Delhi High Court
Jindal Steel & Power Limited & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 January, 2017
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 24th January, 2017
+ W.P.(C) No.3398/2015 & CMs No.6071/2015 (for stay),
13006/2015 (of R-3&4 for modification / clarification of order
dated 13th April, 2015), 28512/2015 (of R-4 for modification /
clarification of order dated 13th April, 2015) & 3044/2016 (for
impleadment)
JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kapil Sibal and Mr. Parag
Tripathi, Sr. Advs. with Mr.
Sanjeev Kapoor, Mr. Aakash
Bajaj, Ms. Anusha Nagrajan and
Ms. Shruti Chaudhary, Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula and Mr. Ajay
Kalra, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with
GP Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Mr.
Jaideep Singh and Mr. Amit
Verma, Advs. for CIL & SECL.
AND
\
+ W.P.(C) No.886/2016 & CM No.3888/2016 (for stay)
JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kapil Sibal and Mr. Parag
Tripathi, Sr. Advs. with Mr.
Sanjeev Kapoor, Mr. Aakash
Bajaj, Ms. Anusha Nagrajan and
Ms. Shruti Chaudhary, Advs.
Mr. Prashanto C. Sen, Mr. Udayan
Verma and Mr. Shivanshu Singh,
Advs. for BALCO.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 1 of 34
Versus
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
& ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula and Mr. Ajay
Kalra, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with
GP Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Mr.
Jaideep Singh and Mr. Amit
Verma, Advs. for CIL & SECL.
Mr. Prashanto C. Sen, Mr. Udayan
Verma and Mr. Shivanshu Singh,
Advs. for BALCO.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. WP(C) No.3398/2015 was filed pleading:
(i) That the respondent no.1 Union of India (UOI) vide letter
dated 20th June, 1996 allocated coal block Gare Palma-IV/1
to the petitioner no.1 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (JSPL) (the
petitioner no.2 Mr. Kapil Dhagat is a shareholder of the
petitioner no.1 JSPL).
(ii) That the end use of the aforesaid coal block was linked to
the Sponge Iron / Steel Plant at Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
(iii) Since coal in the said coal block was of inferior grade
having high ash content of 53 to 56% which was not suitable
for manufacture of sponge iron / steel, coal washeries were
therefore set up to wash the coal and the washed coal was
used for manufacture of sponge iron / steel.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 2 of 34
(iv) The washery middlings / coal fines / coal rejects were used
in a 540 MW Captive Thermal Plant of the petitioner no.1
JSPL at Dongamahua at Raigarh and in a 134 MW capacity
Captive Power Plant situated in the Steel Plant at Raigarh;
these power plants have special boilers which can utilize
washery middlings/ fines/ coal rejects having high ash
content.
(v) The Environment Clearance dated 31st July, 2008 for the
Dongamahua Captive Power Plant (DCPP) at Raigarh
granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF)
also clearly specifies that 100% fly ash shall be utilized in
backfilling of the mined out areas, filling of low lying areas
etc. and that such backfilling of the captive coal mines shall
be done with the permission of the Director General of
Mines Safety (DGMS); the said clearance further specifies
that there shall be no ash pond.
(vi) The Environment Clearance dated 21st May, 2012 for the
subject coal mine also provides that the fly ash generated
from the DCPP at Raigarh shall be dumped in the mine void
in alternate layers with the overburden (OB) in ratio of
25:75.
(vii) DGMS vide its letter dated 31st July, 2014 permitted
petitioner no.1 JSPL to use fly ash after mixing with the OB
for back filling in the mined out area.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 3 of 34
(viii) The Notification dated 14th September, 1999 issued by the
MoEF makes it mandatory for the coal mine lessees located
within 50 Kms of a coal based thermal power plant to use
fly ash along with OB for backfilling of open cast mines;
thus it is imperative and necessary that the OB produced
during the mine operations in Gare Palma Coal Mine should
be mixed with the fly ash generated from the DCPP at
Raigarh and be used for backfilling the mined out area.
(ix) Vide order dated 24th September, 2014 of the Supreme Court
in W.P.(Crl.) No.120/2012 [Manohar Lal Sharma Vs.
Principal Secretary (2014) 9 SCC 614 and which was
preceded by the judgment reported as (2014) 9 SCC 516)] ,
the allocation of coal blocks except one coal block allocated
to Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) and one coal block
allocated to National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC)
and two coal blocks allocated to UMPPs, was cancelled.
(x) In pursuance to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme
Court, on 21st October, 2014, the Coal Mines (Special
Provisions) Ordinance, 2014 was promulgated to provide for
auction / allocation of coal mines and vesting of the right,
title and interest in and over the land and mine infrastructure
together with mining leases to successful bidders and
allottees identified through the process of auction or
allocation; the said Ordinance was repealed by the
subsequent Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Second
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 4 of 34
Ordinance, 2014 dated 26th December, 2014 and which has
become the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015.
(xi) Under the aforesaid Ordinances & Act, the respondent no.2
was constituted as the Nominated Authority.
(xii) In accordance with the aforesaid Ordinance/Act, the
respondent no.1 UOI issued letter dated 24th October, 2014
to all the prior allottees including the petitioner no.1 JSPL to
provide details of land and mine infrastructure as per
proforma.
