Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

“19. The fact that the Government of Karnataka had appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Santhosh Hegde, Lokayukta, to investigate into the illegal mining under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WPs29218 to 29222, 29177, 29365, 29366 and 29916 of 2010 as early as 12.03.2007 and 09.09.2007 cannot be disputed by the plaintiff. This implies that two conclusions, can now be arrived at, firstly, that much prior to Ex.P-1 which as stated above was dated 31.01.2010, the plaintiff had direct and specific knowledge that mining of Iron Ore was the subject matter of an investigation by a competent authority, namely, the Karnataka Lokayukta who was also a former Supreme Court Judge, and secondly that the plaintiff company also being the subject of inquiry had still thought it fit to apply for Stacking Transit Area license with the defendants when there was always a possibility of its activities being curbed by administrative action. After all, whether the plaintiff was indulging in illegal mining activity or not, is a fact purely to its own knowledge. If the plaintiff actually violated the laws of the land to enrich itself, it will be very difficult to appreciate the stand subsequently taken, that it was a victim of a ban, and not the perpetrator of the ban. The findings of the said committee was submitted on 18.12.2008. Again this fact cannot be disputed by the plaintiff. This leads https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WPs29218 to 29222, 29177, 29365, 29366 and 29916 of 2010 us to a further conclusion that based on the findings, a Damocles Sword was always hanging over the plaintiff company atleast from 18.12.2008, the date of the interim report. The interim report had given very damaging findings which have been extracted in the written statement filed by the defendants. The plaintiff has not thought it fit to file any reply statement and consequently, the facts pleaded in the written statement stand uncontroverted. The findings as summarised in the written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:— “There are illegal mining activities carried out by the mining leasers.

The Deputy Directors and Senior Geologists of all the Districts are hereby instructed to strictly comply with this order and to initiate all necessary effect actions immediately to present illegal mining: transportation.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WPs29218 to 29222, 29177, 29365, 29366 and 29916 of 2010 “26. A perusal of Ex.P-1 shows that the plaintiff had sought for allotment from the defendants by letter dated 7.11.2009. This was prior to the dates mentioned in Ex.P-5 when the Lokayukta had already submitted its report after detailed investigation. Thus, the plaintiff knew at the time when they applied for allotment that at any time there was a very very strong possibility that the Government of Karnataka will take necessary steps to prevent illegal mining. The plaintiff has indulged in a voluntary gambit by seeking allotment of staking area license. They knew their activities were illegal or rather were perceived to be illegal by the Lokayakta. Still their aim to fill their coffers did not subside and they initiated steps to export the illegally mined Iron Ore. They cannot claim innocence and seek indulgence from this Court.” “27. Had the plaintiff not indulged in illegal mining, the burden was on them to establish that their mining were completely over board and seek continuation of mining of Iron Ore. The fact that their challenge to the Government Order had failed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WPs29218 to 29222, 29177, 29365, 29366 and 29916 of 2010 before the High Court of Karnataka also establishes that they were in fact involving in illegal mining activity at the relevant period. Consequently, I hold that the non issuance of mining dispatch permits does not vitiate the allotment order. The allotment order is per se legal. It is the allottee who was mined with illegal activities inviting ban of mining dispatch permits. That can never vitiate the allotment order.” It is thus seen that Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, which reads as follows, cannot be pressed into by the plaintiff:— “56. Agreement to do impossible act. - An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void. Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful. - A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. Compensation for loss through non-performance of act known to be impossible or unlawful - where one person has promised to do something which he https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WPs29218 to 29222, 29177, 29365, 29366 and 29916 of 2010 knew, or, with reasonable diligence, might have known, and which the promisee did not know, to be impossible or unlawful, such promisor must make compensation to such promisee for any loss which such promisee sustains through the non-

34. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India relying on the judgment in the civil suit on the same issue instituted by the another Mining Operator, said that this Court in clear terms formed an opinion that 'Force Majeure Clause' cannot be invoked in view of the illegal mining traced out in respect of these Mining Operators. Once the illegal mining is traced out, actions are initiated and consequently the Government imposed ban, then it cannot be construed as unforeseen circumstances and thus, the doctrine of frustration or the 'Force Majeure Condition' would not be applicable with reference to the facts and circumstances of these cases and consequently, all the writ petitions are liable to be rejected.

50. In these cases, the Chennai Port Trust has not taken the decision and banned the impugned order unilaterally or immediately. They have addressed a letter to the Department of Mining and Geology Department, Government of Karnataka and the Government of Karnataka in their reply categorically stated that the Mining Operators listed out by Chennai Port Trust is also included in the list of illegal Mining Operators in the Investigation Report. The Annexure enclosed in the reply reveals that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WPs29218 to 29222, 29177, 29365, 29366 and 29916 of 2010 the petitioners names are available. However, the informations given by the Government of Karnataka regarding the illegal mining operations as one aspect of the matter, the defence made by the petitioners that they are innocence of illegal mining is the other aspect. In between this, the disputed issues cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the point which cannot be thrown away.