Chandra, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Rai, Mr. Aditya Goel and Mr. Lakshay Singh, Advocates v. THE NOMINATED AUTHORITY MINISTRY OF COAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ORS on 02 Dec 2025

Order

- Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 It is, thus, argued that the Environment Clearance (EC) stood vested, as per the vesting order dated 03.03.2021, in the petitioner on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 the said date itself; however, as per the direction of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC), the petitioner had to obtain fresh EC which with all efforts was done within the prescribed timeline as per the Efficiency Parameters and the impugned appropriation order has been passed on incorrect calculation of due date and without taking into consideration the relaxation given by respondent No.1 in achieving milestones and the dropping/waiving of SCN-I. iv) It is further submitted that respondent No.1 has calculated the time limit/due date of 03.09.2022 for completion of MS-3 from the date of issuance of vesting order and the same has been done arbitrarily and on the basis of wrong calculation. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the ‘Schedule D- Efficiency Parameters’ wherein, completion time for MS-2 (Approval of Mining Plan/Project Report subject to the provisions of Clause 15) was 6 months from the completion of previous MS (MS-1)/If MS-1 is not applicable, 6 months from the date of allocation, and further, the completion time for obtaining ‘Environment Clearance’ (EC) (MS-3) was 18 months from the completion of previous MS (MS-2). It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that the calculation of due date of 03.09.2022 for completion of MS-3 from the date of vesting is not correct as per Efficiency Parameters. It has been argued by learned Senior Counsels for the petitioner that the zero date was the date of vesting order (03.03.2021) and from that date a period of 6 months was to be given for completion of MS-2 which was due on 03.09.2021 and beyond the said date, a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 further 18 months was to be given for completion of MS-3 which was due on 03.03.2023 and the petitioner has obtained the EC on

23.01.2023 which is well within the prescribed timeline for the completion of Milestone-MS-3. For the sake of completeness, the said “Schedule D- Efficiency Parameters” have been reproduced as under: - Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 v) It is further submitted that SCN-I was issued to the petitioner on

08.02.2022 for delay in filing the mining lease which was a part of MS- Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 2 and for the reasons and justification for delay in submission of application for mining lease put forth by the petitioner in its reply submitted on 21.02.2024, the same were duly accepted by the Scrutiny Committee in its 18th Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 23.08.2022 and SCN-I against the petitioner was waived/dropped for non- compliance with the milestone (MS-2), i.e., Mining Lease Application. Attention of this Court has also been drawn towards a letter dated

18.01.2023 issued by respondent No.1 to the CEO of the petitioner for the dropping of SCN-I dated 08.02.2022. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that SCN-II issued to it pursuant to which the impugned

appropriation order has been passed is, in fact, first SCN-I. vi) Learned Senior Counsels for the petitioner have further submitted that the delay in achieving the Milestone is also attributable to a fundamental inconsistency in the demarcation of the mining lease area as the coordinates notified in the vesting order and the mining plan differed materially from those demarcated by the Odisha Space Application Centre (ORSAC) necessitating formal correction only on

08.02.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that said discrepancy is a failure on the part of public authorities and not attributable to it. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards a letter dated

27.12.2021 written by Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Limited (CMPDIL) to Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, regarding the block boundary issue of Radhikapur East and Radhikapur West Coal mines whereby, it was informed to the latter that both the allottees have agreed for change in the black bounding Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 coordinates of the subject mines/coal blocks and the same are required to be revised with reference to ORSAC boundary and approved Mining Plan boundary. vii) It is further submitted that the boundary of the subject mines were agreed to be revised on 04.02.2022 vide meeting held under the Chairmanship of Additional Secretary & Nominated Authority regarding boundary finalisation of the subject coal blocks vested in the petitioner and M/s EMMRL. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the following minutes of meeting regarding Boundary of Radhikapur West Coal Block: - Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 viii) It is pointed out that based on the aforesaid discussion, petitioner addressed a letter dated 07.02.2022 to respondent No.1, proposing that if the Mining Plan boundary coordinates are kept as it is on the three sides, i.e., East, South and West, and if only, the north side is extended further north to coincide with the new bounding coordinate line, it will cover the entire mining boundary without creating too many changes as per existing approved bounding coordinates and same will also cover the ORSAC boundary. Learned Senior Counsels have submitted that immediately after the issuing of vesting order, respondent No.1 was informed that there was an area overlapping between the adjoining Radhikapur East Coal Block requiring reconciliation and that mining boundary coordinates differed as mentioned in the approved mining plan, vesting order and recommendation given by CMPDIL. It is further submitted that despite the revision of the boundary coordinates in the aforesaid joint meeting held on 04.02.2022 and letter dated

