Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. For the sake of convenience the petitioners and the respondents in the writ petition will be referred to as "EMTA" and "Power Corporation" respectively.

3. EMTA and the Power Corporation entered into a joint venture agreement on 28th April, 1995 to develop coal blocks which were allocated by the Union of India to the Power Corporation for captive consumption of the Power Corporation. Under the joint venture agreement, a new company was formed for mining operations in Pachhwara (North Coal Mines), known as Bengal EMTA Coal Mines Limited (hereinafter referred to as "BECML") which had stake with EMTA holding 74 per cent shares and the rest owned by the Power Corporation. Similarly, a joint venture agreement was entered into between the Damodar Valley Corporation and EMTA. The new company is known as Damodar Emta Coal Mines Limited (hereinafter referred to as "DECML"). This company was floated for the mining operations in Barjora (North Coal Mines).

5. Before the learned Single Judge, EMTA principally raised one issue, namely, Section 11(1) of the Act of 2015 had not been complied by the Power Corporation as it had not explored the possibility of adopting and continuing the joint venture agreement between themselves and EMTA and to carry on the mining operations through EMTA, before floating the tenders. The learned Single Judge observed that the Power Corporation was empowered to discontinue their existing contract with EMTA under Section 11(2) of the aforesaid Act, and that the agreement would automatically stand terminated by operation of law. However, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the Power Corporation had not applied its mind to Section 11 of the Act for deciding whether or not to continue with the contract with the EMTA. The Power Corporation was therefore directed to pass an order in accordance with law, fairly and reasonably, within two weeks from the date of the order. Though the tender process had commenced, the learned Single Judge permitted EMTA to submit its Techno Commercial Bid without a consortium with an undertaking to furnish the name of the consortium within a week thereafter. EMTA was permitted to exercise the first right of refusal to match the lowest financial bid. A further direction was passed that no work order should be issued for the time being without the leave of the Court and that the tender process should be otherwise completed.

6. An order was accordingly passed by the Managing Director of the Power Corporation on 23rd December, 2015. The learned Single Judge observed that the order did not indicate the exact reasons as to why EMTA's application for novation of the contract was being rejected. He also found that the order did not indicate as to why the Power Corporation did not want to continue with the allotment. The Court, therefore, directed the Chairman and Managing Director of the Power Corporation to reconsider his order dated 23rd December, 2015 and to pass a reasoned order after giving a short hearing to the petitioners, i.e. EMTA. The Court did not modify its earlier order regarding the tender process and the issuance of the work order with the leave of the Court. It also directed that the financial bids would be considered without prejudice to the rights and contentions of EMTA in the writ petition and would not be revealed by the respondent authorities to any one in any manner.

11. The learned Advocate General representing the Power Corporation submitted that it had to act in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma's case (supra) and the provisions of the Act of 2015. He then submitted that (i) the writ petition filed by EMTA was not maintainable as EMTA was not an allottee and the prior allottee was BECML and DECML; (ii) EMTA was never the mining operator and therefore the writ petition filed by it was not maintainable; (iii) since BECML was not a party before the Court, no relief could be given to EMTA; (iv) EMTA had no statutory right of novation of the contract under Section 11 of the Act of 2015; (v) the arguments regarding the losses which EMTA would incur if the agreement is not novated are not relevant as the Supreme Court has already noted this submission of the allottees in Manohar Lal Sharma's case (supra); (vi) EMTA can be fully compensated under Section 16 of the Act; (vii) EMTA is not entitled to a personal hearing before any order is passed by the Managing Director as to whether novation of the contract was possible as this aspect has been considered by the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma's case (supra).