9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'he Rules') for transfer of the lease under Rule 12 in favour of the appellant company. This application was not disposed of for a long time. Even when his above application was pending before the competent authority on 11th October, 2002(much prior to 90 days before the expiry of the lease), Jitendra Kumar Lohia applied to the competent authority under Rule 9 of the Rules for renewal of the quarry lease granted in his favour. In the said application for renewal of the quarry lease, it was specifically stated thus : "I have already applied for transfer of the subject Quarry Lease in favour of M/s Medley Minerals India Ltd. Should the said application for transfer be accepted before the renewal of this lease, then this application may be considered on behalf of the proposed Transferee in the said application in the said application i.e. M/s Medley Minerals India Ltd." The attention of the competent authority was specifically drawn by this application to the fact that Jitendra Kumar Lohia had already applied for transfer of quarry lease no. 192 to the appellant company and further, " if the same application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the former. x. Sri Jitendra Kumar Lohia, the Transferor and his family members hold controlling interest in the proposed Transferee Company, will seek prior permission from the Competent Authority if they wish to transfer controlling interest in favour of an outsider (i.e. other than himself and his family members)." After executing the deed of transfer on 7.2.2003, the appellant company by way of abundant caution made an application on the same day for renewal of the lease in continuation of the application for renewal already made by Jitendra Kumar Lohia on 11.10.2002. The State Government and the competent authority not having made any order for renewal of the quarry lease in favour of the appellant before the date of expiry i.e. 10.2.2003, it amounted to a deemed refusal under the Rules. The appellant applied for reconsideration of such deemed refusal of application for renewal of quarry lease under the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 by his application dated 7.2.2003. In the application for renewal of quarry lease in Form E, the appellant specifically averred: " Any other particulars which the applicant wishes to furnish. (a) The application for this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... executed between the State Government and the appellant. The appellant thereafter took possession of the leased area and started its quarrying operations, which fact was intimated to the Mining Officer by a letter dated 2.6.2003. The fourth respondent, a rival business company aspiring for a quarry lease of the same type, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the State Government dated 22.5.2003 by which the quarry lease for decorative stones over the scheduled area had been renewed in favour of the appellant and also seeking a direction to the State Government to consider grant of a quarry lease in its own favour. The High Court by its impugned judgment took the view that though there had been no contravention of the provision to Rule 9(3) of the Rules, there has been contravention of Rule 9(2), consequently allowed the writ petition and quashed the renewal of the quarry lease granted in favour of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us. Mr. Ramamoorthy, learned counsel for the appellant, urged that a conspectus of the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that Jitendra Kumar Lohia, who held the quarry lease in his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent that the action of the State Government was vitiated by malafides. It is trite that plea of malafides has to be specific and demonstrable. Not only this, but the person against whom the malafides are alleged must be made a party to the proceedings and given reasonable opportunity of hearing. We find no such attempt made in the writ petition before the High Court. At the highest even putting the most liberal construction on the writ petition, what was alleged was contravention of the Rules and, consequently, legal malafides and nothing beyond that. The argument of malafides must therefore fail. Next, it is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is an elementary principle of law that an individual shareholder of a company cannot be considered as equivalent to the company, for company has a distinct legal personality. Consequently, he contends that the application made by Jitendra Kumar Lohia could not have enured to the benefit of the appellant company. According to him, Jitendra Kumar Lohia and the appellant being two distinct legal entities, the assumption of the State Government, that the application for renewal of the quarry lease could be treated as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
