1999 (3) TMI 666 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the writ petition filed by the appellant Corporation before the Orissa High Court was maintainable.
2. Whether the writ petition was barred by the principle of res judicata.
3. Whether the writ petition was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata.
4. Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence, and also on the ground that it was barred by delay and laches.
5. Whether the order of the State of Orissa dated 29th June, 1997 was in conflict with the earlier order of the Central Government dated 17th August, 1995 as upheld by the Supreme Court in TISCO's case.
6. Whether the order of the State Government dated 29th June, 1997 is binding on the appellant as well as on the contesting respondents.
7. Whether it is a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court on the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. What final order should be issued?

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The short question requiring a long answer in this appeal is whether the writ petition filed by the appellant Corporation before the Orissa High Court was maintainable. The High Court in the impugned judgment took the view that it was not maintainable being barred by the principle of res judicata.

2. Principle of Res Judicata:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition as barred by res judicata. The appellant's grievance against the impugned order of the Central Government dated 17th August, 1995 and against the report of the Sharma Committee as accepted by the said order of the Central Government proceeds in a narrow compass. The Supreme Court held that the controversy raised by the appellant in the present writ petition was not finally concluded by the Court in the earlier decision, and thus, the writ petition was not barred by res judicata.

3. Principle of Constructive Res Judicata:
The Court considered whether the judgment in TISCO's case operated as constructive res judicata against the appellant. It was held that the inter se dispute between the appellant and the other contesting respondents regarding the correct assessment of their respective requirements of chrome ore was not in the anvil of controversy between the contesting respondents in the earlier proceedings. Consequently, the principle of constructive res judicata was not attracted.

4. Waiver, Estoppel, and Acquiescence:
The appellant stood on the fence before the Supreme Court when the judgment was rendered in TISCO's case. By the time this Court heard the cases on 5th October, 1995 and reserved its judgment, the appellant had already got the assessment of its need decided by the Sharma Committee and accepted by the Central Government by its order dated 17th August, 1995. The appellant did not challenge the said order before this Court and invited the Court to accept the decision of the Central Government as a whole. Therefore, the appellant was held to have waived its grievance regarding the assessment of its need, and the writ petition was not maintainable on the grounds of waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence.

5. Conflict with Central Government's Order:
The State Government's order dated 29th June, 1997, which sliced down the claims of the four parties by 50%, was not challenged by the appellant or the contesting respondents. The Supreme Court held that the order of the State Government was not in conflict with the order of the Central Government dated 17th August, 1995.

6. Binding Nature of the State Government's Order:
The order of the State Government dated 29th June, 1997, which reserved 50% of the area for consideration of claims of other parties, was held to be binding on the appellant and the contesting respondents.

7. Interference under Article 136:
The Supreme Court held that it was not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The appellant, by its own conduct, had disentitled itself from getting any fresh decision on the assessment of its need.

8. Final Order:
The appeal was dismissed. The State of Orissa was directed to carry out the remaining exercise pursuant to its order dated 29th June, 1997, and the Committee constituted by the State Government was to complete its exercise in connection with the remaining area. The grant of mining leases to the extent of 50% to the appellant and the contesting respondents as per the State Government's order dated 29th June, 1997, was to remain binding. Any additional leases granted by the State of Orissa to meet the remaining 50% of assessed needs would be subject to revisions by the aggrieved parties before the Central Government in accordance with law. There was no order as to costs.