TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court dated 10th April 2006. This Full Bench cannot go beyond that i.e. this Full Bench cannot enter into the merits of the cases. We have perused the reference and we find substance in the argument advanced by learned Counsel. The scope of reference made to the Full Bench is to the extent that whether in view of the order of the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman dated 10th April 2006 these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the cases or not. When the scope of reference is particular and specific, then the Full Bench has to answer the reference only. The Full Bench cannot go beyond that. In this respect, we are fortified in our view by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Science and Technology Museum v. Rambal Co. and Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 258. In para-8 of this judgment, the Apex Court held that: It is fairly well settled that when reference is made on a specific issue either by a learned single Judge or Division Bench to a larger Bench i.e. Division Bench or Full Bench or Constitution Bench, as the case may be, the larger Bench cannot adjudicate upon an issue which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f allotment of land to respondent No. 13 i.e. M/s. Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd. is in utter disregard to the rules and procedure. 5. Third Writ Petition No. 4147/2003 was filed on 9-12-2003 by five organizations viz. Rastriya Koyal Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, Central Industrial Trade Union etc. in public interest questioning the said allotment/ lease on the ground that the land in question is a forest land and the State Government has no jurisdiction to allot the said land without prior permission of the Central Government, and also that the land belongs to the S.E.C.L. They have also challenged the lease on the ground of procedural impropriety adopted in grant of lease of said land in favour of M/s. Maruti Clean Coal Power Ltd. 6. In the meantime, one Deepak Agarwal filed I. A. before the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995, AIR 1997 SC 1228 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1774 (known as forest matter). The said I.A. was disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 10th April 2006 holding in para-40 of the judgment that even on facts we find no substance in the plea that the land allotted to Maruti is forest land . In p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted position that regarding title of the land, a suit is already pending in the Civil Court at Katghora between S.E.C.L. and M/s. Maruti Clean Coal Power Limited and it is in this background, on 19th December, 2006, a dissenting order in respect of the maintainability of the above three writ petitions was passed by the Division Bench considering of Hon'ble the then Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Justice D.R. Deshmukh. He submitted that at page-9, in para-6, Hon'ble Justice Deshmukh mentioned that in that petition (petition before the Supreme Court), Bhartiya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, petitioner herein in W.P. No. 4147 of 2003, late Dr. B.L. Wadehra, the petitioner herein in W.P. No. 1264 of 2003 and Sanjay Srivastava, the petitioner herein in W.P. No. 1382 of 2003 sought intervention. The Apex Court vide its judgment dated 10th April 2006 rejected the prayer for impleadment by the aforesaid petitioners . Shri Tankha contended that late Dr. B.L. Wadehra, Sanjay Srivastava and Surendra Sahu never filed any application for intervention. Shri M.L. Verma, learned Senior Counsel submitted that in Writ Petition No. 4147/2003 there are five petitioners, out of the five ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question of procedural irregularity in the allotment of land in area 37.91 acres by the State Government of Chhattisgarh to M/s. Maruti Clean Coal Power Limited at the behest of the petitioners, who are not public interest litigants and whose bona fides and credentials are in doubt. 11. Showing above backgrounds of factual inaccuracy. Shri Vivek Tankha, learned senior Counsel, Shri M.L. Verma, learned Senior Counsel as also Shri A.K. Sinha, learned Counsel argued that in the above judgment of the Apex Court dated 10th April 2006, the Apex Court has nowhere expressed or given finding in respect of the petitioners in these writ petitions that they are not bona fide litigants. They further argued that it is evident from the bare perusal of the Supreme Court judgment that the only question before the Supreme Court was whether land in question is a forest land or not. The Supreme Court has decided that question only, nothing beyond that and for remaining issue regarding propriety of the allotment made in favour of M/s. Maruti Clean Coal Power Limited, the Supreme Court has not said anything. They vehemently argued that reading of the whole judgment makes it clear that the Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing beyond that. As far as these writ petitioners are concerned, in para 23 the Apex Court held that Some unions have also tried to jump into the fray by filing applications seeking impleadment in these proceedings so as to contend that the allotment is of a forest land. We see no reason to allow the impleadment of parties in these proceedings . Except that nothing has been mentioned about credentials and bona fides of the petitioners herein in these three petitions. Of Course, it has been mentioned in the said judgment that one K.K. Srivastava is the representative of Aryan and many times he appeared on behalf of Deepak Agarwal to assist the advocate as also before CEC. In the third report of the CEC, CEC noted numbers of cases that were filed in respect of giving the land on lease to M/s. Maruti Clean Coal Power Limited and those matters have been referred in para 18 in the said order. In that, item No. 2 mentions about filing of matter by Sanjay Srivastava (relation of K.K. Srivastava) in the High Court. Except that the Supreme Court has not said anything about Sanjay Srivastava's conduct or anything else. Therefore, in the first instance, as has been mentioned earlier, Dr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being concluded by the authority of the direct decision by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation v. Ratnaprabha on the correct construction of Section 138(b) of the M.P. Act. No other direct decision of this Court is to the contrary. However, the Division Bench of the High Court in a later case between the very same parties took a different view on the construction of the same provision placing reliance on some other decisions of this Court wherein the question arose for decision in the context of a similar provision in some other statutes applicable in the other States wherein there was no non obstante clause as in the M.P. Act. Therefore, judgment relied upon by the Shri Kailash Vasudev was in a different context and has no application on facts in the present cases. 17. Shri M.L. Verma, learned Senior Counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1576, (Para 16), argued that public interest petition can be filed even by a business rival where violation of the Act or Rule has been raised. He argued that in the above matter, the Apex Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
