.03.2002, the appellant has companye forward with this appeal.
The said letter specifically stated that as per the revised audit report the arrears were determined in a sum of Rs.22332/ and the same was paid by M s. Dalmia through DD No.88545 dated 30.01.2002 and thereby numberdue certificate was being issued.
M.L.No.2010 of M s. Dalmia.
Though the said companymunication dated 16.04.1999 at the instance of M s. Dalmia was addressed to the forest department, in that companytext, it was very clearly stated that what was retained by it as on that date was only 134.92 hectares, out of the total extent of 331.50 hectares.
By letter dated 09.01.2002 , the Director of Mines and Geology directed its Deputy Director, Hospet to survey and demark the area companyered by lease deed of the appellant specifically pointing out the dismissal of O.S.No.53 of 1993 by M s.Dalmia.
It was in the above stated background at the instance of the appellant, the order dated 16.03.2002, of the State Government was challenged in P.No.31690 of 2003 in the High Court of Karnataka.
In the light of such a clear stand disclosed by M s. Dalmia, we fail to understand as to for what reason the State Government should wait for the expiry of the twelve months period for the surrender to companye into effect.
By virtue of the said judgment, the Director of Mines and Geology, the third respondent herein directed M s.Dalmia to stop all mining activities by its order dated 25.01.1997.
Even in respect of the said extent of lands by virtue of the general directions issued by this Court in Godavarman I numbermining operation was being carried on from January 1997.
Apart from the above facts, after the forwarding of the letters dated 16.4.1999, 27.3.2001 and 16.6.2001 by M s. Dalmia whereby the surrender of the lands in its entirety, as well as, the mining lease itself, third parties were aspiring to get the mining lease in respect of the surrendered lands held by M s. Dalmia.
It is number in dispute that when the mining lease was renewed by order dated 07.03.1986 by the Department of Mines of the State Government, Section 2 of the Forest Act of 1980 was number companyplied with.
2010 along with the mining plan approved by Indian Bureau of Mines immediately for taking further action.
Whether the stage I approval dated 13.09.2006 and the final approval dated 09.09.2010 can be held to be valid in the light of the order of this Court dated 26.10.2005?
2010 along with its letter dated 16.06.2001.
Be that as it may, on 27.03.2001 M s. Dalmia wrote to the Directors of Mines and Geology expressing its decision to determine the lease and surrender the remaining area and gave numberice as required under the terms of the mining lease deed for determination of the lease.
If the said decision taken by M s. Dalmia is accepted which decision was clearly spelt out in the said companymunication dated 16.04.1999 what was really retained by it subsequent to the stage I in principle approval of MOEF dated 24.12.1997 was only 134.92 hectares.
The appellant challenged the said order dated 19.04.2006 in S.L.P.No.11508 of 2006.
On 16.03.2002, the State Government passed orders allowing the application for transfer of mining lease as applied for by M s Dalmia in favour of the first respondent.
Pending first Respondents W.A. No.5377 of 2004, the Central Government granted in principle stage I ex post facto approval to the first Respondent on 13.09.2006.
Thereafter, by the Godavarman II judgment, which is reported in 1997 3 SCC 312, the MOEF was directed to companysider those applications for ex post facto approval.
On 21.07.2002, the Principal Chief Conservation of Forest, Bangalore wrote to the Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries pointing out the failure of M s. Dalmia to fulfill the companyditions of in principle stage I approval dated 24.12.1997 and requested the State Government to withdraw the order dated 16.03.2002.
Pursuant to the said direction of this Court, by order dated 24.12.1997, MOEF granted companyditional in principle stage I approval for the renewal of M s. Dalmias mining lease for an extent of 201.50 hectares of forest land.
Having companysidered the rival submissions of the respective companynsel, the following questions arise for companysideration Whether M s. Dalmia surrendered the mining lease bearing No.
The said lease M.L. No.2010 was granted on 25.11.1953 for 30 years and the extent of land was 331.50 hectares companyering 819.20 acres of forest land in Jaisinghpur village R.N. Block, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District.
On 31.01.2002, the Director of Mines and Geology issued a numberdue certificate to M s.Dalmia companyfirming the receipt of a sum of Rs.22,332/ by way of Demand Draft from M s.Dalmia.
