SULEKHAN SINGH & CO. & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

                         [2016] I S.C.R. 91



               SULEKHAN SINGH & CO. & ORS.                              A
                                 v.

                     STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 4845-4846 of 2015)
                        JANUARY 04, 2016                                B
     [ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]
      Mines and Minerals:
      Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
- U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 - Chapter II and         C
IV - Mining lease - Grant of - Grant of lease by way of auction -
Thereafter, vide Government Order dated 31.5.2012, grant of mining
lease by way of e tendering - High Court quashed mining lease
granted in favour of the appellants on the ground that the said
leases were granted in violation of the GO dated 31.5.2012 -
                                                                        0
Challenge to, by the appellant on the ground that applications
already made prior to 31.5.2012 to be dealt with without applying
GO dated 31.5.2012 - Held: Order dated 31.5.2012 was issued by
the State of U.P. to bring about transparency and to safeguard the
Government revenue - Plea of the appellants that they had acquired
a vested right prior to GO. dated 31.5.2012 cannot be accepted -        E
Pendency of application did not create any right in favour of the
appellants - Validity thereof was upheld by the High Court in Nar
Narain Mishra's case - Said judgment applied to the mineral in
question as specifically laid down by the High Court - Interim order
granted by this Court permitting the appellants to operate the mining
                                                                        F
leases is vacated - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14.
      Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India
      2012 (3) SCR 147:(2012) 3 SCC 1; Natural Resources
      Allocation in Re. Special Reference No.1 of 2012 2012
      (9) SCR 311:(2012) 10 SCC 1; Manohar Lal Sharma
      vs. Principal Secretary 2014 (8) SCR 446 (2014) 9 SCC             G
      516; Goa Foundation vs. Union of India 2014 (5) SCR
      302:(2014) 6 SCC 590; Nar Narain Mishra vs. The
      State of U.P. 2013 (2) ADJ 166; State of Tamil Nadu vs.
      Mis. Hind Stone 1981 (2) SCC 205: 1981 (2) SCR
      742 ;Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana 2012 (4) SCC               H
                                 91
92               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2016] l S.C.R.


A          629:2012 (4) SCR 819; Sukhan Singh vs. State of U.P.
           2014 (11) ADJ 89; Monnet !spat & Energy Ltd. vs.
           Union of India 2012 (11) SCC 1: 2012 (7) SCR 644 -
           Referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
B       2012 (3) SCR 147           Referred to.        Paras
        2012 (9) SCR 311           Referred to.        Paras
        2014 (8) SCR 446           Referred to.        Paras
        2014 (S) SCR 302           Referred to.        Paras
c       2013 (2) ADJ 166           Referred to.        Para 9,17,18,20
        1981 (2) SCR 742           Referred to.        Para 9,21,22
        2012 (4) SCR 819           Referred to.        Para 11,18
        2014 (11) ADJ 89           Referred to.        Para 13,18
D
        2012 (7) SCR 644           Referred to.        Para22
           CIVILAPPELLATEJURlSDICTION: CivilAppea!Nos. 4845-
     4846 of2015.
                                     WITH
E
           Civil Appeal Nos. 4847-4850 of2015
           From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2014 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38064 of
     2014, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38034, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
     12622 of 2014 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12663 of 2014.
F
           Harin P. Raval, S. Prasad, Prashant Kumar for the Appellants.
          Gaurav Bhatia, AAG, Samir Ali Khan, Gaurav Srivastava, Aditya
     Narayan Singh, Aamir Naseem, Md. Shahid Anwar, Syed Rafat Ali,
     Debasis Kukarjee for the Respondents.
G          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J 1. These appeals by special
     leave have been preferred against order dated 6th February, 2015 in
     Civil Misc. Review Application Nos.5064 and 5065 of 2015 and order
     dated 151h December, 2014 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos.38034, 38064,
H    12622 and 12663 of 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
          SULEKHAN SINGH & CO. v. STATE OF U. P.                              93
                [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