(xiii) The petitioner no.1 JSPL on 12th November, 2014 gave
details of the land acquired by the petitioner no.1 JSPL and
the cost thereof and stated therein that the investment made
in relation to 298.913 hectares of land including investment
on its DCPP at Raigarh, coal washeries, coal handling plant
and associated facilities was excluded from the cost of land
and mine infrastructure; the petitioner no.1 JSPL in the said
letter also gave the particulars of the facilities located in the
area of Gare Palma IV/1 which it intended to retain as it had
made substantial investments thereon and as the same were
required for operation of its captive power plant; the
petitioner no.1 JSPL therein included two number of coal
washeries including Coal Handling Plant, Stock of
Middlings, Rejects and Pond Fines, OB Dump Pit 1 and
Void (for fly ash filling inside the Void), OB Dump Pit 2 (to
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 5 of 34
fulfill the requirement of OB to be mixed with fly ash before
backfilling).
(xiv) The said area of 298.913 hectares is de-coaled as the coal
therefrom has already been mined also holds OB dumps,
void for backfilling of fly ash and stock of middlings/ pond
fines / rejects which are required by the petitioner no.1 JSPL
for operation of its Captive Power Plant at Raigarh.
(xv) The petitioner no.1 JSPL thus did not include any details as
regards aforesaid facilities while seeking compensation
under the Ordinances / Act aforesaid.
(xvi) The petitioner no.1 JSPL in its subsequent letter dated 25th
November, 2014 in response to another letter dated 11th
November, 2014 under the Ordinances / Act aforesaid also
reiterated its intention to retain the plant area as the same is
integral for the operation of the DCPP at Raigarh including
OB dumps, void for backfilling of fly ash and stock of
middlings/pond fines/rejects.
(xvii) That the respondent no.2 Nominated Authority in its
Standard Tender Document informed the prospective
bidders that the petitioner no.1 JSPL intended to retain the
aforesaid area of 298.913 hectares since it was being used as
aforesaid, thereby clearly accepting the exclusion of
aforesaid area of 298.913 hectares from auction process of
Gare Palma IV/1 coal block.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 6 of 34
(xviii) That in the auction held, Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd.
was the preferred bidder for the said coal block.
(xix) The respondent no.4 South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (SECL)
vide its letter dated 31st March, 2015 informed the petitioner
no.1 JSPL that the respondent no.4 SECL had been
authorized to exercise the power relating to taking over
management and operation of the Gare Palma IV/1 coal
mine as the designated custodian.
(xx) That the petitioner no.1 JSPL in its response dated 31 st
March, 2015 thereto also informed that according to the
Environment Clearance to the DCPP, the petitioner no.1
JSPL had been required to backfill the mined out areas with
fly ash and the DGMS had also permitted the petitioner no.1
JSPL to backfill the fly ash after mixing with OB.
(xxi) The petitioner also informed that any stoppage of fly ash
backfilling inside the mine void will lead to stoppage of
power generation at DCPP and consequently, the linked
integrated steel plant of the petitioner no.1 JSPL at Raigarh.
(xxii) The respondent no.4 SECL on 2nd April, 2015 informed the
petitioner no.1 JSPL that its request for backfilling of fly ash
generated at the DCPP in the Gare Palma IV/1 mine cannot
be permitted.
(xxiii) The respondent no.2 Nominated Authority vide order dated
26th March, 2015 required the petitioner no.1 JSPL to by 8th
April, 2015 remove the coal stock.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 7 of 34
(xxiv) The petitioner no.1 JSPL vide letter dated 2nd April, 2015
represented thereagainst and reiterated that the retention of
plant area by the petitioner no.1 JSPL is essential for
operation of DCPP inasmuch as for dumping of fly ash
supply of washery middlings / fines / rejects was essential.
(xxv) The respondent no.4 SECL vide letter dated 2nd April, 2015
to the petitioner no.1 JSPL rejected the request of the
petitioner no.1 JSPL to retain 298.913 hectares of area for
fly ash filling / dumping as aforesaid.
Accordingly, this petition was filed impugning the order dated 26 th
March, 2015 of the respondent no.2 Nominated Authority and the letter
dated 2nd April, 2015 of the respondent no.4 SECL and seeking a
declaration that the said 298.913 hectares of area shall be deemed to be
excluded from Gare Palma IV/1 coal mine.
2. The petition came up first before the Division Bench on 7 th April,
2015 and finding the same to be falling in the roster of a Single Judge of
this Court, came up before this Bench on 13th April, 2015 when while
issuing notice thereof, the respondents were directed to permit the
petitioners to dump the fly ash generated in the course of operation of
DCPP in the same manner as the petitioner no.1 JSPL had been doing till
now and it was further directed that the middlings available at site as of
then will be allowed to be removed for dumping of fly ash.
3. LPA No.449/2015 was preferred by respondents no.3 (Coal India
Ltd.) (CIL) and 4 viz. CIL and SECL against the aforesaid order but
which was disposed of vide order dated 17 th July, 2015 with liberty to
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 8 of 34
make an appropriate application before this Bench for variation /
modification of the ad-interim order.
4. Such an application was filed and finding that the decision thereof
would amount to decision of the writ petition itself, the pleadings in the
writ petition were ordered to be completed and the interim order
continued.
5. Vide orders dated 9th December, 2015 and 21st December, 2015 a
survey / measurement of the middling, rejects and pond fines was
permitted to be conducted.
