The main legal point established in the judgment is that a larger bench is bound to answer a specific reference made to it and cannot adjudicate on issues beyond that reference. Additionally, the judgment clarified that the Supreme Court's order did not comment on the bona fides and credentials of the petitioners in the writ petitions.

( 1 ) AS there was difference of opinion in the order dated 19th december, 2006 between Hon'ble the then chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Justice Dilip raosaheb Deshmukh on the question of maintainability of these P.. L. (s), therefore, in the light of above difference of opinion, this reference has been made for consideration and decision on the following issue by the full Bench constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice :-

"since we differ on the question whether in view of the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the Case of T. N. Godavarman thirimulpad v. Union of India and Ors. dated 10th April 2006, reported in (AIR 2006 SC 1774), the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed Jn limine without going into the merits of the cases. "

( 2 ) SHRI M. L. Verma, and Shri A. K. Sinha, learned counsel, argued that this Full Bench is required to answer the reference to the extent of maintainability of these writ petitions as pil in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court dated 10th April 2006. This full Bench cannot go beyond that. e. this full Bench cannot enter, into the merits of the cases. We have perused the reference and we find substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel. The scope of reference made to the Full Bench is to the extent that whether in view of the order of the Apex Court in the case of T. N. Godavarman dated 10th April 2006 these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the cases or not. When the scope of reference is particular and specific, then the Full Bench has to answer the reference only. The Full bench cannot go beyond that. In this respect, we are fortified in our view by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kerala state Science and Technology Museum v. Rambal Co. and others reported in (2006) 6 supreme Court Cases 258 : (2006 AIR SCW 408 ). In para-8 of this judgment, the Apex court held that :-

"it is fairly well settled that when reference is made on a specific issue either by a learned single Judge or Division Bench to a larger Bench. e. Division Bench or Full bench or Constitution Bench, as the case may be, the larger Bench cannot adjudicate upon an issue which is not the question referred to. (See Kesho Nath Khurana v. Union of India (1981 SCC (Cri) 674) : (AIR 1982 SC 1177), samaresh Chandra Bose v. District magistrate, Burdwan (1972)2 SCC 476) : (AIR 1972 SC 2481) and K. C. P. Ltd. v. State trading Corpn. of India (1995 Supp (3) SCC 466)".

The above legal position was made known to learned counsel for the respective parties and everybody agreed to it. therefore, arguments were heard limited to the reference made.

( 3 ) IN order to answer the reference, we consider it necessary to narrate background facts in nutshell which led to making of the reference to the Full Bench. M/s. Maruti clean Coal and Power Ltd. , made an application to the Chief Minister of the chhattisgarh State on 1-7-2002 for allotment of about 60 acres of land Jn village nawagaon Khurd for setting up of a coal washery. Ultimately, allocation of 37,91 acres land, situated in village Ratiza, District Korba, chhattisgarh, on 99 years lease, was made by the State Government of chhattisgarh and lease deed dated 7-12-2002 was executed between the Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development corporation and M/s. Maruti Clean Coal and power Ltd. Questioning the validity of above allotment/lease, one Dr. B. L. Wadehra filed writ petition bearing No. 1264/2003 on 10-4-2003 as Public interest Litigation primarily questioning the said allotment/lease on the ground that the land in question is a forest land, therefore, without seeking prior permission of the Central Government, the state Government was not competent to give land on 99 years lease. Second ground was that the said land belongs to South Eastern coal Fields Limited (for short S. E. C, L. , therefore, the State was not entitled to give the land on lease as the said land was already allotted to the S. E.