Allahabad.                                                                    A
        2. The question for consideration is whether the High Court was
justified in quashing mining lease granted in favour of the appellants vide
orders dated 24th May, 2014 and 26th May, 2014 on the ground that the
said leases were granted in violation of the Government Order (G.O.)
dated 31" May, 2012. Under this order, mining leases could only be            B
granted under Chapter IV of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession)
Rules, 1963 (the Rules) by way of e-tendering in the interest of
transparency and to safeguard the public revenue.
       3. Appellants Sulekhan Singh and company were the petitioners
in the High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nos. 12663 of          c
2014. The appellants Manoj Kumar Sood and Makhan Singh were jointly
the petitioners in the High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition
Nos. 12622 of 2014. They sought direction for grant of mining lease.
Upon grant of lease in pursuance of interim order in their favour,
Mohammad Aakil and Masihul Khan private respondents herein, sought
cancellation of mining leases granted to the appellants.                      D
       4. The Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 (MMDR) provides for development and regulation of mines and
minerals. Section 15 provides for making rules by the State Governments
for regulating grant of mining leases and other matters in respect of
'minor minerals'. The State of U. P. framed the Rules in exercise of the      E
said power. The Rules contain two sets of procedure for grant of mining
lease. Chapter IV of the Rules provides for grant of lease by auction
while Chapter II provides for grant of lease otherwise than by way of
auction. Prior to 31" May, 2012, the leases were being granted in the
State of Uttar Pradesh under Chapter II. G.0. dated 31" May, 2012             F
changed this practice, providing that:
      "To bring transparency in connection of approval of mining
      lease in the state, the decision has been taken to grant lease
      through e-tendering system by inviting tenders under the
      provisions of chapter-4 of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals                 G
      (Concession) Rules, 1963. By this step, by lifting the minor
      minerals on remission, the transparency would increase and
      along with that competition would take place and due to that
      State Government would get maximum rate. "
       5. The above change of policy appears to be consistent with the        H
94                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2016) I S.C.R.


A    position of law that State largesse ought to be distributed by non arbitrary
     method consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution 1•
            6. It is a matter of public knowledge that the Government of
     India appointed a Commission oflnquiry consisting of Shri Justice M.B.
     Shah, a former Judge of this Court, inter alia, to enquire into the
B    deficiencies of management and regulatory and monitoring systems on
     account of which illegal mining could not be tackled, vide notification
     dated 22"' November, 2010. The Commission was also to suggest
     remedial measures. The said Commission gave its reports, including report
     dated March, 2012 (in respect of State of Goa), June, 2013 (in respect
     of the State of Odisha) and October, 2013 (in relation to the State of
c    Jharkhand). In its report for the State of Goa, the Commission found
     that procedure for grant of lease/renewal of lease required streamlining
     for transparency. It was further suggested that the authority to decide
     the ·applications should be a committee headed by Additional Chief
     Secretary (instead of a lower rank officer) and should also have
D    representatives from Departments of Mines, Revenue, Forest and
     Environment. It was also suggested that mining leases should be granted
     by public auction for transparency and increase in revenue of the State
     and also to check corruption/favoritism.
            7. In its report submitted in June, 2013, in relation to the State of
E    Orissa, referring to a letter of the Chief Minister of Orissa, it was inter
     alia observed by the Shah Commission:
            "Competitive bidding should be the general
            methodology for grant of lease of the finite valuable
            national resources."
F           8. These developments led to policy changes to ensure fairness
     and transparency in allotment of mineral concessions and optimal
     utilization of mineral resources through sustainable mining practices.
     Policy changes include 2015 amendment to the MMDR and amendments
     to rules by some of the States, providing for auction as predominant way
G    of giving mining leases.
            9. The G.O. dated 31" May 2012, passed by the State of U. P.
     I (2012) 3 SCC I Centre for Public Interest litigation Vs. Union of India (2012) JO
     SCC I Natural Resources Allocation, in Re, Special Reference No.l of2012; (2014> 9
     SCC 516 Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and (2014) 6 SCC 590 Goa
H    Foundation Vs. Union of India
          SULEKHAN SINGH & CO. v. STATE OF U. P.                              95
                [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

