Madras High Court
The Salt Manufacturer'S And ... vs Union Of India on 22 December, 2021
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22-12-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP Nos.34859, 35205 to 35209, 35230 to 35235, 35263 to 35272, 35327
to 35341 of 2013, 384, 501 to 517, 639 to 645, 3268, 5121, 19585, 19586,
21387 to 21389, 24299 to 24306, 25410, 27239 to 27242, 28586 to 28590,
31070, 32431 to 32439 of 2014, 13078, 13665 of 2015, 27280 of 2016,
13673, 14528, 19000 to 19002, 21316, 25646, 25647 of 2017, 19975, 1236,
20340, 14467, 14468, 20370, 27294, 32720, 32730, 32738, 32748, 32756,
32761, 32767, 32796, 32866 to 32871, 32880, 32890, 32903, 32928, 32931,
32939, 33160, 33170, 33179, 33184, 33194, 33202, 33230, 33252, 33274,
33321, 33328, 33339, 33347, 33352, 33356 of 2018, 1225, 1235, 1241,
1245, 1254, 2102 of 2019, 13688 of 2020 and 704, 710, 712, 719, 1552,
1557, 9579 of 2021 and MP Nos.1, 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,
2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,of 2013,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,2,3,1,2,1,2,3,1,2,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2
,3,1,2,3,1,2,1,2,3,1,2,31,2,1,2,2,2,2,3,2,3,4,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,1,2
,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2of 2014,1,1,2,3 of
2015 and WMP Nos.23454 and 23455 of 2016,14855 to 14857, 22250 to
22252, 20734 to 27037, 15755 to 15757, 20528 to 20532 of 2017, 1574 to
1576, 5081, 17077 to 17082, 23386, 23387,23889, 23890, 23920, 23921,
31759, 31762, 31766, 37919, 37920, 37931, 37940, 37943, 37946, 38369,
37954, 37956, 37965, 37967, 37972, 37973, 37980, 37981, 38009, 38012,
38073 to 38082, 38086, 38090, 38095, 38096, 38112 to 38114, 38128,
38132, 38163, 38164, 38167 to 38169, 38178 to 38181, 38477, 38473,
38482, 38489 to 38491, 38502, 38503, 38505, 38512, 38514, 38516, 38524,
38527, 38529, 38546, 38542, 38545, 38581, 38583, 38586 to 38588, 38614,
38616, 38610, 38667, 38669, 38670, 38675, 38676, 38678, 38688, 38691,
38693, 38704, 38705, 38709, 38718, 38721, 38724, 38731 to 38733 of
2018, 1375, 1377, 1380, 1383, 1384, 1386, 1391, 1393, 1394, 1400 to 1402,
1/56
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
1407 to 1409, 2363, 2358, 2361 of 2019, 17014, 17018, 17020 of 2020,
779, 769, 771, 781, 768, 764, 766, 767, 1765, 1758, 1759, 1763, 10171 of
2021
WP No.34859 of 2013:
The Salt Manufacturer's and Merchants Association,
Tuticorin Represented by its President,
Mr.M.S.Prakash,
159, Victoria Street,
Tuticorin – 628 001. .. Petitioner
vs.
1.Union of India,
Represented by the Deputy Secretary to the Government,
Ministry of Industry and Commerce,
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (Salt Section),
Udhyog Bhawan.
2.Salt Commissioner,
Lavan Bhawan,
2-A, Lavan Marg,
Jhalana Doongri,
Jaipur – 302 004.
3.Deputy Salt Commissioner,
26, Haddows Road,
Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai – 600 006. .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in the letter dated 09.10.2013
and numbered 04014/ 1/2012-Salt, passed by the first respondent to frame a
transparent policy on management of saline lands belonging to the Central
Government, keeping in mind the welfare of the numerous salt workers who
are involved in the industry.
For Petitioners in all WPs. : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior
Counsel for Mr.R.Natesh Kumar,
Mr.T.P.Manoharan, Senior
Counsel for Mr.T.M.Naveen,
Mr.Rahul Balaji,
Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.R.Sankara Narayanan,
in all WPs Additional Solicitor General of
India assisted by all the Central
Government Standing Counsels.
COMMON JUDGMENT
The writ petitions on hand are instituted questioning the
sustainability of the Notification dated 09.10.2013 issued by the Ministry of
Industry and Commerce, Government of India, Department of Industrial
Policy and Promotion (Salt Section).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
“In a room where people unanimously
maintain a conspiracy of silence, one word of
truth sounds like a pistol shot”
The above words of Czeslaw Milosz would be
apt as in the present case the one word of “open
auction” creates panic in the minds of the salt
manufacturers/writ petitioners.”
2. These batch of writ petitions are heard as the issues raised
are one and the same and all the petitioners as well as the members of the
some petitioner-Associations are the salt manufacturers in the State of Tamil
Nadu. Thus common order is passed.
3. Salt production using sea brine or subsoil brines is one of the
oldest activities in India. As the raw material for production of salt is sea
brine, all the salt works or salt factories are located along the coast or
alongside natural creeks that bring in sea water during high tides. Salt works
or salt factories can be laid out only on saline soils that have a fair amount
of clay, in as much as the salt pans i.e., the ponds for impounding sea water
or sub-soil brine for storage and evaporation with the help of solar energy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
are laid out on such coils without using any artificial surfacing. In view of
the process of manufacture of salt, salt works cannot be constructed and
worked away from the coast.
4. Salt production is akin to agriculture, in as much as it is
entirely seasonal and can be carried out only during the summer months,
utilising sea water and/or sub-soil brine and solar energy as the only raw
material. No salt manufacturing activity is carried out during the monsoon.
The Salt Industry is entirely labour-oriented and labour intensive and no
machinery is used except for pumping sea brine or sub-soil brine from the
sea or creeks or wells dug to harness sub-soil brine.
5. State of Tamil Nadu is the second largest producer of salt in
India, next to Gujarat. The salt in the State is produced from salt pans along
the sea coast. Tuticorin and Vedaranyam are the two major Salt Production
Centres in the State besides a few other small Production Centres in other
Districts like Ramanathapuram, Nagapattinam, Villupuram, Cuddalore,
Kanniyakumari, Kancheepuram etc. Tuticorin and Vedaranyam account for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
about 80% of the State's salt production.
