JUDGMENT By the Court.—This appeal is disposed of summarily and the only doubt that we feel in passing our judgment is as to whether we were justified in spending as much time as we have, about four days, in hearing the appellants’ case or giving any importance to the points raised on behalf of the appellants. Our remark is not to be taken as casting any sort of aspersion on the Counsel appearing for the appellants, who did a valiant job, but our remark is directed only against the thoroughly unsubstantial nature to the appellant’s case as the wholly untenable position of the appellant in regard to its locus standi. 2. Excepting for a small clarification with regard to paragraph 58, which is the last paragraph of the judgment and order passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Ambwani on the 20th of September, 2006, which is impugned before us, we are in respectful, full and complete agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. The second minor reservation we have is with regard to a wrong submission made by the State Government with regard to the State Cabinet decision taken in the year 2001, the exact import of which was not made clear to the Hon’ble Judge, but subsequently was made clear to us. This is noted by his Lordship in the last page but one of the judgment, in the latter portion of paragraph 56. In our opinion, this incorrectness of fact, which was the result of the State’s submission and pleadings, is not the matter of any material importance. 3. The appeal arises basically in respect of a sale of Company assets and other assets approved and confirmed by the Company Court in respect of the Company in liquidation, i.e., U.P. State Cements Corporation Limited. The order of winding up was passed in the year 1999; the sale of the said assets was approved on the 30th of January, 2006 and the order of confirmation was passed on the 11th of October, 2006. The State Cabinet incidentally decided to abide by the decision given by the Company Court on the day before, i.e., on the 10th of October, 2006 and as such, the State Government has wholly supported purchasers, i.e., Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., namely, JAL. 4. The purchase was made for a total sum of Rs. The State Cabinet incidentally decided to abide by the decision given by the Company Court on the day before, i.e., on the 10th of October, 2006 and as such, the State Government has wholly supported purchasers, i.e., Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., namely, JAL. 4. The purchase was made for a total sum of Rs. 459 crore; the entire money has been paid to the official liquidator, who is holding the sum, apparently watching the result of the appeal since disbursements are urgently to be made; these disbursements include as we understand, payments of about Rs. 1,00 crore to the erstwhile workers. A further sum upwards of Rs. 250 crore is to be paid to financial institutions, although there is some dispute in this regard. 5. The sale comprised of the Company assets in the Dalla region including mining leases for blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Kajrahat Limestone Mines. The dispute and the only dispute in this appeal is with regard to blocks 5, 6 and 7 of the said Kajrahat Limestone Mines, which are adjacent to the factory premises. 6. It is on record that right from the beginning with the advertisement being issued on the 10th of February, 2001 in the Economic Times and the Business Standard, the State Government wanted to join the Company sales to make the offer more attractive and thus, they brought along for sale alongwith Company assets, the mining leases for these additional blocks 5, 6 and 7 in Kajrahat. 7. The Memorandum of Information, which could be bought by intending purchasers for Rs. 5,000/- clearly mentioned all the seven blocks. The State Government and the official liquidator have both categorically and unequivocally supported the stand that from the date of the making of the Memorandum of Information available to the public, the sale included blocks 5, 6 and 7 and offers were invited on that basis. The money has been paid by JAL on this basis as an essential part of the Company Court sale. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants-R.P.J. that their promoters Balaji Earthmovers, a partnership firm, entered into an agreement with U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation (UPSMDC) for a joint venture including operation of mining leases. The blocks 5, 6 and 7 were originally given under a 20 years lease by the State Government to the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC). The blocks 5, 6 and 7 were originally given under a 20 years lease by the State Government to the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC). In 1993 the lease, which had run out on or about 8.11.1982 was renewed for twenty years in favour of the UPSMDC. The UPSMDC went into doldrums about the time 2001 and 2002 when the joint venture between Balaji and the appellant took place; the UPSIDC Minerals Division officiated for UPSMDC at this time; later on UPSMDC was sought to be revived by the State Government in or about the year 2003. 9. There is an agreement, to which the State Government is also a party by way of which the four months of the unexpired term of the renewed portion of the lease from 1982 to 8.11.2002 was transferred to the appellant on the 31st of July, 2002. The agreement makes it clear that RPJ will stand in the shoes of the lease for the purpose of liabilities, but this is significantly absent from the agreement, that it will stand in the shoes of the UPSMDC in regard to the rights also. They thus went into shoes of the lessee only so far as the left shoe, so to speak, was concerned. 10. If the rights of Balaji came to an end with the expiry of the 8th of November, 2002 alongwith the rights of RPJ, then and in that event, the appellant has no locus standi whatsoever. 11. The sole and single basis on which the appellant seeks to support its case is to be found at page 218 of the paper book before us, which is a letter by a Secretary dated 25.2.2004, which is said to be a recording of the decision to renew the lease in respect of the said blocks 5, 6 and 7 (alongwith other mines with which we are not concerned) for another 20 years from the year 2002. 