came to be challenged before the High Court inter alia on the ground          A
that applications already made prior to 31" May, 2012 were required to
be dealt with without applying the G.O. dated 31" May, 2012. This plea
was rejected by the High Court vide its judgment dated 29'h January,
2013 in Nar Narain Mishra Vs. The State of U.P. 1• Special leave
petition filed against the High Court judgment was dismissed by this          B
Court3 • The Division Bench of the High Court relied upon judgment of
this Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Mis. Hind Stone 4 and held that
pendency of application did not create any vested right for the application
being considered otherwise than by way of order dated 3 lst May, 2012.
The High Court upheld the stand of the State which was as follows :
      ''The State stand is that there is no inviolable rights of renewal      C
      in a lease and the right of consideration of the renewal and
      the claim of renewal of the lease have to be dealt with in
      accordance with the Rules as existing at the relevant time. It
      is submitted that declaration under Chapter IV having been
      issued all areas stand notified for settlement under Chapter            D
      JV. the renewal of lease cannot be granted since renewal can
      be granted only in accordance with the procedure prescribed
      under Chapter II which provision is no more applicable. When
      the State issued the Government Order on 31.5.2012 applying
      the same to all vacant areas, it intended to apply the
      Government Order on the areas which were not occupied. No               E
      exception has been provided in the Government order exclude
      out those areas in respect of which renewal applications are
      pending. An application for renewal of lease is in essence an
      application for grant of lease and same principle has to be
      applied with regard to applications which are pending for               F
      grant of lease and on similar analogy, if the submissions of
      the petitioners are to be accepted those areas on which
      applications for grant of lease have been submitted should
      also be kept out of purview of the Government Order dated
      3I.5.20I2. No such intention or object is decipherable from
      the Government order. By subsequent Government Order dated              G
      5.9.2012, the State Government has provided that those areas
      where renewal has been sanctioned or granted on or before
      5.9.2012, shall not be settled under Chapter IV."
2 2013(2) ADJ 166
3 SLP (Civil) No.14372/2013, dismissed on 3.3.2014.                           H
4 1981 (2)SCC205
96               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2016] 1 S.C.R.


A           10. The High Court also rejected the objection that the order dated
     31" May, 2012 was required to be confined only to "Boulder" and did
     not extend to "Building Stone''. It was observed :
            "Government Order dated 311512012, uses the word
            "Boulder". However, the Government Order dated 311512012,
B          does not confine to the word "Boulder" which is found in the
           Riverbed. The word "Boulder" can be used for the minerals
           which is found in the Riverbed as well as the mineral which is
           found "Jn situ rock deposit". Petitioner's case in the writ
           petition is that since the word "Boulder" is found only in the
           Riverbed, the Government Order dated 311512012, does not
c          cover "Imarti Patthar" is misconceived since the Government
           Order dated 311512012, does not confine the word "Boulder"
           to one which is found in the Riverbed. In this context a look
           of 1st Schedule and 2nd Schedule to the Rules, 1963 makes it
           clear that the word "Boulder" is included in the heading
D           "Building Stone" as well as when found in mixed form in the
           Riverbed."
            11. Further, following the judgment of this Court in Deepak Kumar
     Vs. State of Haryana 5, the High Court directed that measures for
     protection of environment as noted by this Court be adopted while granting
E    mining leases.
           12. The High Court held that no direction for grant of a lease
     contrary to G.O. dated 31" May, 2012 could be issued and cancelled all
     applications pending on 31" May, 2012. The concluding part of the
     order of the High Court is as follows :
F           "In the result, all the writ petitions are disposed with the
           following directions:
           1) The prayers made by the petitioners/applicants for
              considering their applications for renewal of their mining
              leases which were pending on 311512012, and the
G             applications for grant of fresh leases which were pending
              on 311512012 are refused.
           2) xxxxxxx