6. On 28th January, 2016, it was informed that the operation of the
Gare Palma IV/1 by the respondents no.3 and 4 viz. CIL and SECL who
are the custodians of the subject mine was suffering and that the
environment clearance permission of the petitioner no.1 JSPL to dump
fly ash in the coal mine voids as had been permitted to be done vide
interim order had also lapsed but notwithstanding the same, the
petitioners taking advantage of the interim order were continuing to
dump fly ash. Though it was the contention of the senior counsel for the
petitioners on that date that the permission for dumping of fly ash had not
been renewed by the DGMS only for the reason of cancellation of the
mine and the mining area being under dispute but it was observed in the
order dated 28th January, 2016 that without challenging the order of
DGMS for non-renewal of such permission, the petitioner no.1 JSPL
under the interim orders in this petition could not continue to dump the
fly ash.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 9 of 34
7. This resulted in filing of W.P.(C) No.886/2016 to impugn the said
non-renewal by DGMS of the permission to dump fly ash in the coal
mine voids aforesaid.
8. Both the petitions were taken up together and the counsels were
heard on 2nd February, 2016, 10th May, 2016, 25th May, 2016, 26th
August, 2016 and 2nd September, 2016 when thereof the orders were
reserved.
9. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents no.3&4 i.e.
CIL & SECL pleading:
(i) That OB has to be mixed with fly ash in accordance with the
Environment Clearance granted and fly ash is being
obtained by the petitioners from the site of the petitioners
which is against the Ordinance, as post giving up the mining
area, they cannot be entitled to any right over the aforesaid
mines.
(ii) That depositing of fly ash is not a statutory compulsion but a
proposal moved by the petitioners subsequent to which
permission was granted; the petitioners should be instructed
to follow alternate method of disposal of fly ash like use in
building road, concrete material etc.
(iii) That mixing of fly ash with OB and depositing the same as
is being done is not a mandate of the environment
authorities but a proposal of the petitioners which was
accorded to and that too only till 11th May, 2015.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 10 of 34
(iv) That the interim orders in these petitions are posing great
difficulty in operation as it allows the petitioners to interfere
with the mining operations of the respondents; the
manpower and transport equipment of the petitioners for
dumping of fly ash on the sites is against the provisions of
the Ordinance which stipulates that there shall not be any
right apart from the right of designated custodian to the
aforesaid mine.
(v) That a drain passing through the coal mining area is yet to
be mined and it will be mined once the course of the drain is
altered and contains approximately 35 lacs tonnes of coal
remains in the land under the drain.
10. The respondents no.1&2 i.e. UOI and Nominated Authority,
Ministry of Coal, Government of India in their counter affidavit have
pleaded:
(a) that the petitioner no.1 JSPL is prior allottee of Gare Palma-
IV/1 coal mine and has filed this petition inter alia for
exclusion of an area of 298.913 hectares of land from Gare
Palma-IV/1 coal mine which is located inside the said coal
mine and is being used for 540 MW DCPP at Raigarh, coal
washeries, coal handling plant, stock of middlings, rejects
and pond fines, road for approach, weigh bridges, OB dump
and other related facilities; the petitioner no.1 JSPL has
further sought permission for back-filling of fly ash
generated from their captive power plant in the mine area.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 11 of 34
(b) That the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 25th August,
2014 (Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary (2014)
9 SCC 516) held the allocation of coal blocks including the
aforesaid to be illegal and arbitrary; thereafter vide order
dated 24th September, 2014 [(2014) 9 SCC 614)], the
Supreme Court cancelled the allocation of 204 coal blocks
including the aforesaid and permitted the prior allottees of
producing mines to continue mining operations only till 31 st
March, 2015; Gare Palma-IV/1 is a producing mine.
(c) That in pursuance to the orders aforesaid of the Supreme
Court, Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014
was promulgated and in Schedule-II thereof listing the
producing coal mines, Gare Palma-IV/1 was included.
(d) That on 11th December, 2014 Coal Mines (Special
Provisions) Rules, 2014 were notified under the Ordinance
aforesaid and the Ordinance itself was replaced by a second
Ordinance which has since been further replaced by the Coal
Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 notified on 30th
March, 2015.
(e) That auction proposed of Gare Palma-IV/1 was challenged
in W.P.(C) No.7867/2015 which is pending before the
Division Bench of this Court and vide order wherein the
auction process was annulled.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 12 of 34
(f) That to ensure continuity in coal mining operations, Section
17 of the Act mandates that from 1st April, 2015, the Central
Government shall be deemed to have become the lessee or
licensee in relation to Schedule-II mines.
(g) That as the auction / allotment of Gare Palma-IV/1 was not
complete before 31st March, 2015, the Central Government
appointed respondent no.3 CIL as designated custodian for
managing and operating the said coal mine with effect from
1st April, 2015 in accordance with Section 18 of the Act; the
respondent no.3 CIL is managing and operating the said
mine through respondent no.4 SECL.
(h) That a producing coal mine cannot be left without closing it
as per Mining Closure Plan; non working of the mine will
also be a loss to the public exchequer and production of
coal.
(i) That the contention of the petitioner No.1 JSPL is that
298.913 hectares of land of which exclusion is sought is non
coal bearing area which will not be required by the
prospective allottee for mining and operations.
(j) That as per Section 8(4), 3(1)(p) and 3(1)(j) of the Act all
coal bearing land acquired by prior allottee and lands in or
adjacent to the coal mines used for coal mining operations
acquired by the prior allottee as well as existing mine
structure vest with the successful bidder.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 13 of 34
(k) That Section 18 casts a duty on the Central Government to
appoint a designated custodian to manage and operate the
producing coal mines on and from 1st April, 2015.