07.02.2022 submitted to respondent No.1 by the petitioner, the necessary revision in the vesting order along with revised boundary coordinates for the Radhikapur West Coal Block (subject mine allotted to the present petitioner) is still pending and despite repeated requests by the petitioner, regarding the same, as it has created several impediments in obtaining necessary clearances, the issue is still unresolved. It is further the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid developments have taken place after the issuance of vesting order in favour of the petitioner thereby, resulting in 11 months of delay in completion of milestones as elucidated in the Schedule D- Efficiency Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 Parameters which have not been taken into consideration by respondent No.1 while passing the impugned appropriation order. ix) Learned Senior Counsels for the petitioner have handed up in Court, during the course of arguments, an Office Memorandum dated

31.01.2025 issued by Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India, in respect of Guidelines for Preparation of Mining Plan and Mine Closure Plan for Coal and Lignite blocks 2025 in Rule 2.7 envisaged in Chapter-II ‘Mining Plans’ providing for ‘Project Area’, it has been mentioned that, ‘For all coal blocks, the project boundary shall be delineated based on the DGPS (Differential Global Positioning System) survey with certification by CMPDIL and the certificate must be attached with the Mining Plan along with the KML file’. In view of the same, it has been contended that without there being a survey the discrepancy crept in the boundary coordinates could not have been rectified as it required DGPS survey along with certification by CMPDIL which was to be undertaken by respondents and the same was also reflected in the letter dated 27.12.2021 sent by CMPDIL to Ministry of Coal. It is also pointed out that the petitioner and other allottee had requested the respondents for conducting DGPS survey and delay in conducting the same cannot be attributed to the petitioner. The said Guidelines have been taken on record. x) Learned Senior Counsels for the petitioner have submitted that as per the vesting order approved Mine Plan & EC dated 10.01.2014 issued to the prior allottee stood vested in the petitioner. It is further Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 submitted that the petitioner applied for transfer of EC to MoEF &CC; however, same was denied without obtaining Forest Clearance-I over the area. Subsequently, MoEF expedited the process for grant of FC (Forest Clearance) and FC-1 was obtained on 06.01.2022. It is also the case of the petitioner that with the revised boundary coordinates being clarified after joint meeting held on 04.02.2022, there was no change in the area and land schedule with change in boundary coordinates, however, EC was again denied on the ground that, as per MoEF guidelines, FC-1 had to be submitted within 18 months. It has been argued that even after aforesaid intervening circumstances, and delay fresh EC was granted on 23.01.2023, i.e., 23 months, as against the allotted 24 months as per CMDPA including the period of 11 months during which there was confusion of Boundary Coordinates and effectiveness of the vested Mine Plan. xi) Learned Senior Counsels have drawn attention of this Court towards the clauses (c) & (d) of the vesting order dated 03.03.2021 and it is submitted that the petitioner in terms of the said clauses applied for transfer of EC on 08.04.2021 by submitting Form-7. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 vide its Office Memorandum dated

