State Of Tamil Nadu vs Hind Stone Etc on 5 February, 1981
The money which Respondent No. 1 proposed to invest
on the land and site development was Rs. 8.46 crores and on
Building and Civil Works Rs. 2.38 crores, total of which would
come to Rs. 10.84 crores. Minimum proposed investment in plant
and machinery was Rs. 0.56 crores and on misc. fixed assets Rs.
0.07 crores, total of which would come to Rs. 0.63 crores whereas
according to the mandate of Rule 3(W) of the Rules of 1979,
investment of only 20% of the plant and machinery was to be
considered. Therefore, total investment of the respondent in the
proposed project was Rs. 2.96 crores. Argument of discrimination
also could not be substantiated because so far as M/s. Sunshine
Automotives is concerned its application was also rejected
whereas investment of M/s. Shri Siddheshwar Gums Private
Limited was Rs. 34.08 crores, which amount is much more than
(Downloaded on 07/09/2019 at 09:22:50 PM)
(9 of 9) [SAW-86/2017]
Rs. 10 crores. The Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs.
M/s. Hind Stone etc. (supra) Tamil Nadu Vs. Hind was
dealing with a case where application for renewal of lease was
made by the respondent long before commencement of Rule 8C of
Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 but was
disposed of after its commencement. It was held that no one has
vested right therefore the rules in force at the time of disposal of
the application for allotment will be applicable.