(l) That Section 19 of the Act mandates the designated
custodian to take control and possession of all lands in or
adjacent to coal mines used for coal mining operations on
behalf of the Central Government.
(m) That to determine the validity of the claim of the petitioners
for exclusion of 298.913 hectares of land, the Central
Government requested the Central Mine Planning and
Design Institute Ltd. (CMPDIL), a subsidiary of respondent
no.3 CIL to survey the portion of the land inside Gare
Palma-IV/1 wherein the captive power plant and other
facilities of the petitioners are located, to ascertain whether
the said 298.913 hectares of land is non coal bearing or the
coal in the said area had already been mined as claimed by
the petitioners.
(n) That as per report dated 16th January, 2016 of CMPDIL,
major portion of 298.913 hectares of land is coal bearing
having Seams-III & IV.
(o) That thus the said 298.913 hectares of land would be
required by the successful bidder / allottee for coal mining
operations and making the said area non-available leads to
sterilization of coal available between Pit-1 and Pit-2.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 14 of 34
(p) That it was also reiterated that the area will be required for
dumping of OB and would not be available for dumping of
fly ash anywhere within the block.
(q) That as per the Act aforesaid only such infrastructure as will
not be required by the successful bidder / allottee for coal
mining operation or are not covered under the definition of
mining infrastructure can remain with the prior allottee; in
case such land or mine infrastructure are required by the
successful bidder / allottee for coal mining purpose, then
such portion cannot be excluded from auction / allotment
process.
(r) That only DCPP, stock of middlings, rejects, pond fines,
weight bridges and diesel tanks are not covered under the
definition of mine infrastructure and will not be required by
the successful bidder / allottee for coal mining operations;
similarly washeries are also not covered under the definition
of mining infrastructure but since the coal handling plant
which is a mine infrastructure is included with the washery,
it will be required by the successful bidder and non-transfer
of the same to the successful bidder will impede the mining
operations.
(s) Dumping of fly ash is endangering the operational safety of
the mine.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 15 of 34
11. The petitioner in its rejoinder to the counter affidavit aforesaid of
respondents no.1&2 has pleaded:
(i) That the area of 298.913 hectares was excluded from the
auction process and the said exclusion was also mentioned
in the impugned Mine Dossier which formed part of the
Tender Document.
(ii) That the aforesaid constitutes a statutory act which cannot be
varied.
(iii) That only a small area of 5.705 hectares within the said
298.913 hectares of land contains coal falls as per the
approved Mining Plan of 2008 and the petitioners are ready
to relinquish the same.
(iv) That the transfer and vesting of the said 298.913 hectares of
land is contrary to the objectives of the Act which provides
for transfer and vesting only of areas required for coal
mining operations and production of coal.
(v) That the Consent to Operate Gare Palma-IV/1 coal mine has
been obtained by respondents no.3&4 only on 11 th January,
2016.
(vi) That the report of CMPDIL is ex facie erroneous and no
reliance can be placed thereon as CMPDIL is an interested
party in the dispute.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 16 of 34
(vii) That as per geological report of 2006 of Gare Palma-IV/1
coal mine, the portion of the plant area which purportedly
has Seam-III and Seam-IV cannot be mined by open cast
method due to high stripping ratio of more than 1:26; it was
for this reason only that the revised approved Mine Plan of
2008 approved by respondent no.1 UOI did not consider the
said seams for open cast; the said seams were not considered
for underground mining also because of low seam thickness
and the coal if any in the said seams being of inferior grade
and being economically unviable for extraction through
underground mine method.
(viii) That the respondent no.1 having itself approved the Mine
Plan of Gare Palma-VI, cannot rely on geological report of
2006 to contend that the area is coal bearing.
12. It is not deemed necessary to refer to the pleadings of W.P.(C)
No.886/2016 inasmuch as if the petitioners were not to succeed in
W.P.(C) No.3398/2015, the question of the petitioners being entitled to
any relief in W.P.(C) No.886/2016 would not arise. Conversely, if the
petitioners were to so succeed, W.P.(C) No.886/2016 would also succeed
as no reason other than cancellation of coal mine appears for the denial
now of permission granted earlier.
13. The senior counsels for the petitioners during the hearing, on
specific enquiry, admitted that 298.913 hectares of land of which
exclusion is sought was included in the allocation to the petitioners of
mining area and which allocation has been set aside by the Supreme
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 17 of 34
Court. Similarly, the counsel for respondent no.1 UOI on specific query
whether the UOI requires the land under the power plant also stated that
the power plant can continue.
14. However, the senior counsels for the petitioners contended i) that
notwithstanding the cancellation by the Supreme Court, the rights of the
petitioners in the said 298.913 hectares of land remain because the
respondent no.1 UOI itself, pursuant to information submitted by the
petitioner no.1 JSPL, in the auction excluded this area and cannot now
take a stand to the contrary; and, ii) that the petitioner no.1 JSPL is
required to dump the fly ash generated by the DCPP and if is not
permitted to dump the said fly ash in the mining voids as has been doing
till now, the power plant will shut down.
15. Per contra, the senior counsel for the respondents no.3&4 CIL &
SECL argued:
(i) that the rights of the petitioners to the said 298.913 hectares
of land were also under the lease deed granted to the
petitioners under Section 10 of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and
which lease has now been cancelled by the Supreme Court.