04.10.2021 issued regarding the transfer of EC and FC of the subject Coal Mine in favour of the petitioner forwarded the request letter of the latter along with copy of undertaking for abiding by all the conditions of EC & FC for further needful transfer of EC & FC (process till consideration by FAC) in the name of the petitioner. However, despite the same being forwarded on 04.10.2021, no EC & FC was transferred Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 to the petitioner. But on 10.01.2022, MoEF &CC published on its website that the proposal for transfer of EC cannot be executed in absence any formal EC letter, which was not issued by this Ministry, because as per extant rule of EIA, Notification, 2006, the applicant has to apply afresh application for grant of TOR as per the provisions of EIA, Notification, 2006 and the lapse of previous EC for the want of FC-1 clearance. It is submitted that subsequent to the aforesaid intimation published on 10.01.2022, the petitioner made a fresh application for obtaining EC and the same was obtained on 23.01.2023. xii) Further, learned Senior Counsels for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the 24th Screening Committee meeting held on 08.08.2024 and 09.08.2024 and particularly towards, the observation and recommendations of the Committee in respect of the Radhikapur (West) Coal Mine and SCN-II dated 06.06.2024 issued to the petitioner for non-achievement of efficiency parameter within stipulated time pertaining to Forest Clearance Stage-II, and Environment Clearance, wherein the Committee has admitted that there was delay in completion of this milestone (MS-3) due to initial confusion about the boundary coordinates of the mine and rearrangement of a part of CA (compensatory afforestation) land. The Committee also took note of the fact that despite the delay in achievement of this milestone (MS-3), the Allottee (petitioner herein) has confirmed that the mine will be operationalised within 51 months’ timeline given in CMDPA, i.e., by 03.06.2025. It is submitted that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 despite the said explicit admission of delay in completion of milestone on behalf of respondent No.1, the impugned order was passed. xiii) Learned Senior Counsels for the petitioner have submitted that letter dated 23.05.2025 addressed to respondent No.1, a representation was made by the petitioner invoking “Force Majeure” in terms of Clause 25 of the CMDPA and further, seeking appropriate orders/directions for extension of timeline for achieving Milestones under Schedule D of CMDPA due to the delay in completion of Milestone 4 (Land Acquisition and R&R) primarily due to factors beyond its control such as discrepancy in area proposed vis-à-vis area demarcated as per ORSAC, which are intensified by the location of the mine in an Elephant Zone and ecologically sensitive forest area, which entitled the petitioner to benefit of force majeure clause. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 has not passed any order on the said representation submitted by the petitioner nor on the other representation dated 16.07.2025 submitted for the change in ‘Zero Date’ for the subject mine on account of change of Land Schedule and has arbitrarily passed the impugned appropriation order. xiv) In view of the aforesaid submissions, it has been prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned appropriation order be set aside and respondent No.1/Nominated Authority be directed to grant extension of milestone deadlines under CMDPA to the petitioner. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

4. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondents, while refuting the submissions made by learned Senior Counsels for the petitioner, has made the following submissions: - i) At the very outset, the respondents have raised preliminary issue in respect of the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the petitioner has not availed alternate efficacious remedy under CM (SP) Act, 2015, prior to the filing of the present petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that it is a well-established principle of law that writ jurisdiction ought not be invoked without first exhausting the alternate efficacious remedy. It is further submitted that as per Section 27 of the CM (SP) Act, 2015, which provides for “Dispute settlement and Bar of Jurisdiction of civil courts”, any proceedings arising from or in connection to the decision of the Scrutiny Committee vide the impugned Appropriation Order is subject to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, which is established and situated at Talchar, Odisha. Attention of this Court has also been drawn towards paragraph 16 of the impugned order wherein, it has been noted as under: - “16. Attention is invited to Section 27 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act. 2015 providing for adjudication by the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. For the instant Coal Mine the Tribunal situated at Talcher, Odisha shall have jurisdiction.” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 In view of the aforesaid, it is contended that the petitioner has deliberately ignored the aforesaid clause and has circumvented jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal at Talchar, Odisha, by filing the present petition without first approaching the Tribunal. It is pointed out that there is no averment in the present petition as to why the petitioner has not approached the learned Tribunal constituted for the purpose of seeking redressal of its grievance, if any, and has directly approached this Court in writ jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed on Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.5, particularly on paragraph 27, to contend that the High Court has discretion not to entertain a writ petition as one of the restrictions placed on the exercise of power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. Reliance has also been placed on Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India 6 , particularly on paragraph 69, to contend that the whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration. Therefore, it is the case of the respondents that the present petition ought to be dismissed as not maintainable and the petitioner be relegated to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law before the Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate forum. 5 2021 SCC OnLine SC 334 6 (2015) 7 SCC 728 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 ii) Learned ASG has drawn attention of this Court towards Schedule D- ‘Efficiency Parameters’ to submit that completion time for obtaining Environment Clearance (‘EC’) was 18 months from completion of previous MS (MS-2). It is further pointed out that completion time for ‘Approval of Mining Plan/Project Report subject to the provisions of Clause 15’ was 6 months from the completion of previous MS/If MS-1 is not applicable, 6 months from the date of allocation. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner regarding non- lapse of 18 months from the completion of previous milestone as provided under Schedule D- ‘Efficiency Parameters’ is completely misplaced and based on incorrect reading of the said schedule and CMDPA. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not required to do anything to achieve MS-1 since the subject mine is a fully explored mine. Insofar as MS-2 is concerned, it is contended that for the purposes of ‘approval of mining plan/project report subject to Clause 15’, the petitioner was not required to do anything in respect of MS-2 as the vesting order dated 03.03.2021 itself records in Annexure- 2 thereof, that the approval of mining plan and mine closure plan has already been granted by Ministry of Coal on 23.06.2011. Therefore, the period of 18 months from the completion of previous milestone (MS-2) for obtaining ‘Environmental Clearance’ would commence from the date of vesting order, i.e., 03.03.2021, and the same was due on

