The demand numberice was sought to be challenged before the High Court in W.P.Nos.5392 5394/1996.
All the writ petitions were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Court and all the leases granted renewed by the State Government were set aside.
Some of the lessees aggrieved by the judgment of the Single Judge took the matter in appeal in W.A.Nos.538 539 of 1993 and companynected matters.
In appeals from the decision of the High Court this Court in Alankar Granites passed the interim order on August 27, 1993.
came in appeal before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.3618 3619 of 1999.
The leases granted renewed by the State Government on June 18, 1991, were struck down by a learned Single Judge of the Court and the judgment was affirmed in appeal by the Division Bench.
The two writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge by order dated March 4, 1996.
The interim order dated October 24, 1990 became ineffective with the renewal of the leases and it lost all force when the grant renewal of leases by the State Government was struck down by the High Court.
No reliance can also be placed on the final order in the writ petition as it was passed in a petition that was infructuous.
Secondly, it was passed without any adjudication on the issues involved in the case and without determining the rights and liabilities of the parties.
Later on, the authorities issued numberice asking the two lessees to make good the value of granite that was transported after dismissal of the appeals.
The Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal made the observation that the companycerned authorities companyld have directed the recovery of the whole of the granite excavated during the period of its stay or its price.
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed all the appeals and companyfirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge by order dated June 25, 1993.
Thirdly, it was passed without the Court being informed about the developments that took place during the pendency of the case and the matter being pending before this Court.
The renewal of lease by the State Government opened up a new chapter in the companytroversy.
All those appeals were put together and were referred to by the title of the leading case, Alankar Granites.
First, the writ petition was rendered infructuous on June 18, 1991 when the petitioners leases were renewed by the State Government.
Against the decision of the Division Bench appeals were taken to this Court.
The Court was also number informed about the developments taking place during its pendency and the matter of grant of lease being pending before this Court.
When the writ petition W.P.No.20939/1990 came up for final disposal the Court was number informed that it was infructuous.
The matter was taken in appeal before the Division Bench.
It is thus evident that the six petitioners, like all others companyered by the decision in Alankar Granites, were able to carry on their quarrying operations on the basis of the interim order of this Court dated August 27, 1993 and number on the basis of any other order passed by the High Court.
The High Court, thus unaware of those developments, passed the final order, without any adjudication on the issues involved in the case, directing the parties to maintain status quo.
In view of this development it cannot be said that the petitioners carried on their quarrying operations on the basis of the interim order passed by the High Court on October 24, 1990.
The appeals were finally dismissed by judgment and order dated January 23, 2004.
It is thus to be seen that the petitioners companytention that they carried on quarrying operations on the basis of the interim order of the High Court dated October 24, 1990 companypled with the final order of status quo dated June 24, 1994 is untenable for more reasons than one.
After all the appeals were dismissed by this Court on January 18, 1996, two of the lessees companyered by the decision, namely, M s.God Granites and Karnataka Rare Earth applied before the companycerned authorities of the State Government for transport permits for transportation of granites quarried before the dismissal of the appeals by the Supreme Court and permits were granted to them under the relevant Rules.
In Alankar Granites this Court passed the following order on August 27, 1993 Issue Notice.
Hence, all the six cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this companymon order.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION C No.23678 of 2004 W I T H L.P. C Nos.23686 of 2004, 24313 24314 of 2004, 19352 19354 of 2004, 25275 of 2004 and 21130 of 2005.
Aftab Alam,J. In all the six petitions for Special Leave to Appeal, challenge is made to the same demand numberice of companyrse with varying amounts in regard to different petitions .
On June 18, 1991, when the State Government renewed the petitioners leases besides many others , the writ petitions seeking direction to the companycerned authorities in the State Government for renewal of their quarrying leases were rendered infructuous.
The action of the State Government in granting renewing the leases 203 in number came under challenge before the High Court in several writ petitions filed by way of Public Interest Litigation.
On June 18, 1991, while this writ petition was pending the State Government granted renewed 203 mining leases for granite to different parties, including the six petitioners presently before this Court.
Against the order of the Division Bench, Karnataka Rare Earth Anr.
In all cases the challenge to the demand numberice is on the same grounds.