(ii) That under the orders of the Supreme Court and the
Ordinances / Acts supra in pursuance thereto the entire area
which was leased to the petitioners vested in the Central
Government.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 18 of 34
(iii) That though under Section 8 of the Act, a right was given to
the prior allottee to give information about the non bearing
coal lands but the same did not vest any right in the prior
allottee.
(iv) That once the petitioners have no right in the mines, the
question of the petitioners having any right to dump fly ash
in the void of the mines does not survive.
(v) That if the petitioners are permitted to dump fly ash in the
mining voids, it affects day-to-day operations of mining as
nearly 100 trucks containing fly ash have to be permitted
into the area every day.
(vi) That pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court and the
Ordinances and the Act aforesaid all rights of the prior
allottees stand divested and only the right of compensation
survives.
(vii) That it is not as if fly ash has to be necessarily dumped in
the mining voids; the Notification dated 14th September,
1999 as amended upto 2009 of the Ministry of Environment
and Forests prescribes use of fly ash for other purposes as
well.
(viii) The petitioners, instead of using the fly ash otherwise, are
wanting to dump the same in the mining area to which they
have been left with no right, to save their own costs and
expenses.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 19 of 34
(ix) That the permission to the petitioners to dump fly ash was
on the terms of the petitioner no.1 JSPL being the lessee of
the coal block and once the petitioner no.1 JSPL has ceased
to be the lessee, the petitioners have no right to dump fly ash
either.
(x) That the said permission to dump fly ash in the mining voids
was given on the representation of the petitioners themselves
that they had already mined the said areas and there was no
coal left and which representation of the petitioners is found
to be wrong.
(xi) That the permission to the petitioner no.1 JSPL to dump fly
ash was along with the OB and now that the petitioner no.1
JSPL is not mining, it has no right to any OB and the
petitioner no.1 JSPL cannot dump only fly ash.
16. The senior counsel for the petitioners, in rejoinder i) reiterated that
the petitioners having excluded the said 298.913 hectares of land from
the auction cannot claim any right thereto; ii) that once the said land was
excluded, the respondent no.2 Nominated Authority / custodian have no
right and it is irrelevant as to what is the right of the petitioner; iii) that
the petitioner no.1 JSPL is willing to settle so that it can continue to
dump the fly ash without interfering in the mining activities; iv) that the
Central Government is not controverting that the tender document
excluded the said 298.931 hectares of land and the counter affidavit of
the respondents no.1&2 is contrary thereto; v) that the mining voids / pits
cannot possibly be needed for mining operations; vi) that the fly ash
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 20 of 34
generated by the power plant cannot be used to make bricks as setting up
of the plant to make bricks itself will take three years; vii) that the
petitioner no.1 JSPL is being targeted though a reasonable solution can
be worked out.
17. The senior counsel for the respondents no.3&4 CIL & SECL in
sur-rejoinder contended i) that there is no pleading of the said 298.913
hectares of land having been excluded because it was not included in the
auction process; ii) in fact there is no power of exclusion; all rights vest
in the Central Government; iii) the order excluding the said 298.913
hectares of land from the tender process is not a statutory order.
18. Though the counsel for the petitioners has also filed written
submissions but on the same lines as oral arguments and which have
already been recorded hereinabove.
19. I have considered the rival contentions.
20. What needs to be adjudicated is:
(i) Whether the petitioners under the orders of the Supreme
Court, provisions of the Ordinances / Act are entitled to
exclusion of the said 298.913 hectares of land.
(ii) Whether any rights can be said to have accrued in favour of
the petitioners with respect to the said 298.913 hectares of
land by virtue of exclusion thereof from the auction process.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 21 of 34
(iii) Even if the above two questions are answered against the
petitioners, whether the petitioners are entitled to permission
to continue to dump fly ash in the mining voids.
(iv) Even if the above question is decided against the petitioners,
considering the fact that UOI has no objection to
continuance of the power plant and which will necessarily
generate fly ash, whether this Court in exercise of its powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can direct the
respondents to allow the petitioners to continue dumping the
fly ash in the mining voids if finds merit in the challenge by
the petitioners to the contention of the respondents of the
voids where the fly ash is to be dumped are coal bearing.
21. The allocation of Gare Palma-IV/1 coal block to the petitioner no.1
JSPL including the said 298.913 hectares of land has been held by the
Supreme Court in Manoharlal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary (2014) 9
SCC 516 to be arbitrary and illegal. The consequential order reported as
Manoharlal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary (2014) 9 SCC 614 records
that the final decision with regard to any alleged criminality or otherwise
in the allotment of 12 out of the 46 coal producing blocks was then under
scrutiny of CBI and directed the said scrutiny to be taken to its logical
conclusion. It is a matter of news that with respect to allotment of Gare
Palma-IV/1 to the petitioner no.1 JSPL a charge sheet has been filed.
22. Supreme Court, in the consequential order reported as (2014) 9
SCC 614, after considering whether the 46 coal blocks, in which Gare
Palma-IV/1is included, should be saved from cancellation because they
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 22 of 34
had commenced production or were on the verge of commencing
production, cancelled the same though made the said cancellation
effective from six months therefrom i.e. with effect from 31 st March,
2015.