6. Salt is an 'Union subject' and appears as item No.58 of the
Union List of the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Central
Government is responsible for controlling all aspects of the Salt Industry
through Salt Organisations, To meet out the expenses of the Salt
Department, the Government of India imposed a cess on salt in the nature of
Excise Duty with effect from 01.04.1947, which was subsequently
regularised by enacting Salt Cess Act, 1953.
7. Under this Act, the proceeds of the cess reduced by the cost
of collection as determined by the Central Government would be utilised
toward meeting expenditures incurred in connection with the Salt
Organization maintained by the Central Government, besides other object in
connection with the development of Salt Industry in regard to quantity and
quality welfare of labour, establishment and maintenance of Model Farms,
Salt Research Stations, etc. The said Act was amended in the year 1961 with
a view to reduce the levy of cess payable by the Salt Works in the Public
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
Sector on par with the Private Sector. Salt Cess Rules, 1964 provides for
granting concession to different categories of salt manufacturers and rules
for collection of cess, statistics etc.
8. In view of the importance of salt in the economy, the
Government of India constituted various Committees such as Salt Expert
Committees, 1948, Estimates Committees, 1950, Departmental Committees,
1951 and Manu Bhai Shah Committee, 1958 to look into various aspects of
the industry. These Committees recommended various measures for
improving the functioning of the Salt Organization and Constitution of
Boards to advice Government on the utilization of salt cess etc.
9. The importance of salt in the economy of the country with its
basic use as an article of daily consumption and for industrial purpose was
discussed in detail in the report filed by the Committee, constituted under
the Chairmanship of Shri Manu Bhai Shah, which contained 39
recommendations, including a common pattern of levy of charges payable
by the Assignees of salt land belonging to the Central and State
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
Governments and abolition of other levies such as royalty etc., except for
nominal Ground Rent to be fixed at Rs.2/- per acre.
10. The said recommendations of the Committee were
considered by the Union Cabinet and vide Resolution dated 3rd May, 1961,
published in the Gazette of India, where some recommendations were
accepted and some take note of. Recommendation 39 of the said Committee
report proceeded with a common pattern of levy of charges should be
adopted for both Central and State Government lands, Ground Rent should
not exceed Rs.2 per acre and that all other levies except Ground Rent were
to be abolished. As regards recommendation No.39, the Resolution stated
that “the Government broadly agreed with recommendation No.39 and State
Governments have already been addressed in the matter”. Pursuant to this,
the first respondent vide letter dated 07.12.1961 communicated to the
second respondent levy of uniform charges for all Central Government
lands and that the State Governments were not receptive to uniform charges
and that the matter would be taken up with the States at the later stage.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
11. While-so, in 1964, on recommendation by the Central
Advisory Board, the first respondent vide letter dated 20.06.1994 referred
the Assignment Fee at Rs.1/- per ton for an area above 10 Acres with
different minimum production levels fixed for each State, while maintaining
the Ground Rent of Rs.2/- per acre. This fixation was done by the first
respondent on recommendation of the Central Advisory Board with an aim
to fix the rates on par with the State Government rates.
12. In the year 2004, the first respondent, again on the
recommendation of the Central Advisory Board, chose to revise the existing
rates for Ground Rent and Assignment Fee, to try and establish parity with
the prevailing State Government rates and vide letter dated 27.01.2004 fixed
the Ground Rent at Rs.5/- per MT per acre per annum and minimum
Assignment Fee as Rs.10/- MT per acre subject to minimum productions
fixed differently for different States.
13. When State Governments concerned are maintaining the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
same rates and when no Central Advisory Board on any Committee in this
regard has been formed, the first respondent, vide Impugned Circular dated
09.10.2013, has chosen to increase the Ground Rent form Rs.5/- to Rs.120/-
per MT per acre, while increasing minimum Assignment Fee to be paid to
Rs.100/- per MT per acre subject to minimum production.
14. The learned Senior Counsels Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan and
Mr.T.B.Manoharan and the learned counsels Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan,
Mr.Rahul Balaji and other respective learned counsels appearing on behalf
of the petitioners, raised several grounds.
15. It is mainly contended that there is an apparent
discrimination in respect of the Ground Rent charges and Assignment Fee
between the State Government and the Central Government. There is no
level playing field and the impugned circular is issued based on the wrong
analysis and assessment of facts and circumstances and it is contended that
the Central Advisory Board had not been consulted before issuing the
impugned order, which is in violation of the Rules in force. It is further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
contended that the business rules and procedures were not followed for
arriving such a decision, which resulted in passing of the impugned order.
16. It is further contended that the decision was unilateral and
Manu Bhai Shah Committee report has not been considered in its real spirit.
The principles of reasonableness has not been considered and there is no
basis and the rationale for arriving a conclusion for enhancement of Ground
Rent and Assignment Fee, which is not in commensuration with the charges
prescribed by the State Government and further enhancement is also
arbitrary.
17. It is contended that once in such matters though it appears
to be a policy decision and the same cannot be taken unilaterally by the
Government of India and the salt manufacture involves many stakeholders
and other mitigating factors are also not considered. Thus the unilateral
decision and the unreasonable assessment made are in violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. Based on the above grounds it is contended
that in the business of any assessment regarding ground realities and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
without any consultations with any of the stakeholders and with complete
disregard to the Government Resolution passed in year 1961, the circular
impugned has been issued. The detailed study and the recommendations
made by the Shri.Manu Bhai Shah Committee was not at all taken into
consideration. The Committee's report recommended that all levy in respect
of saline lands belonging to Central Government, except Ground Rent
should be abolished and also recommended that the Ground Rent levied
should be fixed at a nominal rate of Rs.2 per acre. The Government of India
in its Resolution dated 03.05.1961 had adopted the recommendations of the
Manu Bhai Shah Committee on the Ground Rent to be levied and thus the
executive circular modifying the Cabinet approved Resolution is bereft of
any source of power and therefore, the impugned circular is liable to be
struck down.
18. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the
impugned circular suffers from complete non-application of mind as the
first respondent has failed to provide the basis for the increase, in as much
as there have been no recommendations from the Central Advisory Board,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
which recommended the last revision in the year 2004 and/or any
Committee or body constituted in this regard, Moreover, the minimum
production fixed for each State has also been revised by the first respondent
without any appropriate or scientific basis for the same as it fails to
differentiate areas with lower/higher rainfall and other seasonal vagaries,
which affects productivity and contrary to the production details available
with the second respondent-Commissioner.
19. It is contended that the Authority Competent has
mechanically applied his mind while arriving at the new rate on the basis of
the Assignment Fee and Ground Rent levied in the State of Gujarat. The
reasons based on which the first respondent has sought to increase the
Ground Rent from the existing rate of Rs.5/- per acre per annum to Rs.120/-
per acre per annum, viz., increase of land value, increase of cost of
management of lands and achieving parity with rate in the State of Gujarat,
are baseless and/or artificial. Even 'comparison' in respect of rates to the rate
levied by the Government of Gujarat, it is submitted that closer examination
of the levy would bring to light that the actual levy by the Gujarat
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
Government is Rs.640/- per acre or Rs.12/- to Rs.80/- per MT, whereas the
present levy of Government of India is Rs.2,120/- to Rs.5,120/- per acre per
annum.
20. The basis of the increase in Assignment Fee from Rs.100
per tonne subject to the minimum production fixed for each State has been
sought to be justified as “The price of salt in all States is fixed based on the
sale price of salt in Gujarat plus transport and handling cost of the
respective State. Salt is a low value commodity and transport/handling cost
three to four times the cost of raw salt. As such the ex-factory price of salt
in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha is very
high compared to Gujarat and the salt manufacturers are in a position to
quote high Assignment Fee for obtaining salt department lands on lease.”
21. While seeking to assign this baseless justification, the first
respondent has failed to consider the ex-factory price of salt, which depends
on the cost of production to the manufacturer and a margin of profit. The
reason why the ex-factory price of salt is higher in the States of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha, is owing
to the climatic conditions. While stating that the Government is able to
receive higher offers when its lands are put to tender, the Government has
failed to consider that it may receive a higher offer if it auctions an already
constructed salt work, as the successful tenderer need not spend on
construction cost, and has failed to appreciate that such lands taken on lease
in the recent period, have defaulted on the payment of Assignment Fees and
have abandoned the lands.
22. The petitioners have raised the above issues through
various representations made by the Joint Secretary, Department of
Industrial Policy and Promotion, the issues were taken into consideration.
However, no steps have been taken till date for the fixation on Assignment
Fee and Ground Rent, while taking the above factors into consideration.
Thus, the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India as it is arbitrary, artificial and bears no nexus to the
object sought to be achieved in fixing the norms for various areas. Though
the classification is sought to be done on the basis of productivity, it fails to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
consider the external factors such as seasonal differences between places
while fixing the productivity for each area, and the production rates do not
correspond to either the actual or the production taken for collection of cess
under the Cess Act, 1953.
23. The impugned circular seeks to include a new clause to
the existing leases that there shall be an increase of 10% in the rates of
Assignment Fee and Ground Rent every three years, unilaterally when the
first respondent does not possess any such power either under the original
Lease Deed nor under any Statute and hence is arbitrary and unreasonable
and violates rights of the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. It is a well-settled position of law that a Legislature can certainly give
retrospective effect to pieces of Legislation passed by it, but an executive
Government exercising subordinate and delegated legislative powers,
cannot make legislation retrospective in effect unless that power is
expressly conferred. Thus, the impugned executive circular seeking to
impose the increased levy with effect from 01.01.2013 is ultra vires and is
liable to be struck down.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
24. Mr.R.Sankara Narayanan, the learned Additional Solicitor
General of India, raised serious objections with reference to the
maintainability of all these writ petitions. Prima facie, it is the leasehold
rights extended in favour of the petitioners by the Government of India and
the contractual obligation and its terms and conditions, cannot be
adjudicated in the writ proceedings.
25. Admittedly, the lease period had expired in respect of all
the petitioners and therefore, they have no locus to question the circular or
seek an automatic renewal of lease period, without conducting the tender
process. It is a policy decision taken by the Government of India in
regulating the salt manufacturing units and such a policy decision is taken
by wide consultation and by following the processes, considering the
suggestions and objections of the stakeholders and thus, there is no infirmity
in respect of the processes adopted from time to time and increase in
charges based on the prevailing circumstances. It is not as if the Lessees can
get renewal automatically, which would confer the lease rights perpetually
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
and such a perpetual lease is unlawful and will deprive other eligible
persons and also result in discrimination, which is impermissible and
violative of the constitutional mandates. Thus, the procedure is transparent
and is being followed by improving the system periodically and based on he
recommendations of the Committees and after considering suggestions,
objections etc., of the stakeholders as well as any consultation with Experts.
Thus, there is no perversity with reference to the procedures adopted for
forming an opinion and for issuance of the impugned order. The grounds
raised regarding unreasonableness, arbitrariness are absolutely untenable
and beyond any stretch of imagination.
26. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India,
contended that once the period of lease had expired and the petitioners with
reference to terms and consideration and contractual obligations raises some
claims or otherwise, they have to invoke the arbitration clause in normal
circumstances and even in the absence of arbitration clause, they are bound
to approach Competent Court of Law and such contractual obligations with
reference to the terms and conditions of the contract, cannot be adjudicated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
in the writ proceedings.
27. To substantiate various grounds raised on behalf of the
Government of India, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India drew
the attention of this Court with reference to the Committee's report,
proceedings, deliberations and considerations as well as the formation of
opinions by the Competent Authority for issuing the order impugned.
28. Paragraph 11.28 of the Manu Bhai Shah Committee's
Report reads as under:-
“11,28. In view of what has been stated in
Chapter IX, we consider there is a great need for
rationalising the several kinds of levies which are
imposed on production of salt in different States.