03.09.2022 and EC was obtained by the petitioner on 23.01.2023 against the said due date, and therefore, the partial appropriation of performance bank guarantee in terms of CMDPA rightly done by the respondents. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 iii) It is further submitted that dispute in the present case is purely contractual in nature, and thus, not amenable to present jurisdiction. It is the case of the respondents that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is in strict abidance with the provisions of CMDPA. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the following Clauses of the CMDPA which read thus: - “6.2 Events Security for appropriation of the Performances

6.2.1. The Performance Security may be appropriated by the Nominated Authority upon occurrence of any of the following events (the "Appropriation Event"), to be determined by the Nominated Authority in its sole discretion: (a) failure of the Successful Bidder to provide the duly acknowledged duplicate copy of the Vesting Order as required under Clause 4.6; (b) failure of the Successful Bidder to make payment of any of the instalment of the Upfront Amount within the time specified in Clause 3.1(6) and Clause 5.2; (c) failure of submission of Commencement Plan within the time specified in Clause 5.1.1; (d) failure of the Successful Bidder to comply with the Efficiency Parameters as required under Clause 10; (e) any change in Control or transfer of right, title or interest in the Coal Mine which is not in conformity with Clause 13; (f) failure to make payment of the Monthly Payment in accordance with this Agreement; (g) any sale and/or utilisation of coal which is not in conformity with Clause 8; (h) failure to make payments of monthly revenue share for CBM as per Clause 8.2.3; (i) failure to pay revenue to the Government in case of shortfall in coal production as per Clause 16.2.2; Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 (j) cessation of coal mining operation exceeding a period of one year continuously, or 18 months over a period of two years without occurrence of any event of force majeure; (k) surrender of the Coal Mine by the Successful Bidder or termination of the Mining Lease granted to the Successful Bidder before (a) the expiry of the period for which Mining Lease (including renewed Mining Lease) has been granted or will be granted, or (b) extractable reserves are remaining in the Coal Mine, whichever is earlier; (l) any other breach or non-compliance of any of the provisions of this Agreement including in case of the Warranties being untrue or misleading or incorrect in any manner whatsoever; or (m) failure of the Successful Bidder to submit the revised Performance Security in accordance with Clause 6.1.

6.2.2. Provided however that in the event an Appropriation Event has occurred solely on account of an Event of Force Majeure which could not have been mitigated by the Successful Bidder through Good Industry Practice as provided in Clause 25, then the Performance Security shall not be appropriated for such specific Appropriation Event.

6.3. Manner of appropriation of the Performance Security 6.3.1. Upon occurrence of an Appropriation Event, to be the Nominated the Nominated Authority, determined by Authority shall have the unconditional right to appropriate the Performance Security by providing a written notice to the Successful Bidder in the following proportion: #

1. Appropriation Event Failure Successful Bidder to provide the duly acknowledged duplicate copy of the Vesting Order as required under Clause 4.6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 Amount of the Performance Security to be appropriated Entire Performance Security. Failure Successful Bidder to make payment of any of instalment of the Upfront Amount within specified in Clause 5.2 Failure submission Commencement Plan within time specified in Clause 5.1.1 Failure Successful Bidder to comply with the Efficiency Parameters required Clause 10

4. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 amount An instalment, and/or second instalment and/or instalment and/or fourth instalment of Upfront Amount together with 12% annum simple interest amount starting the date on amount was due and until the date of appropriation Performance Security. amount An equal to 10% Performance Security Such per cent Performance Security each failure to comply with the Efficiency Parameters as

8. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 Any change Control or transfer of right, title or interest in the Coal Mine which is not in conformity with Clause 13 Any sale and/or utilization of coal conformity with Clause 8 Failure Successful Bidder to make payment the Monthly Payment is not Cessation of coal mining operation exceeding a period continuously, 18 months over a period without occurrence of any specified SCHEDULED. Entire Performance Security. Entire Performance Security. The amount of Monthly Payment payable, along with a simple interest of twelve per cent per annum starting the date on amount was due and until the date of appropriation Performance Security. Entire Performance Security.

9. 10 . 11 . Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 (a) majeure Surrender of Coal Mine by the Successful Bidder or termination of the Mining Lease granted Successful Bidder before expiry period for which Mining Lease (including renewed Mining Lease) has been granted or will be (b) granted, or extractable reserves remaining in the Mine, whichever earlier Any other breach or non-compliance with any of the provision of this Agreement, including in case of the Warranties being untrue or misleading incorrect in any manner whatsoever. Failure Successful Bidder submit revised Performance Entire Performance Security Such proportion determined by the Nominated Authority in its sole discretion. Entire Performance Security. 12 . 13 . Security accordance with Clause 6. to make Failure payments monthly revenue share for CBM as per Clause 8.2.3 Failure revenue Government case of shortfall in coal production as per Clause 16.2.2 The amount of revenue share payable, along with a simple interest of 12% [twelve] cent per annum starting the date on amount was due and until the date of appropriation Performance Security. The amount of revenue share payable, along with a simple interest of 12% [twelve] cent per annum starting the date on amount was due and until the date of appropriation Performance Security. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025

6.3.2. Any Appropriation Event resulting in appropriation of the entire Performance Security shall be a Termination Event for the purposes of Clause 26 (EFFECTIVE DATE, TERM AND TERMINATION).

6.3.3. In the event of a part appropriation of the Performance Security, the Successful Bidder shall be required to: (i) rectify the Appropriation Event; and (ii) top-up the bank guarantee constituting the Performance Security within fifteen Business Days of receipt of a notice under Clause 6.3.1, failure to do so shall be a Termination Event for the purposes of Clause 26 (EFFECTIVE DATE, TERM AND TERMINATION). Appropriation Event except as mentioned in Clause 6.2.1 (d) shall be rectified within seven Business Days of receipt of a notice under Clause 6.3.1. Appropriation Event mentioned in Clause 6.2. l (d) shall be rectified within the time specified in SCHEDULED.

6.3.4. In the event that on account of one or more Appropriation Events, an amount equal to hundred per cent of the Performance Security is appropriated in aggregate in one or more instances, the same shall be a Termination Event for the purposes of Clause 26 (EFFECTIVE DATE, TERM AND TERMINATION).” iv) Learned ASG has further submitted that Clause 6 of the CMDPA provided for performance security in the form of an irrevocable and unconditional guarantee in the format provided in Schedule E of the contract/CMDPA. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the following clauses/conditions of the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.1 in terms of CMDPA: - “1. The Bank for the purpose hereof unconditionally and irrevocably undertakes to pay to the Nominated Authority without any demur, reservation, caveat, protest or recourse, immediately on receipt of first written demand from the Nominated Authority, a sum or sums (by way of one or more Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 claims) not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of INR [figures] (Indian Rupees [words]) without the Nominated Authority needing to prove or to show to the Bank grounds or reasons for such demand for the sum specified therein and notwithstanding any dispute or difference between Nominated Authority and Successful Bidder on any matter whatsoever. The Bank undertakes to pay to the Nominated Authority any money so demanded notwithstanding any dispute or disputes raised by the Successful Bidder in any suit or proceeding pending before any court or tribunal relating thereto the Bank’s liability under th.is present being absolute and unequivocal.

2. The Bank acknowledges that any such demand by the Nominated Authority of the amounts payable by the Bank to the Nominated Authority shall be final, binding and conclusive evidence in respect of the amounts payable by Successful Bidder to the Nominated Authority under the Agreement.