23. Though in para 13.3 of the judgment, it was noted that the allottees
had invested in basic infrastructure like road, rail links etc. and in setting
up other infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, facilities for clean and
potable water, residential colonies, community centres, playground etc.
and that if the coal blocks are cancelled, all the same will also go and also
that many of the allottees had problems peculiar to them (as in the case of
petitioner no.1 JSPL herein) but did not accept the suggestion on behalf
of the said allottees for constitution of a Committee to examine each
allotment and consider the facts peculiar to each allottee to report
whether the allotment should be cancelled or not and accepted the
contention of the UOI that the natural consequence of the finding of
allotment of coal blocks being arbitrary and illegal was cancellation
thereof and that UOI was fully prepared to face the consequences of
cancellation. Similarly, the contention that each of the allottee had not
been heard and that the principles of natural justice would be violated if
cancellation is effected without hearing the allottees, was not accepted.
Resultantly, Supreme Court did not make any provision for saving in
favour of erstwhile allottees any part of the coal bock allocation whereof
was cancelled.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 23 of 34
24. It is thus clear that as per the consequential order of the Supreme
Court reported as (2014) 9 SCC 614, the allotment in favour of the
petitioners including of 298.913 hectares of land was cancelled.
25. Thus, under orders of the Supreme Court, no rights survive to the
petitioner no.1 JSPL including with respect to the 298.913 hectares of
land.
26. The next question is, whether under the Ordinances/Act aforesaid,
the petitioner no.1 JSPL had any right to save any part of the coal block
and whether any such right has accrued to petitioner no.1 JSPL. The
petitioners claim such right giving two fold reasons. Firstly, that in
response to information sought the petitioners sought exemption of
298.913 hectares and in consequence thereof in auction, the said area was
exempted. Secondly, that of necessity and the said area being non-coal
bearing.
27. I have perused the provisions of the Act aforesaid. The definition
Section 3(1) thereof in Clauses (p) and (q) respectively deal with
Schedule I and Schedule II Coal Mines. Section 3(1)(p) defines Schedule
I Coal Mines as all the coal mines and coal blocks the allocation of which
was cancelled by the judgment dated 25 th August, 2014 and order dated
24th September, 2014 passed in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.120/2012
and all the coal bearing land acquired by the prior allottee and lands, in or
adjacent to the coal mines used for coal mining operations acquired by
the prior allottee and any existing mine infrastructure. Schedule II Coal
Mines are defined in clause 3(1)(q) as the forty-two Schedule I Coal
Mines in relation to which the order dated 24 th September, 2014 was
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 24 of 34
made. It is not in dispute that the Gare Palma IV/1 is a Schedule II Coal
Mine.
28. Vide Section 17(1) of the Act, the Central Government or a
company owned by the Central Government, with effect from the
appointed date (which as per Section 3(1)(c)(ii) in relation to Schedule-II
Coal Mines was 1st April, 2015) is deemed to have become the lessee or
licencee in relation to each of the Schedule-II Coal Mines and thereupon
all rights under the mining lease in favour of the prior allottee including
surface, underground and other rights are deemed to have stood
transferred to and vested in the Central Government or a company owned
by the Central Government.
29. It thus follows that not only were the rights of the petitioner no.1
JSPL in Gare Palma IV/1 Coal Block including in the aforesaid 298.913
hectares of land cancelled by the Supreme Court but vide Section 17(1),
the said rights stood transferred in favour of the Central Government or a
company owned by the Central Government.
30. Section 6 of the Act provides for the Central Government to act
through the Nominated Authority and empowers the Nominated
Authority to engage any expert to make recommendations for the conduct
of auction and in drawing up of the vesting order or allotment order in
relation to Schedule I Coal Mines. Section 8 empowers the Nominated
Authority to issue vesting orders or allotment orders. Section 8(1)
requires the Nominated Authority to notify the prior allottee of Schedule
I Coal Mines to enable them to furnish information required for notifying
the particulars of Schedule I Coal Mines to be auctioned in accordance
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 25 of 34
with the Rules. The information sought from the petitioners was in
pursuance thereto and while submitting which information the petitioners
sought exclusion of the said 298.913 hectares of land. There is however
no provision entitling the prior allottee to, while submitting such
information, exclude therefrom any part of the coal block allocation
made to it and which allocation was held by the Supreme Court to be
illegal and was cancelled. Similarly there is no provision therein
empowering the Nominated Authority to, notwithstanding the
cancellation effected by the Supreme Court, allow the prior allottee to,
while submitting such information, exclude certain areas and to accept
such exclusion from the deeming provision Section 17(1).
31. The senior counsels for the petitioners laid emphasis, that under
Section 8(1), information is sought for "notifying" the particulars of
Schedule I Coal Mines to be auctioned and Section 8(3) „vests‟ in the
successful bidder in such auction, Schedule I Coal Mine for which it bid,
and contended, that since in pursuance to the information submitted by
the petitioner no.1 JSPL excluding 298.913 hectares of land the
particulars of Gare Palma IV/1 notified for auction also excluded the said
298.913 hectares, the said 298.913 hectares stand excluded from Gare
Palma IV/1 Coal Mine.