           3) Notices issued by the District Magistrate inviting
H    s 2012 (4J sec 629
         SULEKHAN SINGH & CO. v. STATE OF U. P.                                97
               [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

          applications by e-tendering consequent to the Government             A
          Order dated 311512012, cannot be allowed to be finalized
          and are quashed with liberty to the respondents to issue
          fresh notices in accordance with law."
      13. Inspite of the said judgment of the High Court, certain leases
were granted in violation ofG.0.dated 31"May,2012 which came to be             B
challenged before the High Court. Reiterating its view, in its judgment
dated 12" September, 2014 in Sukhan Singh versus State of U.P.', it
was held that no pending application as on 31" May, 2012 could be taken
cognizance of. It was held that :
      "19. The basic position in law is that the mere filing of an             c
      application either for the grant of a lease or for the renewal
      of a lease does not confer a vested right for the grant or
      renewal of a lease and, an application has to be disposed of
      on the basis of the rules as they stand on the date of the
      disposal of the application.
                                                                               D
      20. This being the clear position in law which has been
      enunciated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of
      Tamil Nadu (supra), it would be impermissible to accept the
      contention of the fourth respondent that its applications were
      liable to be disposed of. not on the basis of the provisions of
      Chapter IV but under Chapter II of the Rules. Besides, the E
      acceptance of any such submission would be contrary to the
      law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Nar Narain
      Mishra (supra) which follows the decision of the Supreme
      Court."
       14. It is in this background that the present matters were considered   F
by the High Court. To seek an exception to G.O. dated 31" May, 2012,
the appellants contended that they had already applied in pursuance of
notice dated JSlh July, 2009 in accordance with Chapter II of the Rules.
When the said notice was cancelled and fresh notice dated IO" August,
20 IO was issued, the appellants challenged the same. They were relegated      G
to their departmental remedy. They challenged the order passed by the
department again by another writ petition and the High Court directed
the matter to be considered vide order dated I Olh February, 2012. As
the said order was prior to 31 ''May, 2012, appellant acquired a right to

6 2014(ll)ADJ89                                                                H
98               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2016] l S.C.R.


A    get lease as an exception to order dated 31" May, 2012. The High
     Court passed an interim order in their favour which led to the grant of
     mining leases on 24" May, 2014 and 26'" May, 2014.
            15. The stand of the appellants was held to be against the earlier
     High Court judgments. Thus, after hearing finally, the High Court rejected
B    this plea as follows :
           "It is not in dispute that their applications for grant of lease
           had not been disposed of prior to the date of declaration
           made under Rule 23 ( 1) of the Rules of 1963 and they had
           been granted the lease by means of order dated 24.05.2014
c          and 26.05.2014, after the date of declaration, i.e. 31.05.2012.
           In Nar Narain Mishra 's case, this Court held that those
           petitioners, who have claimed mandamus for directing
           consideration of their lease renewal application, which were
           pending on 31.05.2012 could not be granted any relief.
           Similarly applications for grant of fresh lease under Chapter
D          ll of the Rules, 1963, which were pending on 31.05.2012 could
           also not be directed to be considered.
           In Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.31643 of 2014. Sukhan
           Singh vs. State of U.P. & 3 others. This Court has considered
           the judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court rendered in
E          Deepak Kumar's case (supra) as well as judgment of this
           Court in Nar Narain Mishra 's case (supra) and has held that
            "The basic position in law is that the mere filing of an
           application either for the grant of a lease or for the renewal
           of a lease does not confer a vested right for the grant or
F          renewal of a lease and, an application has to be disposed of
           on the basis of the rules as they stand on the date of the
           disposal of the application. "
            16. Additionally, the appellants also argued that the G.O. dated
     22"' October, 2014 cancelled G.O. dated 31" May, 2012 and decided to
     proceed with the grant of mining leases under Chapter II instead of
G
     Chapter IV. It was submitted that in view of change of policy, G.0.
     dated 31" May, 2012 could not be taken into account. This plea was also
     rejected by the High Court as the amended policy dated 22"" October,
     2014 could not be made applicable to the grant of lease at a time when
     the said revised policy was not in force. The High Court observed :
H
         SULEKHAN SINGH & CO. v. STATE OF U. P.                               99
               [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