3. The Bank hereby waives the necessity for the Nominated Authority from demanding the aforesaid amount or any part thereof from the Successful Bidder and also waives any right that the Bank may have of first requiring the Nominated Authority to pursue its legal remedies against the Successful Bidder, before presenting any written demand to the Bank for payment under this Guarantee. The Bank further unconditionally agrees with 4. Nominated Authority that the Nominated Authority shall be at liberty, without the Bank's consent and without affecting in any manner the Bank's obligation under this Guarantee, from time to time to: extend and / or postpone the time for performance of the vary and/or modify and of the terms and conditions of the (i) Agreement; (ii) obligations of the Successful Bidder under the Agreement, or (iii) forbear or enforce any of the rights exercisable by the Nominated Authority against the Successful Bidder under the terms and conditions of the Agreement.” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 It is therefore, submitted that the aforesaid bank guarantee categorically provides that the same is unconditional in nature, with an undertaking to pay to nominated authority (respondent No.1) without any demur, reservation, caveat, protest, or recourse immediately upon receipt of first written demand. Further, that respondent No.1 is not required to prove or show to the bank any grounds or reasons for such demand and the existence of any dispute between respondent No.1/nominated authority and the petitioner on any matter will not be ground for not honouring the bank guarantee. v) It is also the case of the respondents that the invocation of bank guarantee and its encashment cannot be injuncted merely because there are disputes raised by the petitioner as to the validity of the impugned order and the demand raised by respondent No.1. It has been argued that the adjudication of such disputes has no corelation with the encashment of bank guarantee which is an independent contract in terms of the bank guarantee issued by the bank. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in BSES Ltd. v. Fenner India Ltd. 7, to contend that the appropriation of the part- performance security cannot be deemed to be an irretrievable harm by any stretch of imagination. vi) Learned ASG has submitted that SCN-II dated 06.06.2024 was issued by respondent No.1 for the deviations from achievement of ‘Efficiency Parameters’ noted in MS-3 within stipulated time pertaining 7 (2006) 2 SCC 728 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 to Forest Clearance Stage-II and Environment Clearance to which the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply on 20.06.2024 and same was duly considered in a personal hearing given to the petitioner before 24th Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 08.08.2024 and 09.08.2024 and based on the deliberation held, following observations and recommendations were made by the Committee: - “Based on the deliberations and the assurance of the Allottee, the Committee made the following recommendations:-

1. The Allottee will give an undertaking in next 3 days to O/o NA that they will operationalize the mine before the scheduled timeline, i.e by 03.06.2025.

2. In the event the operationalization of the mine happens on or before the due date, the matter will be put up to the Scrutiny Committee for the final decision on the Show Cause Notice for MS-3.