32. I am unable to accept. Rights of the petitioner no.1 JSPL in Gare
Palma IV/1 Coal Block including the said 298.913 hectares stand
cancelled by the judgment/order of the Supreme Court. By statutory
fiction under Section 17(1) aforesaid, the said rights stand transferred in
the Nominated Authority. The transfer to the Nominated Authority under
Section 17(1) is inclusive of the said 298.913 hectares. The same does
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 26 of 34
not permit of any exclusion. Once that is so, the petitioner no.1 JSPL
from the appointed date ceased to have any rights in the said 298.913
hectares of land also and it has no right under the Act to claim any
exclusion. Section 8 has to be read harmoniously with Section 17 and the
provisions of Section 8 cannot be read as leaving any discretion in the
prior allottee and the Nominated Authority to claim and grant exclusion
of any part of the allocation which stood cancelled. Section 8(4) vests in
the successful bidder all rights, title and interest of the prior allottee in
Schedule I Coal Mine concerned with the relevant auction along with the
rights appurtenant to the approved mining plan of the prior allottee and
any other right, entitlement or interest of the prior allottee not specifically
mentioned. Even if it were to be held that since in the tender issued for
auction of Gare Palma IV/1 the Nominated Authority did not include the
said 298.913 hectares, the effect thereof would only be that the successful
bidder would not have any right thereto but the said 298.913 hectares
would still continue to vest in the Nominated Authority and not vest in
the petitioner No.1 JSPL as a prior allottee.
33. Chapter III of the Act titled "Treatment of Rights and Obligations
of Prior Allottees" also does not contain any provision to the aforesaid
effect, as would have been if it was open to a prior allottee to retain
certain areas out of the land of the coal block.
34. I have also perused the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Rules,
2014 to which reference was made. Rule 7 thereof, while prescribing the
powers and duties of Nominated Authority, though empowers the
Nominated Authority to call for all information necessary from any prior
allottee including record in relation to coal reserves, production, cost of
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 27 of 34
production, mine infrastructure and contracts entered into by the prior
allottee is not found to empower the Nominated Authority to exclude
certain part of the coal block, allocation whereof in favour of the prior
allottee was cancelled by the Supreme Court and which by virtue of
Section 17 of the Act is deemed to have stood transferred to the Central
Government. Rule 9, to which reference was made by the senior
counsels for the petitioners is titled "Mine Dossier". Sub-rule (1) thereof
empowers the Nominated Authority to inform any prior allottee, under
Section 8(1), to provide such information and documents regarding the
coal mine earlier allotted to such allottee, as the Nominated Authority
may feel expedient. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 requires the Nominated
Authority to finalise a written Dossier to be called the „Mine Dossier‟ for
each Schedule-I Coal Mine based on the information received from the
prior allottee under sub-rule (1) or information received from persons
than the prior allottee. Sub-rule (7) thereof empowers the Nominated
Authority to update the Mine Dossier from time to time on its own
accord or upon receiving a direction from the Central Government in this
regard. Rule 10 titled "Auction", while empowering the Nominated
Authority to conduct the auction of Schedule-I Coal Mines, requires the
tender document to include the Mine Dossier containing particulars of
Schedule-I Coal Mine. There is thus no provision in the Rules also, as
indeed there could not have been, for exclusion of any part of the coal
block allotment whereof had been cancelled, from deemed transfer
thereof to the Central Government and for retention of the said part by
the prior allottee.
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 28 of 34
35. The contention of the senior counsels for the petitioners that upon
the petitioner No.1 JSPL, while submitting the information seeking
exclusion of 298.913 hectares area and the Nominated Authority while
preparing the Mine Dossier not including the said 298.913 hectares of
Gare Palma-IV/1 coal mine, results in the said 298.913 hectares not
vesting in the Nominated Authority and/or remaining with the petitioner
No.1 JSPL is not within the scheme of the Coal Mines (Special
Provisions) Act, 2015 and is contrary to Section 17 thereof. Non-
mentioning of 298.913 hectares of land in the Mine Dossier would still
not come in the way of the same also having deemed to have stood
transferred in the Central Government under Section 17 of the Act.
36. I thus hold that the petitioner No.1 JSPL under the provisions of
the Act/Rules is not entitled to exclusion of the said 298.913 hectares of
land and no rights have accrued to the petitioner No.1 JSPL in the said
land by virtue of exclusion thereof from the Mine Dossier. The Mine
Dossier as hereinabove noted can be updated at any time and has no
finality. The Mine Dossier is only for the auction process i.e. to inform
the prospective bidders of the extent of the coal mine for which bids are
invited. Merely because bids are invited for only part of the land and
rights which under Section 17(1) are deemed to have stood transferred
from the prior allottee to the Central Government does not mean that the
remaining land of the coal mine is also not deemed to have stood
transferred to the Central Government.
37. The question No.(iii) framed in para 20 hereinabove does not call
for much discussion. Once the petitioner No.1 JSPL is not found to be
having any right in 298.913 hectares of land, the petitioner No.1 JSPL
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 29 of 34
cannot exercise any rights whatsoever including of dumping fly ash in
the mine voids therein, unless agreed to by the Central Government. The
Central Government in whom the rights in the entire cancelled coal
blocks are deemed to have stood transferred is entitled to prevent any
other person including prior allottee from carrying out any activities
therein including of dumping fly ash or any other material thereon /
therein.
38. Seen in this context, the reasons given by the respondents for
refusing such permission to the petitioner No.1 JSPL pale into
insignificance. For this reason only, it is also not necessary to go into the
question, whether the voids where the petitioner No.1 JSPL wants to
dump fly ash are de-coaled areas i.e. bereft of any coal as contended by
the petitioner No.1 JSPL or still have some coal left in them as contended
by the respondents. The respondents in this regard rely on the report of an
expert and whose opinion is challenged by the petitioner as biased.