In the interest of proper and integrated
development of salt industry in the country as a
whole, we recommend that the Central
Government, should in consultation with the State
Government,determine a uniform system of
charges payable by Lessees of salt lands belonging
to the Central or State Governments. The Ground
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
Rent forsuuch lands shouldbekept reasonably low
and in our opinion shouldnotexceed Rs.2 per acre
in any part of the country. Other levies like royalty
or local cesses or surcharge should, wherever in
existence, beabolished.”
29. The letter dated 14.12.1960 issued by Ministry of
Commerce and Industry provides delegation of powers for leasing out for
salt manufacturing. Clause (iv) stipulates 'the lease of lands should be for a
period not exceeding 20 years' and Clauuse (v) denotes 'the lands should be
leased through invitation of public tenders after adequate publicity, the lease
being awarded to the highest bidder'. This decision was taken in the year
1960 itself. The power was delegated to the Salt Commissioner for leasing
out Government to lands for salt manufacture.
30. The proceedings of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry
dated 03.05.1961 considers the Report of Shri Manu Bhai Shah Committee.
The said Committee submitted its Final Report in July, 1958 and the report
contains 39 recommendations and conclusions. Clause 39 of the Report
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
reads as under:-
“A common pattern of levy of charges payable
by the Lessees of salt lands belonging to the
Central or State Governments should be adopted
for the whole country. The Ground Rent should
not exceed Rs.2/- per acre. Other levels like
royalty' wherever in existence should be
abolished.(Para 11.28)”
31. Paragraph 3 of the Report states that the Government of
India have considered the recommendations and conclusions of the Salt
Committee is also provided. In the conclusion, the Government of India
accepts the recommendation No.15 and said that suitable steps have been
taken to implement the same. The Government also broadly agreed with
recommendation No.39 and State Governments have already been addressed
in the said matter. Recommendation Nos.16, 20 and 24 are being accepted
and necessary steps were taken to set up an autonomous Central Salt Board
for the purpose and functions mentioned under these recommendations.
Government accepts recommendation No.18 of the Committee, which states
that Government lands should ordinarily be leased out for manufacture of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
salt for a period of 99 years and the term of the existing leases should be
extended to this period of 99 years .However, the Government limits the
period of lease to 20 years. Thus renewal of such leases for a further period
of 20 years could be considered on merits at appropriate time on such terms
and conditions as the Government may decide. Government also accepts
recommendation No.19 except in respect of those salt works which did not
even pay any fees at the time of current assignment. The Government
further stated that salt is already being looked after under the Central Excise
and Salt Act,1944 and the Salt Cess Act, 1953, Government do not see the
need for the present to bring 'Salt' under the Industries (Development and
Regulation) Act,1954. Regarding recommendation No.38, Government has
already taken several steps to reduce the number of zones and rationalise the
distribution. Thus it is clear that the lease period is restricted to 20 years and
renewal of leases for a further period could be considered on merits at
appropriate time on such terms and conditions as Government may decide.
This decision was taken in Resolution dated 03.05.1961 and thereafter on
07.12.1961, common pattern of levy of charges for salt lands are issued and
paragraph 3 of the letter reads as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
“3.Most of the Governments of sale producing
States, who were consulted, are not agreeable to
accept the Salt Committee's recommendations. It
has, therefore, been decided that the above
method for levy of Assignment Fee should be
brought into effect immediately in respect of
Central Government lands, and that the question
of its extension to State Government lands should
be considered after some experience of the
method has been gained.”
32. In letter dated 20.06.1964, formula for the levy of
Assignment Fee on salt lands are considered in paragraphs 2 clause(iv),
which reads as under:-
“For the purpose of levy of Assignment Fee,
a minimum production of 10, 15 and 20 tonnnes
per acre per annum is fixed respectively for lands
in the States of Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and
Madras (Other than Tuticorin area) and 50 per
acre for Tuticorin area.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
33. The concluding paragraph-2 of the above said letter reads
as under:-
“2. The working of the above formula should
be reviewed at the end of two years and results of
the review furnished to enable this Ministry to take
up with the State Governments concerned the
question of following a similar policy in respect of
their salt lands.”
34. Further Resolution was passed on 19.12.1969 with
reference to the Salt Committee's recommendations/conclusion Nos.18 and
19 with reference to the lease period and it was recommended by the
Committee that the Government lands are ordinarily be listed out for
manufacture of salt for a period of 19 years. However, the Government
clarified its policy regarding extension of leases as below:-
“6. For the sack of clarity, Government's
policy regarding extension of leases is indicated
below:
Government lands will ordinarily be leased
out for manufacture salt for a period of twenty
years only. Request for renewal of such leases for a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
further period not exceeding twenty years at a time
would be considered on their merits at the
appropriate time, on payment such assignment
fee/ground rent etc., and such other terms and
conditions as Government may from time to time
decide upon.
No further assignment fee will be charged for
Government salt lands leased for manufacture of
salt in the event of a transfer of lease from one
party to another during the period of its currency
in the original Lessee had paid the fees at the time
of original assignment.”
35. An important decision regarding revision of Assignment
Fee, Ground Rent and rate of production of salt per acre for charging
Assignment Fee, Ground Rent etc., of the Salt Commissionerate land was
issued in proceedings dated 27.01.2004. In the said letter, the earlier orders
passed by the Government of India on 07.12.1961, 20.06.1964, 22.07.1964,
19.12.1969 and 24.07.1989 were superseded. By superseding all the earlier
decisions, the revision was effected in letter dated 27.01.2004 and the
following procedures shall be adopted for levy of Assignment Fee/lease
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
money in the States of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka,
Odisha and Tamil Nadu:-
“(i) Ground rent should be recovered in lump
sum annually in advance.
(ii) The assignment fee in respect of area
covering more than 10 acres should be collected in
instalments, not exceeding four in a year. In
respect of the holdings of 10 acres and less, the
assignment fee for the entire lease period to be
collected in instalments not more than10.
(iii) Before the lands are formally assigned,
the assignees should be required to deposit a fixed
amount equal to the estimated amount of
assignment fee for one year as security deposit.
This would be refundable after the expiry of the
term of the lease. The assignment fee paid as
advance shall be adjusted against outstanding dues
in case the lease of land given for manufacture of
salt is revoked owing to violation of lease
conditions.