3. However, in the event the mine is not operationalized by 03.06.2025, the Committee recommended for imposition of penalty in the form of appropriation of PBG as per the provision of CMDPA.” In view of the aforesaid recommendation made by the Scrutiny Committee in paragraph 3 thereof, penalty in the form of appropriation of Performance Bank Guarantee has been imposed for failure in completion of MS-3 within the scheduled timeline. Learned ASG has also drawn attention of this Court towards a letter dated 12.08.2024 with subject ‘Reply to SCN dated 06.06.2024’ sent by petitioner to respondent No.1/Nominated Authority post the issuance of SCN-II whereby, the petitioner had given undertaking as per the aforesaid Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 recommendation to operationalise the subject mine before the due date of 06.06.20258. It is pointed out by learned ASG that in terms of the said undertaking, the subject mine has still not been operationalised by the petitioner. It is further the case of the respondents that vide minutes of 24th Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 08.08.2024 and 09.08.2024, petitioner was not given any clean chit and the Scrutiny Committee had deferred the exercise of its right to appropriate the proportionate performance security as per CMDPA. It is further submitted that perusal of the deliberations happened in the said meeting would reveal that the Committee did not accept the reasons given by the petitioner and it was recommended that only in the event, if the petitioner was able to operationalise the mine on or before 03.06.2025, the matter was required to be put before Scrutiny Committee again for taking decision on SCN- II. It is further pointed out that post the submission of response to SCN- II on 20.06.2024, the petitioner gave the above undertaking and therefore, all the issues pertaining to SCN-II stood subsumed and it is on account of said undertaking given by the petitioner, respondents did not impose any penalty at the relevant point in time; however, as the subject mine was not operationalised till date, the impugned order for part- appropriation of the Performance Bank Guarantee was passed. It is also the case of the respondents that the reasons elucidated in representation dated 23.05.2025 seeking an extension of time to achieve milestones were already in knowledge of the petitioner when the aforesaid undertaking was made by it. It is further submitted that the impugned 8 As per 24th Scrutiny Committee recommendations, undertaking to operationalize mine was before 03.06.2025; however, date mentioned in this letter is 06.06.2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 order has been passed after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and under due intimation to it, and thus, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice is incorrect. vii) Regarding the contention of the petitioner that EC stood vested in favour of the petitioner on 03.03.2021 from the date of vesting order itself, learned ASG has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure- 5 of the Vesting Order dated 03.03.2021 wherein, it has been mentioned that, “The Successful Bidder does not intend to adopt and continue with any of the contracts of the Prior Allottee”. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has itself agreed to not continue with the earlier EC issued by Central Government on 10.01.2014 to the prior allotee and therefore, now they cannot contend that respondent No.1 had forced them to obtain fresh EC arbitrarily as fresh EC has to be obtained as earlier EC was discontinued. viii) Regarding the 1st Forest Clearance, learned ASG has drawn attention of this Court towards a letter dated 06.01.2022 whereby, Central Government had accorded approval for transfer of process of seeking approval under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, to the petitioner subject to certain conditions which need to be complied prior to handing over of forest land. It is submitted that said conditions were to be complied prior to Stage-II approval; however, same have not been complied with by the allottee/petitioner till date and in view of the same, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 the Forest Clearance is still pending. The relevant conditions enlisted in the said letter reads as under: - “A. Conditions which need to be complied prior to handing over of forest land by the State Forest Department and compliance is to be submitted prior to Stage-II approval

1. Compensatory Afforestation: i. The Compensatory afforestation over equivalent non-forest land, shall be raised shall be raised by the State Forest Department at the project cost. At least 1000 saplings per ha shall be planted over admissible CA land. If this this not possible to plant these many seedlings in the identified NFL, the balance seedlings will be planted in degraded forest land as per the prescription of the Working Plan at the cost of the User Agency. In such cases CA cost will be revised and duly approved by he competent authority and deposited online in the CAF managed by the CAMPA; 25% of the CA cost additionally will be spent towards soil and ii. moisture conservation activities in the proposed CA area as per site requirement and deposited in CAF; iii. The cost of compensatory afforestation at the prevailing wage rates as per compensatory afforestation scheme and the cost of survey, demarcation and erection of permanent pillars, if required on the CA land, shall be deposited in advance with the Forest Department by the user agency. The CA will be maintained for 10 years. The scheme may include afforestation of indigenous species with appropriate provision for anticipated cost increase for works scheduled for subsequent years; iv. The non-forest land identified for CA shall be transferred and mutated in favour of the State Forest Department and subsequently notified by the State Government as RF under Section - 4 or PF under Section-29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or under the relevant Section(s) of the local Forest Act before Stage-II approval. A copy of the final Notification shall be submitted along with the compliance of Stage-I approval; **** **** ****

14. Wildlife Management Plan: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 i. It is reported that the area comes under elephant zone and human wildlife conflict area. The elephant habitat may be fragmented due to Radhikarpur (East) and Radhikapur (West) Coal Blocks on one side and Railway line traversing the forest area on another side, which need to be addressed. User Agency should submit a comprehensive site-specific Wildlife Conservation Plan approved by the Chief Wildlife Warden encompassing suitable measures to address Wildlife conservation and Human Wildlife conflicts. Comments of the Project Elephant Division of the MoEF&CC shall be obtained and addressed in the said Plan and a copy of approved Plan shall be submitted to the Ministry along with the compliance of Stage-I approval; ii. Cost of implementation of the provisions of the Wildlife Management Plan, on pro rata basis, shall be deposited into the account of CAMPA of the State;” ix) Insofar as the issue of mismatch in the Mining Plan (mining lease area) along with Mine Closure Plan and the issue of revision of boundary coordinates of the subject mine are concerned, it is submitted that in terms of the meeting held under the chairmanship of Additional Secretary and respondent No.1/Nominated Authority on 04.02.2022 (minutes of which were issued on 08.02.2022) regarding boundary of subject mine, the petitioner/allottee was to submit the proposal for their request that the bounding coordinate of subject mine should be changed in a way that no revision in the Mining Plan is required and the same will not have impact of clearances already vested to them and timelines for development of coal block. It is further submitted that the petitioner on