      "Through supplementary affidavit, the respondent no.2 and A
      3 have brought on record the 37'' Amendment of the Rules of
      1963, which is called "The Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral
      (Concession) (37'' Amendment) Rules, 2014''.
      By this amendment, several directions issued by this Court as
      well as Hon'ble Supreme Court have been incorporated. The B
      State Government has also issued a Government Order dated
      22.10.2014 whereby provisions 2, 3 and 6 of the Rules of
      1963 have been made applicable. The Government Order
      also requires a fresh exercise for grant of lease under the
      terms of Government order dated 22.10.2014 as well as under
      the provisions of 37'' Amendment of the Rules of 1963. Several
                                                                     c
      subsequent developments in the matter as has been made as
      discussed above, do not lead us to permit the respondents
      no.4 and 5 to operate their leases further."
      17. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court,
an interim order dated 15'h May, 2015 was passed permitting the               D
appellants to operate the mining leases in question. This appears to be
on account of the fact that the State of U .P. supported the stand of the
appellants by filing affidavit dated 13'" April, 2015 and submitted that
"Building Stone" were not covered by G.0. dated 31" May, 2012. We
now find that this stand is clearly contrary to the judgment of the High      E
Court in Nar Narain Mishra (supra).
       18. On the other hand, Respondent No.4, the original writ petitioner
before the High Court, has filed an affidavit objecting to the grant of
leases in favour of the appellants under Chapter II and supported the
view taken by the High Court. In its counter affidavit dated 8"' May,         F
2015, the said respondent has pointed out that in view of earlier judgment
of the High Court in Nar Narain Mishra and Sukhan Singh (supra)
grant of mining lease under Chapter II was not permissible. The GO.
dated 31" May, 2012 covered "Building Stone" also. It was also submitted
that mining lease of less than five hectares was not permissible in view
of judgment of this Court inDeepak Kumar (supra) which also rendered          G
lease in favour of the appellants illegal. It is further pointed out that
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.35075 of2014 filed against the judgment
dated 12'" September, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
in Sukhan Singh was dismissed by this Court on 5'" January, 2015.
                                                                              H
100                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] I S.C.R.



A           19. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
      record.
             20. The plea of the appellants that they had acquired a vested
      right prior to G.O. dated 31" May, 2012 cannot be accepted. Order
      dated 31" May, 2012 was issued by the State of U.P. to bring about
B     transparency and to safeguard the Government revenue and was
      consistent with the decisions of this Court in Article 14 of the Constitution.
      The validity thereof was upheld by the High Court in Nar Narain Mishra
      (supra). The said judgment applied to the mineral in question as
      specifically laid down by the High Court. The High Court upheld the
      stand of the State that pendency of application did not create any right in
c     favour of the appellants. All applications pending as on 31" May, 2012
      stood rejected including the application of the appellants. Admittedly,
      the appellants did not make an application after the changed policy dated
      22"" October, 2014 and thus the said G.O. had no application to the
      present case. We are not called upon to decide validity of order dated
D     22"' October, 2014 in cancelling order dated 31" May, 2012. This question
      can be gone into as and when raised.
             21. Jn Hind Stone (supra), this Court observed:
             "13. Another submission of the learned counsel in connection
             with the consideration of applications for renewal was that
E            applications made sixty days or more before the date of GOMs
             No. 1312 (December 2, 1977) should be dealt with as if Rule
             8-C had not come into force. it was also contended that even
             applications for grant of leases made long before the date of
             GOMs No. 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C had not
 F           come into force. The submission was that it was not open to
             the government to keep applications for the grant of leases
             and applications for renewal pending for a long time and
             then to reject them on the basis of Rule 8-C notwithstanding
             the fact that the applications had been made long prior to the
             date on which Rule 8-C came into force. While it is true that
G            such applications should be dealt with within a reasonable
             time, it cannot on that account be said that the right to have
             an application disposed of in a reasonable time clothes an
             applicant for a lease with a right tu have the application
             di;posed uf on the basis of the rules in force at the time uf the
             making of the applicution. No one has a vested right to the
H
         SULEKHAN SINGH & CO. v. STATE OF U. P.                          IOI
               [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

      grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right A
      to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease
      dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular
      provisions. In the absence of any vested rights in anyone, an
      application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with
      according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of B
      the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since
      the making of the application. We are, therefore, unable to
      accept the submission of the learned counsel that applications
      for the grant of renewal of leases made long prior to the date
      of GOMs No. 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C did
      not exist.                                                        c
    22. Reiterating the decision in Hind Stone (supra), this Court in
Monnet /spat & Energy Ltd. vs. Union of India' held as under:
      "132 . ... ... Minerals-like rivers and forests-are a valuable
      natural resource. Minerals constitute our national wealth and
      are vital raw material for infrastructure, capital goods and       D
      basic industries. The conservation, preservation and
      intelligent utilisation of minerals is not only the need of the
      day but is also very important in the interest of mankind and
      succeeding generations. Management of minerals should be
      in a way that helps in the country's economic development          E
      and which also leaves for future generations to conserve and
      develop the natural resources of the nation in the best possible
      way. For the proper development of economy and industry,
      the exploitation of natural resources cannot be permitted
      indiscriminately; rather the nation'.> natural wealth has to be
      used judiciously so that it may not be exhausted within a few      F
      years.
      133 ............... No person has any fundamental right to claim
      that he should be granted mining lease or prospecting licence
      or permitted reconnaissance operation in any land belonging
      to the Government. It is apt to quote the following statement      G
      of 0. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Hind Stone (SCC p. 213, para
      6) albeit in the context of minor mineral,
       "6. ... The public interest which induced Parliament to make
7 2012 c11J sec 1
                                                                         H
102                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2016] 1 S.C.R.


A            the declaration contained in Section 2 . . . has naturally to be
             the paramount consideration in all matters concerning the
             regulation of mines and the development of minerals".
             He went on to say: (Hind Stone case, SCC p. 217, para 10)
             "JO . ... The statute with which we are concerned, the Mines
B            and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, is aimed ...
             at the conservation and the prudent and discriminating
             exploitation of minerals. Surely, in the case of a scarce mineral,
             to. permit exploitation by the State or its agency and to prohibit
             exploitation by private agencies is the most effective method
c            of conservation and prudent exploitation. If you want to
             conserve for the future, you must prohibit in the present."
             23. It was further observed :
             "182.7. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked
             in abstract. When it is sought to be invoked, the court must
D            consider all a.1pects including the result sought to be achieved
             and the public good at large. The fundamental principle of
             equity must forever be present to the mind of the court.
             Absence of it must not hold the Government or the puh/i,
             authority to its promise, assurance or representation. "
E                              xxxx
             188.3      Where the decision of an authority is founded in
             public interest as per executive policy or law, the court would
             be reluctant to interfere with such decision by invoking the
             doctrine of legitimate expectation. The legitimate expectation
F            doctrine cannot be invoked to fetter changes in administrative
             policy if it is in the public interest to do so."
            24. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these appeals.
      We also do not approve the stand of the State of U .P. in supporting the
      appellants, as already mentioned.
G           25. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Interim order granted
      by this Court stands vacated. The State will assess the extent of
      pecuniary advantage taken by the appellants under the interim order and
      recover the same from the appellants.
      Nidhi Jain                                               Appeals dismissed.
H