12. It is a matter of the utmost surprise to us that on a single document of this nature an appeal was sought to be maintained seeking to stall the utilization of Rs. 12. It is a matter of the utmost surprise to us that on a single document of this nature an appeal was sought to be maintained seeking to stall the utilization of Rs. 459 crore, and the mining operations with which the fate of the inhabitants of that part of the Eastern reason of U.P. is intimately concerned; it is a part of the lease agreement that the Kajrahat Limestone that would be quarried would be utilized for cement production in that very area. 13. Our surprise is magnified because previously an offer of Rs. 241 crore made on behalf of one Grasim Industries in this very regard was turned down by the same Hon’ble Company Judge, and his Lordship directed the sale to go ahead, giving detailed directions in this regard. A Sale Committee was formed to assist of the official liquidator. The basic document was declared to be the Memorandum of Information, which saw the first light of the day in the year 2001; the judgment in this regard passed by Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J., is reported in Volume 112 Company Cases page 562, and the judgment was delivered on the 14th of February, 2002. 14. After various proceedings, the sale was ultimately confirmed four years later. 15. During the year 2002, when the lease in favour of UPSMDC expired, and the year 2006 no Court proceedings were taken by the appellant, no lease was executed in favour of the UPSMDC or the appellant of blocks 5, 6 and 7 by the State. The entire business community knew, and must be taken to have known by all reasonable standards of the commercial Courts that blocks 5, 6 and 7 were up for sale; but the appellant alleges entire ignorance on its part. We can only make this remark that if it was ignorant, it should not have been so, in regard to important events, which were happening in regard to the very neighbourhood in question, where the appellant claims to have been present all along. 16. The recording of the decision of renewal in the “all important” letter of 25.2.2004 is riddled with doubts and disputes; it mentions Bhalwa Mines and it is said by the appellant that Kajrahat Mines are included in Bhalwa Mines although the villages of Billi, Kajrahat and Bhalwa are mentioned separately at the heading of the letter. 16. The recording of the decision of renewal in the “all important” letter of 25.2.2004 is riddled with doubts and disputes; it mentions Bhalwa Mines and it is said by the appellant that Kajrahat Mines are included in Bhalwa Mines although the villages of Billi, Kajrahat and Bhalwa are mentioned separately at the heading of the letter. The letter mentions a renewal of 20 years from a date 2.1.2002, which is a date without meaning. The letter further states that the decision to renew is conditional upon RPJ performing all its joint venture agreement obligations as contained in the written agreement dated 5.6.2002. 17. Above all, and this is of the utmost importance, the letter is not written to or given in favour of RPJ, but given in favour of UPSMDC. 18. UPSMDC and UPSIDC, Minerals Division and all, are instrumentalities of the State of U.P. The State of U.P. has categorically decided not to undo the big sale, which has produced Rs. 459 crore for being absorbed in the industry; there was no other higher offer coming. This sale is sought to be undone by cutting away a chunk, which was submitted to be the most important chunk of the Kajrahat Mining Limestone line of mines. On the basis of this sole and single document of 25.2.2006, if we were to permit the appellant to have any relief, we would in effect be ruling that the appellant has a right to have specific performance against the UPSMDC causing them to sue the State Government; the suit would be for the purpose of obtaining specific performance of the renewal; further that such suit is to be decreed even though the UPSMDC has shown absolutely no intention of either obtaining a renewal or going against the decision of the State Cabinet, which it cannot. 19. The State Cabinet did not decide specifically to include blocks 5, 6 and 7 in the properties to be put for sale in 2001 which was wrongly submitted before the Hon’ble Single Judge but the Cabinet had never gone against the publication of the Memorandum of Information in 2001 which included the said three blocks; it has also categorically affirmed all the proceedings on the 10th of October, 2006. In regard to the aforesaid paragraph 58, we merely want to state this that the two sentences written by his Lordship therein are to be read together and UPSMDC and RPJ Minerals shall not be allowed any mining activities in the areas mentioned only in so far as those are contained in the properties sold to JAL on the basis of the Company sale approved and confirmed as stated hereinbefore. 20. Before we part with this case, we wish to make it plain that this is not a writ matter. We are concerned with basically private litigation although the Mines and Minerals Regulations and Development Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules of 1960 are there in the background and any person having locus standi can raise points about that Act and those rules as and when such points practically arise, and not merely because some litigation is thought to be more beneficial to this business house or that business house. 21. In brief this was a private litigation between the two business groups RPJ and JAL; RPJ has a joint venture with UPSMDC which is going on. There is nothing in their agreement (see page 196 paragraph 18 of the agreement dated 5.6.2002) more than this that UPSMDC is to bring to RPJ the mining leases, which it obtains on approval by the State; there is nothing in the agreement to indicate that UPSMDC (i.e. the State) will do all it can to increase the basket for RPJ as much as it can, so that RPJ can increase its mining activities. In the face of this agreement and this clause which must be taken to be referred to in the said letter of 25.2.2004, we are really at a loss to understand how we could hear this appeal for so long and stall the disbursement of Rs. 459 Crore and the starting of mining operations by the rightful party, which should be done as expeditiously as possible. 22. Apart from the said certification with regard to paragraph 58, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. ————