(iv) In respect of fresh and undeveloped lands,
lease money/assignment fee at half of this scale
should be recovered for the first three years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
However, such conditions should be incorporated
in the NIT and subsequent in lease agreement.
(v) In respect of the State of Orissa, the rate
assignment fee should be 40% of that applicable to
other Stales. However, the annual ground rent
shall remain the same.
(vi) In respect of the duly registered co-
operative Societies, the rate of assignment fee
obtained in the NIT should be half of the normal
rule of assignment fee proposed for the first five
years.
(vii) In case of prevailing assignment fee
obtained by NIT ranging from Re.1 to 10, the
minimum assignment fee shall be charged Rs.10.
However, this shall be made applicable alter
current lease tenure expires and competent
authority renews the lease of land for another
term.
(viii) In case the higher tender rate of
assignment fee being more than Rs.10, the lessee
shall pay the tendered rate.
(ix) In case of holding less than 10 acres
where a fixed amount of assignment fee/lease
money is charged shall be calculated in such a way
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
that minimum assignment fee does not come to less
than Rs.10 per tonne per annum.
(x) The revised rates of assignment fee and
ground rent will be effective from 1st January, 2004
onwards.
5. The working of the above formula should be
reviewed at the end of three years and result of the
review furnished to this Department.”
36. After revision order dated 27.01.2004, further revision of
Assignment Fee, Ground Rent and rate of minimum production of salt per
acre for charging Assignment Fee and Ground Rent etc., of the Salt
Commissionerate land was issued in proceedings dated 09.10.2013 and in
the said revision order, the following procedures are adjudicated for levy of
Assignment Fee/lease money:-
“a) Ground rent should be recovered in lump
sum annually in advance.
b) The assignment fee may be collected in
instalment, not exceeding four in a year subject to
the payment of simple interest fixed by the
Government from time to time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
c) The assignment fee/ground rent in respect of
land whose lease was renewed on payment of
assignment fee/ground rent as per DIPP letter No:
02011/2/2003-Salt dated 27.1.2004. would stand
revised to the aforesaid rate w.e.f. 1.1.2013. In
case lessees are already paying assignment fee
more than Rs.100/- per ton, they shall continue to
pay the same amount.
d) Before the lands are formally assigned, the
assignees should be required to deposit a fixed
amount equal to the estimated amount of
assignment fee for one year as security deposit.
This would be refundable after the expiry of the
successful terms of the lease. The assignment fee
paid as advance shall be adjusted against
outstanding dues in case the lease of land given
for manufacture of salt is cancelled owing to
violation of lease conditions.
e) In respect of fresh and undeveloped lands as
well as salt lands lying fallow for more than 7
years, lease money/assignment fee at half of this
scale should be recovered for the first three years
from the assignee and for the first five years from
duly registered cooperative societies. However,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
such condition should be incorporated in the NIT
and subsequently in lease agreement.
f) In cases where the highest tender rate of
assignment fee being more than Rs.100, the lessee
shall pay the tendered rate.
g) In cases where the land has been allotted on
lease by inviting tenders and the highest bid
accepted for payment of assignment fee was less
than Rs.100/- per MT, the lessee will continue to
pay the assignment fee during the remaining
period of lease as per their respective highest bid
accepted.
h) All lessees will be required to pay ground
rent at revised rate.
3. The new rates of assignment fee and ground
rent will automatically increase by 10% after
every three years and will be reviewed after every
five years by the Committee constituted by the
Government of India.
4. This issues with the concurrence of IF Wing
vide their Dy. No. 650 dated 10.7.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
37. This order (order impugned) is under challenge in all
these writ petitions.
38. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India further
relied on the consultations and the proceedings issued by the Government of
India even after revision of Assignment Fee, Ground Rent etc., issued in
view of the impugned proceedings dated 09.10.2013 and importantly
renewal of lease and revision of Assignment Fee, Ground Rent for every
Government salt land was issued in proceedings dated 20.05.2013, wherein
the Committee constituted to examine the issue of renewal of lease and
revision of Ground Rent and Assignment Fee of the Government salt land
leased to salt manufacturers was held under the Chairpersonship of
Smt.Shubhra Singh, Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and
Promotion (DIPP).
39. The Salt Commissioner briefed the Committee with the
system of levying Ground Rent and salt lands since 1859 fixed rate in term
of a unit of the quantity of salt produced or in term of percentage of share of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
the produce, by the then Governments. However, renewal of lease could be
considered for a period of 20 years on merit and at appropriate time on such
terms and conditions as Government may decide.
40. The Committee considered the formula for fixing the
Assignment Fee adopted in 1964 and in the year 2013 based on the
impugned order dated 09.10.2013. While considering these issues, the
Committee elaborately considered the location of lands, discharge of fresh
water into sea by river causing dilution of sea brine, resulted in low
productivity of the land. Therefore, it is contended that all such difficulties
of the salt manufacturers, natural calamities peculiarly prevailing in the
particular area climatic conditions were elaborately taken into consideration
and carried out for the purpose of forming a policy. Further considered the
basis for arriving at a new proposed rate. Elaborate discussions were made
and the Committee constituted justified the proposal for renewal of lease,
payment of prevailing on the highest rate or long existing Lessee to
participate in the tendering process and renewal of lease on payment of
highest tender amount. No renewal of lease will be done. The present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
Lessee may participate along with fresh applicants. No extra advantage
would be given to the present Lessee in bidding procedures.
41. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India solicited
the attention of this Court with reference to the deliberations made by the
Committee in an elaborate manner, so as to form an opinion and adopt the
transparent procedure without causing any discrimination or inequality.
Thus, even after issuance of the impugned order, the Committee constituted
gone into the earlier procedures issued by the Government of India and the
formula for fixing the Assignment Fee and adopted the basis for arriving at
a new proposed rate and other merits of the issues.
42. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India
reiterating that it is the policy decision taken by the Government of India
after much deliberations, contended that all the petitioners who all are the
salt manufacturers submitted an undertaking in stamped papers and the said
undertaking of the petitioners reads as under:-
“I/We, the holders of Licence No.18 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
Chunampet salt factory hereby agree to pay the
assignment fees on the pan area, the incidental
area in exclusive possession, brine pit areas and
the area in common enjoyment with others in the
factory at the existing rate fixed by the Salt
Department or at the enhanced rate if any with
retrospective effect from 01.10.1990 is so decided
by the Government of India and also agree to
execute a fresh lease deed in the prescribed form.”
43. The abovesaid undertaking was given in the year 1998 and
based on the undertaking the Lease Deed was entered into between the
Government of India and the petitioners, who all are Lessees.
44. Importantly the terms and conditions are to be considered
in all these cases. The relevant terms and conditions 1 (a) to 3 and 10, 18, 22
and 23 read as under:
“1(a). In subsequent years, the lessee shall
pay Ground Rent of Rs.18/-(Rupees eighteen only)
in lump sum at the rate of Rs.5/- per acre per
annum payable in advance at the beginning of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
each year on or before the date fixed by the lessor.
2. The lease shall be subject as herein
provided, for a period of 20 years commencing
from 1.10.1998 to 30.09.2018 provided always
that the Dy. Salt Commissioner on behalf of the
lessor or the lessee(s) shall be at liberty to
determine the lease on giving to the other of them
notice in writing at the close of the salt
manufacturing season. Such notice will have effect
at once but six months from date of notice will be
allowed for removal of Salt belonging to the
lessee(s) unless the Dy. Salt Commissioner in his
absolute discretion decides that this period may be
extended. All Salt not removed within that period
will be forfeited to the lessor.
3. On the expiry of the period of lease or its
sooner determination as provided in Clause 1 or
Clause 2 supra or Clause 22 infra the lessee(s)
shall leave the demised premises in such order
and condition as is consistent with the due
performance of this lease with all works erected
or made thereon as they are, provided that any
machinery erected by him / them may be remove
but he / they shall not be entitled to any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
compensation for any expenditure that he / they
may have incurred in respect of the works or to
any damages if the area is resumed.
10. The lessee(s) shall on application be
granted a lease to manufacture salt by the Dy. Salt
Commissioner or the authorised officer and at all
times be bound to duly observe the terms and
conditions of the lease or any modifications
thereof which the Government of India in their
discretion make.
18. If notice of termination of the lease as
provided in Clause 2 above is given either by the
lessee(s) or by the lessor, the lessees(s) shall pay
all sums due or falling due to the lessor upto the
close of the official year in which such notice is
given.
22. Subject to the foregoing conditions, the
lessee(s) shall continue to enjoy the demised
premises undisturbed for the said term of twenty
years. In case, however, there is any breach of any
of the above mentioned conditions or the lessee(s)
delay payment of any sum or sums due under this
agreement for over two months (excepting
payment in instalments of the agreed sum, as lease
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
money for which a specific provision has been
made in Clause 1 Supra) from the date of its
falling due or in case the lease granted in
accordance with clause 10 above is cancelled or
forfeited, the lessor may determine the case
forthwith.
23. In the event of any question, dispute or
difference arising in respect of or in connection
with this indenture (except as to any matters, the
decision of which is specially provided for by
these presents) the same shall be referred to the
sole arbitration of the Salt Commissioner to the
Government of India or of some other person
appointed by him. It will be no objection that the
Arbitrator is a Government Servant, that he has to
deal with matters to which these presents relate or
that in the course of his duties as a Government
Servant, he has expressed views on all or any of
the matters in dispute or difference. The award of
the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the
parties to this indenture. It is a term of this clause
that no person other than the Salt Commissioner,
Government of India or the person appointed by
him should act as Arbitrator and that, if for any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
reason, that is not possible, the matter shall not to
be referred to arbitration at all. The Arbitrator
may, with the consent of the parties, enlarge the
time from time to time for making and publishing
the award. Subject as aforesaid, the Arbitration
Act, 1940 and the Rules thereunder and any
statutory modification thereof for the time being in
force shall be deemed to apply to the arbitration
proceedings under this clause.”
45. A supplementary Lease Deed was also executed based on
the terms and conditions of the lease and any implementation of the policy
decision taken by the Government of India, demand notice was issued in the
year 2014. The demand notices are issued clearly stating that the Lessees
shall required to execute a Supplemental/Rectification Lease Deed in the
enclosed proforma to this effect on appropriate value of non-judicial stamp
paper and the same may be submitted to the Lessor Department for
acceptance and attaching to the Principal Lease Deed within 30 days of the
receipt of the notice, failing the lease will be terminated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
46. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India relying
on the above discussions,decisions,proceedings and the Committee's
recommendations etc., relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh, wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP
No.35321 of 2014 etc. batch, wherein the very same impugned order dated
09.10.2013 was challenged in a batch of writ petitions. Andhra Pradesh
High Court also considered the issues and held as follows:-
“Admittedly, the aforesaid letter is
subsequent to the minutes of the meeting dated
06.05.2015 and the Government of India intends
to close the Salt Commissioner's Organization
and a note to that is also pending for
consideration before the Cabinet. Therefore, no
favourable orders can be issued for renewal
/grant of any leases in favour of the petitioners.
At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel
submits that the aforesaid letter dated
11.07.2016 is not issued by the Secretary to the
Government of India, as such, same cannot be
looked into. But in the 3rd paragraph of the
letter, it is categorically stated that the said
letter issued with the approval of the Secretary,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
IPP, as such, it cannot be said that 18 ARR,J WP
Nos.35321_2014 & batch the Deputy Secretary
to the Government of India has no right to issue
such communication to the Salt Commissioner.
In view of above facts and circumstances, I
do not see any merit in these writ petitions and
accordingly, the same are dismissed. However,
in the case of petitioners whose leases have
already expired, as per the lease agreements;
have to vacate the leased premises within a
period six months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. There shall be no order as to
costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous
petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition,
shall stand closed.”
47. The Writ Appeal filed against the above said judgment
before the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court also
was disposed of by stating that the impugned order passed by the
Government of India warrants no interference in all respects, including the
time given for vacating the premises.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
48. Considering the arguments of the respective learned Senior
Counsels and other learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned
Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondents, this Court is of an
opinion that the very initial ground taken by the petitioners that
discrimination between the charges adopted by the State Government and
the Central Government cannot be a ground for interference with reference
to the order impugned. The Central Government inclusive of the State had
taken efforts to maintain uniformity in the matter of imposing charges.