These in any case are disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone
into in writ jurisdiction. I may in this regard also notice that vide Section
27(1) of the Act any dispute arising out of any action of the Central
Government, Nominated Authority or Commissioner of Payments or
designated custodian or out of any issue connected with the Act is to be
adjudicated by the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 and the jurisdiction of any
Court of other authority except the Supreme Court and the High Court is
excluded.
39. That brings me to the question No.(iv) framed in para 20 above i.e.
whether this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 30 of 34
Constitution of India should permit the petitioner No.1 JSPL to continue
dumping the fly ash in the mine voids. Though at one time during the
hearing, I had observed that considering (a) that the petitioner No.1 JSPL
as the prior allottee of Gare Palma-IV/1 had been dumping the fly ash
generated from DCPP in the mine voids in the coal block and though the
allocation of coal block has been cancelled but DCPP of the petitioners
will continue to generate fly ash wherefor the petitioner No.1 JSPL has
not made any alternative arrangement; (b) that the petitioner No.1 JSPL
will incur hardship, financial and otherwise to now make alternative
arrangements for disposal of fly ash and that the respondents or the
successful bidder of Gare Palma-IV/1 coal mine may have no other use
for the said mining voids; and (c) that the disposal of fly ash is also an
environmental issue, an amicable solution should be worked out and
suggestion therefor was made and the senior counsels for the petitioners
were willing therefor but the counsel for UOI and Nominated Authority
and the senior counsel for CIL & SECL stated that it was not possible for
the respondents to agree thereto, owing to the report of the expert of the
respondents to the effect that the said voids still had some coal left in
them and that allowing the petitioner No.1 JSPL to so dump fly ash
interfered with the mining operations of Gare Palma-IV/1 Coal Mine.
40. I may record that the senior counsels for the petitioners went to the
extent of stating that unless the petitioner No.1 JSPL is permitted to
dump fly ash in the mining voids as it has been doing, it will be
compelled to shut down DCPP.
41. On consideration, I am for the reasons hereinafter appearing of the
opinion that even if this Court were entitled to grant such permission in
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 31 of 34
exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no case
for grant of such permission is made out.
(A) The allocation of the coal mine in favour of the petitioner
No.1 JSPL has been held to be arbitrary and illegal and has been
cancelled by the Supreme Court and a charge sheet with respect to
the criminality in the said allocation has been filed. The claim of
the petitioner No.1 JSPL to dump fly ash in the mining voids in the
said coal mine is only on account of the petitioner No.1 JSPL
having been permitted to do so pursuant to the allocation of the
coal mine to it. Once the said allocation has been held to be illegal
and arbitrary and has been cancelled, no benefit/right in equity can
flow therefrom.
(B) The refusal of the respondents is not on account of
cancellation alone but on account of the mining voids still bearing
some coal and the activity of dumping of fly ash interfering with
the mining operations. Merely because the petitioner No.1 JSPL
as a prior allottee of Gare Palma-IV/1 Coal Mine did not deem it
appropriate to mine coal from the said mining voids or found it
economically unviable cannot deprive the Nominated Authority or
the successful bidder of the coal mine from mining the same if
finds it feasible. Merely from the fact that such dumping of fly ash
by the petitioner No.1 JSPL did not interfere with its mining
operations cannot be a reason to hold that such dumping of fly ash
will not interfere when the person mining is different. Though the
petitioner no.1 JSPL is disputing the report of the expert appointed
by respondents to report whether the voids are coal bearing or not
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 32 of 34
but under the provisions of the Act and Rules the Nominated
Authority is found entitled to engage any expert and the petitioner
no.1 JSPL as prior allottee is not found to have any locus to
challenge such report.
(C) In the absence of having found any right in favour of the
petitioner No.1 JSPL, this Court cannot impose any interference in
the rights to be exercised by the Nominated Authority which are
vested in it under Section 17(1) of the Act or which may be
transferred to a successful bidder.
42. W.P.(C) No.3398/2015 thus fails and as a result thereof there is no
need to deal with W.P.(C) No.886/2016. Both the petitions are
dismissed. The petitioner No.1 JSPL is also burdened with costs of these
petitions of Rs.1 lakh payable to CIL.
43. The fact however remains that under interim orders in these
petitions, the petitioner No.1 JSPL has continued to dump fly ash in the
mining voids to which it has not been able to establish any right. The
said dumping of fly ash by the petitioner No.1 JSPL in the said voids,
under interim orders, was thus in violation of the rights of the
respondents. The Court, while disposing of matter finally, is required to
balance the equities flowing from interim orders. It has been the
contention of the senior counsel for CIL and SECL that dumping of fly
ash by the petitioner No.1 JSPL under interim orders was interfering with
the mining operations and otherwise detrimental to the interest of CIL
and SECL. Per contra, the petitioner No.1 JSPL obviously benefited
therefrom, having not been required to dispose of fly ash otherwise and
which would have been at a cost. The parties have to be restituted. There
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 33 of 34
is however no material before this Court to assess the advantage/benefit
drawn by the petitioner No.1 JSPL from the interim orders and the loss if
any caused to CIL and SECL therefrom. Liberty is thus granted to
CIL/SECL to, if so desire and have suffered any loss, within three
months herefrom, make a claim therefor by way of application in
W.P.(C) No.3398/2015 and which application, if filed, shall be
considered on its own merits.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
JANUARY 24, 2017 „gsr/pp/bs‟..
W.P.(C) Nos.3398/2015 & 886/2016 Page 34 of 34