The court established that arbitration proceedings will resolve disputes over the demand notice and the lessee's entitlement to renew the lease in line with established rules.

IA No. 53865/2024 - DOCUMENT TAKEN ON RECORD IA No. 171403/2025 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 26667/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES Date : 13-10-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Lenin Raj K, Adv.

Mr. Gurkaranbir Singh, Adv.

Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR For Respondent(s) :

Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv.

Intervenor Mr. K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Bina Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Shiv Vinayak Gupta, Adv.

Signature Not Verified Mr. Mridu J. Mukherjee, Adv.

Digitally signed by P D O at O e: J 2 A 0 S 2 H 5. A 1 R 0. M 18 A Ms. Anushka Rawal, Adv.

Reason:

UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. IA No. 171403/2025 seeking intervention filed by the applicant Bharat Kumar Karwa is allowed.

2. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the basic grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the following observations made by the learned Single Judge:

"At this stage learned counsel for the opposite parties prayed for a direction to recover the loss of the Government from the petitioner. It will be open for the opposite parties to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law."

3. He submits that on the basis of the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench of the High Court, the respondent No. 1 has issued a Demand Notice dated 22.12.2020. He submits that in the said demand notice, a huge amount is demanded without their being any basis for making such a demand. It is submitted that this has been done only in pursuance to the observations made by the Division Bench of the High Court.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is an arbitration clause provided in the lease agreement between the parties and unless the amount is determined by the Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings, the demand notice cannot be issued. He further makes a categorical submission that the petitioner is not in a possession of the Salt works land.

5. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to dispose of this special leave petition with following observations:

i. We are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

ii. Insofar as the objection raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner qua observations is concerned, we find that the same only permits the respondents to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

iii. We clarify that all issues, including the validity of the demand notice dated 22.12.2020, will be considered by the Arbitrator.

iv. It is further made clear that if the respondents desire to file counter claims, the same shall be filed within a period of six weeks from today. On such counter claims being filed, the same would be entertained by the Arbitrator and shall be decided in accordance with law.

v. We further clarify that in view of the notification dated 09.10.2013, the petitioner is not entitled for renewal of the lease after the period of 20 years from the grant of original lease has expired. In view of Clause ‘b’ of the said notification, the respondents are entitled to initiate fresh tender for the assignment of land for salt manufacture.

vi. It appears that in the present case, the same was done and the intervenor – Mr. Bharat Kumar Karwa was the successful bidder.

vii. Since Mr. Bharat Kumar Karwa was the successful bidder in the said tender process, the Central Government would be at liberty to handover the possession of the Salt works land to him in accordance with law.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.