However the deliberations made during the appropriate time had not
fructified and the process is still on and under these circumstances, an
independent decision taken by the Central Government considering various
factors, report of the Committee's and prevailing situation etc., cannot be
found fault with. Thus, the discrimination part as raised by the petitioners
deserve no merit consideration.
49. The State may take appropriate decision by way of a policy
decision and the said factor cannot be a ground to set aside the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
impugned order passed by the Government of India regarding revision of
Assignment Fee, Ground Rent and rate of minimum production of salt per
acre for charging Assignment Fee and Ground Rent etc., of the Salt
Commissionerate Land. It is further contended that the decision for revision
was taken unilaterally without any consultation and based on wrong
analysis of facts and circumstances. It is fuhrer stated that it is an executive
decision. This Court is of the considered opinion that the deliberations made
right from the year 1958 i.e., Manu Bhai Shah Committee's Report, there are
various letters and proceedings considering the facts and circumstances.
Thus, the proceedings and letters are elaborately considered in the
aforementioned paragraphs, which would reveal that the decision can never
be construed as unilateral, but by considering various facts and
circumstances, including the difficulties expressed by the stakeholders.
Thus, such a policy decision taken in the interest of public by the
Government of India cannot be interfered with by the Courts in a routine
manner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
50. The power of Judicial Review of the Constitutional Courts
are to ensure the processes through which a decision taken by the
Competent Authorities in consonance with the Statute and the Rules in
force, but not the decision itself.
51. This being the scope of the power of Judicial Review of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, every policy
decision cannot be interfered with by the High Courts. However, a policy
decision directly infringing the fundamental rights of the citizen or ultra
vires of the constitution alone are liable to be set aside.
52. However, in these cases, Manu Bhai Shah Committee made
several recommendations and based on the recommendations,
considerations were shown by the Government of India. Certain
recommendations were agreed and certain recommendations were deferred.
Certain decisions regarding the lease period has been taken considering
various facts and circumstances and a decision was arrived for revision of
charges. The period of lease also underwent changes. It is important to note
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
that even now the procedures are evolving and consultations are going on.
53. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India made
submissions by stating that various issues are under reconsideration and
appropriate decisions will be taken at the Cabinet level during appropriate
time. However, that will not be a bar for the Competent Authorities to
enforce the Lease Agreement and to implement the policy in force. Thus,
the very contentions of the petitioners that till the decision is taken at the
Cabinet level, all further proceedings are to be stalled deserves no merit
acceptance.
54. Undoubtedly cultivation of salt is akin to agriculture. The
salt manufacturers, no doubt, are facing difficulties. However, one cannot
arrive a conclusion that it is not at all profit making business. Profit and loss
alone cannot be the criteria for taking policy decisions by the Government
of India in such matters where the lands belongs to the Government of India
are leased out for salt cultivations. The charges prevailing for long years
were revised in the year 2004 and thereafter through the impugned order in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
the year 2013. Periodical consultations are going on. Recommendations of
the Experts are under consideration. Thus,such evolving procedures in
progress cannot be a ground for implementing the existing revision of
charges with reference to the terms and conditions of the lease for
Assignment Fee, Ground Rent and rate of minimum production of salt per
acre for charging Assignment Fee and ground rate etc.
55. In this context, the rights of the petitioners are to be
considered by this Court. The rights of the petitioners are only based on the
Lease Agreement. The Lease Agreement entered into between the Salt
Commissioner and the petitioners unambiguously stipulates that the lease
shall be subject as herein provided for a period of 20 years. Almost all the
Lease Deeds are executed in the year 1998 and expired in the year 2018.
56. Clause 3 of the Lease Agreement in clear terms stipulates
that on the expiry of the period of lease or its sooner determination as
provided in Clause 1 or Clause 2 supra or Clause 22 infra, the Lessee (s)
shall leave the demised premises in such order and condition as it consistent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
with the due performance of this lease with all works erected or made
thereon as they are provided that any machinery erected by him may be
removed but he shall not be entitled to any compensation for any
expenditure that he may have incurred in respect of the works or to any
damages if the area is resumed.
57. Thus the petitioners had expressly agreed to vacate the
premises leased out to them on completion of 20 years. Even for renewal, if
at all permissible, the petitioners have to submit an application before the
Competent Authorities. Contrarily, after the expiry of the lease period they
cannot assume any such renewal or contend that the original
recommendations of Manu Bhai Shah committee for 99 years and therefore,
the benefit of renewal is to be given automatically. The policy underwent
changes after Manu Bhai Shah's Committee in the year 1958. In respect of
the recommendations even in the year 1961, the Government of India
restricted the lease period for 20 years and renewal of further period of 20
years will be considered only on the terms and conditions and with
reference to the changes from time to time. Thus renewal of lease can never
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
be automatic nor the petitioners can claim renewal based on the Committee's
recommendations of the year 1958, as a matter of right.
58. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the salt
manufacturing cannot be compared with the other manufacturing units. The
difficulties in particular are to be considered. The salt manufactures have
invested huge money for the purpose of making over the salt land.
Thus,they require further more period for the purpose of compensating the
loss in respect of the investments made at the beginning.
59. In this regard, deliberations of the Authorities Competent
with reference to the Committee's recommendations were made. The issues
were specifically considered by the Committee constituted to examine the
issue of renewal of lease and revision of Ground Rent and Assignment Fee
of Government salt land to salt manufactures. A Committee was constituted
under the Chairmanship of Smt.Shubhra Singh, Joint Secretary, Department
of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP). The Committee consists of
seven delegates elaborately considered the entire developments right from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
the year 1958 and the issues were raised for discussions and based on the
issues decisions were taken. In fact, the formula for fixing the Assignment
Fee adopted in the year 1964 and now, the basis of arriving at new proposed
rate, whether the new proposed rate can be made applicable from the
retrospective date, why the proposed new rate of AF/GR cannot be fixed
each salt factory-wise based on the productivity of the area, rationale for
proposed enhancement of 10% in proposed new rate after every three years,
why the salt land cannot be leased for salt manufacture by open auction
instead of open tender to bring more transparency and avoid cartelisation.
