IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 34272 of 2007(S)
1. SHIBU BABY JOHN , AGE 44,
... Petitioner
2. DARIOUS D'CRUZ, AGE 48,
3. K.G.RAVI, AGE 65, S/O.K.G.GOPALAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES
3. ROSOBORON EXPORTS, 21 GOGOLEVSKY
4. MR.ELAMARAM KARIM, MINISTER FOR
5. THE KERALA MINERALS & METALS LIMITED
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :12/02/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.34272 of 2007
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 12th day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
Petitioners in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
have sought for the following reliefs. They are as under:
“(a) issue a writ, order or direction prohibiting the
Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and/or their agents from going
ahead with and/or implementing Exhibit P3 Memorandum of
Understanding dated 17th 17th May, 2007 entered into with
Roseboron (R-3);
(b) issue a writ, order or direction authorizing an
independent, external agency to investigate the irregularities in
the MOU-Agreement formalized between the Respondent
Nos.1 & 2 and Rosoboron (R-3);
(c) issue a writ, direction or order prohibiting the
respondents Nos.1 and 2 to cancel the expansion projects of
the Respondent No.5 forthwith;
(d) issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of
certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing any decision of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to
terminate the agreements entered into for the expansion
projects of Respondent No.5;
(e) issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of
certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing any decision and/or action of Respondents Nos.1, 2
and 5 to proceed with new tenders and/or award of any new
contracts in connection with the expansion projects of the
Respondent No.5;
W.P.(C) No.34272 of 2007
2
(f) issue a writ, order or direction prohibiting the
respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 from divulging the technology of
Respondent No.5 to third parties and/or their agents and/or
their associates; and/or;
(g) award cost of the present proceedings; and
(h) pass such other further orders as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit resisting the
reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the writ petition. In paragraph 10 of their
counter affidavit they have stated as under:
“10. It is most respectfully submitted that Ext.P3 MOU
has got nothing to do with any of the aforementioned projects
of the 5th Respondent. Projects of the 5th Respondent and the
project under Ext.P3 MOU are mutually independent and
separate from each other. There is sufficient space and scope
for all the projects to go on stream subject to the reservations
as expressed in this Counter Affidavit. Expression of interest
called for by the 5th Respondent and Ext.P3 MOU are distinct
and separate. However there have been certain discussions
with regard to coordinating and establishing the 10,000 MT
Titanium Sponge Plant. It is not the 5th Respondent which has
entered into the MOU with the 3rd Respondent, but it is the
State Government and the project envisioned there under is
not as a substitute or a challenge to the projects of the 5th
respondent. On the other hand what is to be examined under
Ext.P3 MOU is the possibility of an effective utilization of the
abundant mineral wealth in the State for value added
W.P.(C) No.34272 of 2007
3
products. Expansion projects contemplated by the 5th
respondent Company will in no way be affected on account of
Ext.P3 MOU or the project envisaged thereunder. It is only a
feasibility study that is being undertaken under Ext.P3 MOU
and the Government will take a final decision only after
considering all aspects relating to the matter. All the
apprehensions expressed by the Petitioners are totally
baseless, misplaced and they do lack in merit.”
3. In view of the statements made by respondents 1 and 2 in
paragraph 10 of their counter affidavit, Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners would submit that placing on record the
statements made by the respondents in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit,
the writ petition may be disposed of. By accepting the suggestion made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners it would cause no prejudice to the
respondents.
4. Therefore, placing on record the statements made by respondents 1
and 2 in paragraph 10 of their counter affidavit, this writ petition is disposed of
as having become unnecessary.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE
vns