ISSUES FOR CONTENTION

1) Whether petitioner’s acts amounts to violation of the contract of mining

lease with the Central government?

2) Whether the State Government has got any power to order for
cancellation of mining lease without there being any prior approval or
sanction or permission or consultation with the Central Government?

3) Whether the State Government of Andhra Pradesh has got authority to

suspend the petitioner’s mining lease in view of their power of
cancellation?

4) Whether the ABC Company is entitled for the relief of revocation of the
suspension order issued by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh?
Points for defendant :

1) For the writ of mandamus to be entertained by the Court of law , the condition for the grant of
mandamus are to be fulfilled by the petitioner. One of the important conditions is that there must
be a specific demand and refusal.

Before mandamus can be granted, there must be a specific demand for the fulfilment of a duty and
also a specific refusal by the authority. Therefore, in Naubat Rai v. Union of India1, the court refused
mandamus because the petitioner who was illegally dismissed from the military farm never applied
to the authority for reinstatement.

Even it is stated under the principles for exercise of Jurisdiction that, the remedy in ART 226 is a
discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse the grant of any writ if it
is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate remedy elsewhere.2

Here in this case also the petitioner has never approached State Government , seeking for setting
aside of the suspension order or any other application in relation to it. AS it is well settled law that
unless and until all the statutory , administrative and procedural remedies are exhausted , the writ
petition cannot be filed before the Court of law. Hence , it is humbly requested the Hon,ble High
court to dismiss in limine the present writ petition as it is prima facie unjust3.

1)AIR 1953 Punj 137

2) Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Karian , AIR 1950 Sc 163

3) Ratan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 1 SCC 11

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) the other condition to admit the writ of mandamus is that , the relief seeked under the petition
should not be against the statutory provision. Here in this case te Sate government’s power to
suspend the mining lease in case of breach is simpl, straight and statutory authority given to State
Government under Rule 27(5) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. So prima facie this writ is not
admittable an should be dismissed.

3) According to rule 27(3), (5), mineral concession rules..state government has power to order
suspension in case of breach of the terms of the lease.

4)even by virtue of te Governmnet order ______, the central government has delegated power to
the state government of AP to act on behalf of it with respect to the said mining lease. And such
delegation of power by the union to the sate is valid under Art 258(1) of the Indian Constitution.

The mineral concession rules, 1960,deals with the role of State government and its interference with
respect to Mining operations. According to the act the reporting authority and the monitoring
authority of the mining operations carried out by the approved companies is that of the Sate
government . The interference of Central government after allotting the land for mining is no where
metioned in the statute. As it is substantially proved in the contention no.2 that Under rule 27(5)
the State government has got the power to cancel the lease agreement in case of breach of the
terms as mentioned under the lease agreement. Though not expressly mentioned, the intention of
the legislature behind giving such powers like termination of mining lease to the State Government
is to make the State Government a regulating body to monitor the mining operations. It is further
submitted that it cannot be assumed both state and central government can exercise same power
without any clarity. Hence when the Parialment has come up with a legislation i.., Mineral
concession Rules, 1960 to confer powers on the state government, it is implied that the power to
suspend the lease also forms the part of such intention.

According to the rules of interpretation, the statute must be read as whole.

NOSCITUR A SOCIIS - Words must be construed in conjunction with the other words and phrases
used in the text. Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a
whole. The particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated
expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of
any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole.

Hence using such rules of interpretation it can be interpreted that the State government’s power to
terminate the mining lease includes an intermediary action to suspend also.

Issue 4:

Suspension is the administrative action taken by the government with an insight to stop the further
exploitation of mines and further violation of the lease agreement. 60 days prior Notice is required
only in case of termination but not suspension because suspension can be revoked where as once
the lease agreement is terminated it can never be revoked. Hence the court cannot interfere when
the State Government is exercising a purely administrative function that too in the public interest
and national interest.

Issue 1:-
Contracts should be literally construed/interpreted unless and until there is ambiguity
in the terms. Here in the contract made between the Government and the petitioner is
as clear as to reflect the intention of the parties. Just to make umlawful profits out of the
mining lease, the petitioner has started mining in the lands which are aginst the
approved plan. Hence when literal interpretation of contract is given it amounts to
breach of the terms of the contract whch is entitled to be terminated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
( use these cases either on petitioner or defendant side as u think fit)
Importance of ‘Context’ in Interpretation of Contracts (Novartis Vaccines and
Diagnostics Inc. vs. Aventis Pharma Limited, 2010(2) Bom CR 317)-

1. Ordinary Meaning: There is a presumption that the words to be construed should be

construed in their ordinary and popular sense, since the parties to the contract must be

taken to have intended, as reasonable men, to use words and phrases in their

commonly understood and accepted sense. The object of the inquiry is not necessarily

to probe the ‘real’ intention of the parties, but to ascertain what the language they

used in the document would signify to a properly informed observer.

2. Businesslike Interpretation: It is an accepted canon of construction that a

commercial document should be construed in accordance with sound commercial

principles and good business sense, so that its provisions receive a fair and sensible

application. If a detailed semantic and syntactical analysis of words in a commercial

contract is going to lead to a conclusion that flouts business common sense, it must be

made to yield to business common sense.

3. Commercial Object: The commercial object or function of the clause in question and

its relationship to the contract as a whole will be relevant in resolving any ambiguity

in the wording.

4. Construction to avoid unreasonable results: If the wording of a clause is

ambiguous, and one reading produces a fairer result than the alternative, the
 reasonable interpretation should be adopted. It is to be presumed that the parties, as

reasonable men, would have intended to include reasonable stipulation in their

contract.
At paragraph 40 and 42 of the judgment, it was observed-

o “The contract/agreements need to be read as a whole considering the nature & the

purpose of the business. The clause and the contract as a whole even if is clear and

unambiguous, the court needs to consider the same in the facts and circumstances of

the case. It is necessary to see relationship between words; sentences; clauses;

chapters and the whole document. It cannot be read in isolation. The aspect of faith,

trust, fiduciary relationship and understanding between the parties, just cannot be

overlooked, while interpreting any such private commercial documents.”

o “Merely because there is no negative covenant, that itself is not sufficient to permit

other partners to do rival or competing business of the same nature.”

The Bombay High Court also relied on M.O.H. Uduman and Ors. v. M.O.H. Aslum, AIR
1991 SC 1020, wherein it was held –
“It is settled canon of construction that a contract of partnership must be read as a whole
and the intention of the parties must be gathered from the language used in the contract by
adopting harmonious construction of all the clauses contained therein. The cardinal principle
is to ascertain the intention of the parties to the contract through the words they have used,
which are key to open the mind of the makers. It is seldom that any technical or pedantic rule
of construction can be brought to bear on their construction. The guiding rule really is to
ascertain the natural and ordinary sensible meaning to the language through which the
parties have expressed themselves, unless the meaning leads to absurdity.”a
 PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsels for the
Respondent humbly and forever pray before this Hon’ble Court to kindly:
Dismiss the petition and order with costs.
AND/ OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience..
And for this the Respondent as in duty bound shall forever humbly pray