Accordingly, justifying the proposal for renewal of lease on payment of
prevailing highest rate or renewing the existing Lessee to participate in the
tendering process and renew his lease on payment of highest tender amount.
No renewal of lease will be done. The present Lessee may participate along
with the fresh applicants. No extra advantage would be given to the present
Lessee in bidding procedures.
60. This being the decision taken in the meeting and the
considerations shown by the Committee are elaborately discussed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
proceedings dated 20.05.2013 issued by the Department of Industrial Policy
and Promotion, this Court is of an opinion that there is no reason what so
ever to form an opinion that the decision is taken unilateral or in an
unreasonable manner.
61. Beyond the policy decision taken by the Government of
India, the rights of the petitioners are to be considered for the purpose of
entertainability of these writ petitions. No doubt, all the writ petitions are
maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However,
entertainability is to be considered based on facts.
62. In this regard, the petitioners have given an undertaking in
a non judicial bond paper categorically stating that the existing rate fixed by
the Salt Department or at the enhanced rate if any with retrospective effect
from 01.10.1990 is so decided by the Government of India and also agreed
to execute a fresh lease period in the prescribed format.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
63. The undertakings given by the petitioners are
unambiguous that they agreed for the rate prevailing at the time of signing
of the Lease Agreement and also agreed for the enhanced rate if any with
retrospective effect from 01.10.1990. The undertaking was signed in the
year 1998. The Lease Deed also categorically stipulates that on expiry of the
lease period of 20 years, the Lessee shall leave the demised premises in such
order and condition as it consistent with the due performance of this lease
with all works erected or made thereon as they are provided with any
machinery erected by him\they may be removed. It states that the Lessee
shall not be entitled to any compensation for any expenditure or any
damages.
64. This being the scope of the Lease Agreement, the
petitioners have signed the Lease Agreement and also the undertaking
agreeing for the enhanced rate with retrospective effect, such contractual
obligation cannot be rescinded nor the petitioners acquire any right to
adjudicate such issues in the writ proceedings. No doubt, if any dispute
arises from and out of the Lease Agreement, then the parties are bound to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
approach the Competent Civil Court of Law for adjudication of such issues.
65. Contrarily, in the writ proceedings, the lease period cannot
be extended nor the policy decision arrived by the Government, which is
agreed between the parties can be interfered with. Thus the scope of the
entertainability of the writ petitions is no doubt not in favour of the
petitioners. Even on merits, the grounds raised with reference to
unreasonableness, arbitrariness, unilateral decisions etc., this Court do not
find any merit on the contentions raised by the petitioners and with
reference to the proceedings, the Committee's recommendations,
deliberations made by the Government of India for arriving a new policy
and for effecting revision of charges.
66. No doubt Central Government salt lands are not revenue
generating area. However, once the Central Government leased out its salt
land for manufacturing of salt, then it becomes a commercial venture. The
salt manufacturers, no doubt, are doing business and therefore, periodical
enhancement of charges and equal opportunity to all the eligible persons to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
get lease of such salt lands are constitutional mandates.
67. We the people of India resolved equality of status and of
opportunity and to promote among them all. When, we the people of India
resolved in the Constitution, more specifically in its preamble, no doubt,
equal opportunity is the foundation stone of the Indian Constitution.
68. Leasing of Central Government lands for 99 years or
automatic renewal of lease would infringe the rights of all other citizen, who
all are longing and aspiring to get an opportunity into the field of
manufacturing of salt or related trade activities. Deprival of equal
opportunity is directly infringing the fundamental right of every citizen.
Economic status and equal opportunity are the touchstone and moreover
creating monopoly at the behest of the Central Government lease by few
individuals at no circumstances be appreciated. No doubt, salt being
commodity of every day consumption, the Government must control market
price. Equally the Central and State Governments are bound to ensure that
the interest of the public at large is protected by implementing open auction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
process in order to ensure equal opportunity to the citizens of our Great
Nation.
69. This being the factum, this Court has no hesitation in
forming a definite opinion that the petitioners could not able to establish any
right for the purpose of grant of relief, as such sought for in all these batch
of writ petitions. Since the period of lease had admittedly expired as per the
terms and conditions of the lease, the petitioners/Lessees shall leave the
demised premises, within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. The respondents are directed to initiate all further
actions for tendering the subject salt lands by following the procedures as
contemplated and as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the impugned
order stands confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
70. Consequently all these writ petitions stand dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected
miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
22-12-2021
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Jeni/Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
To
1.The Deputy Secretary to the Government,
Union of India,
Ministry of Industry and Commerce,
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (Salt Section),
Udhyog Bhawan.
2.Salt Commissioner,
Lavan Bhawan,
2-A, Lavan Marg,
Jhalana Doongri,
Jaipur – 302 004.
3.Deputy Salt Commissioner,
26, Haddows Road,
Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.34859 of 2013 and etc.,
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni/Svn
WP Nos.34859, 35205 to 35209,
35230 to 35235, 35263 to 35272,
35327 to 35341 of 2013, 384, 501 to
517, 639 to 645, 3268, 5121, 19585,
19586, 21387 to 21389, 24299 to
24306, 25410, 27239 to 27242,
28586 to 28590, 31070, 32431 to
32439 of 2014, 13078, 13665 of
2015, 13673, 14528, 19000 to 19002,
21316, 25646, 25647 of 2017, 1236,
14467, 14468, 19975, 20340, 20370,
27294, 32720, 32730, 32738, 32748,
32756, 32761, 32767, 32796, 32866
to 32871, 32880, 32890, 32903,
32928, 32931, 32939, 33160, 33170,
33179, 33184, 33194, 33202, 33230,
33252, 33274, 33321, 33328, 33339,
33347, 33352, 33356 of 2018, 1225,
1235, 1241, 1245, 1254, 2102 of
2019, 13688 of 2020 and 704, 710,
712, 719, 1552, 1557, 9579 of 2021
22-12-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