09.02.2022 submitted the request proposing that, ‘the Mining Plan bounding coordinates are kept as it is on three side, i.e., East, South and West side and if only the north side is extended further North to coincide with the new bounding coordinate line, it will cover the entire mining boundary without creating too many changes as per existing approved Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 bounding coordinates and the same will also cover the ORSAC boundary’ and in view of the same, request was made for needful action. As per respondents, the change in bounding coordinates was proposed by the petitioner itself on the touchstone that Odisha Govt. generally transfers the land as per boundaries decided by ORSAC. It is, therefore, submitted that the mis-match of boundary coordinate stood resolved in view of the letter sent by the petitioner on 09.02.2022 as the change in bounding coordinates as per the specific requirement of the petitioner (though not mandated under CMDPA or otherwise) would not have any impact either on the clearances of timelines for development of coal mines. Learned ASG has submitted that, even otherwise, the concept of “boundary of a coal mine” is different from “bounding coordinates” and there is no dispute with respect to the boundary of the coal mine in the present case and the petitioner, if at all, only wanted a slight change in the bounding coordinates of the subject mine. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the representation dated 23.05.2025 submitted by the petitioner invoking “force majeure” and further seeking appropriate orders/directions for extension of timeline for achieving Milestones under Schedule D of CMDPA, to show that the petitioner has now taken a stand that it had no clarity on the Mining Boundary Coordinates ever since the issuance of Vesting Order till 08.02.2022, when they received a letter from respondent No.1 finally correcting the Bounding Latitude and Longitude thereby, clarifying that the Bounding Coordinates were to be revised as per ORSAC without any changes in the mining plan. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 x) Regarding elephant corridor passage, it is submitted that FAC in its second meeting on 23.12.2021 had granted Stage-I FC approval which was recommended on 06.01.2022 with certain conditions as pointed out hereinabove, which have not been complied by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the issue of Elephant corridor had emerged on 17.12.2021, when the file inspection was done by DFO and the petitioner had ample opportunity from the said date to take appropriate steps to obtain requisite permits. xi) It is further submitted that Essential Details Sought (EDS) for Compensatory Afforestation (CA) were sought from the petitioner on

08.08.2022 and it was requested to comply with the conditions imposed by MoEF & CC. It is pointed out that the natural growth of Sal trees over approximately 36 acres of land resulting in a change in the legal nature and over the extent of government land was observed during the inspection of site on 14.02.2023; however, by that time EC was already obtained by the petitioner on 23.01.2023. Therefore, it is submitted that same cannot be taken into consideration as it was an event which had occurred post obtaining EC and, the petitioner had ample time and opportunity to take appropriate steps to ensure timely operationalisation of the mine. Learned ASG has thus, submitted the failure to operationalise the mine has occurred due to the petitioner failing to obtain requisite FC, EC and Land Acquisition and Possession of Land in a timely manner and the said issues were already in the knowledge of the petitioner when the aforesaid undertaking to operationalise the subject mine was given. Attention of this Court has also been drawn towards a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 letter dated 29.05.2024 sent by petitioner seeking clarification to show that the issue with respect to the Elephant Corridor and CA were raised by the petitioner without specifying the impact of the same as to how they were creating hindrance in obtaining any particular permit from the concerned department. xii) Insofar as the dropping of SCN-I dated 08.02.2022 issued for non-compliance with ‘Efficiency Parameter’ is concerned, it is submitted that the said SCN was dropped in view of the reply submitted by the petitioner on 21.02.2022 and the fact that the petitioner had complied with the requirements of Clause 15 for MS-2 and in view of the same, no penalty was imposed on the petitioner. xiii) Learned ASG has submitted that the letter dated 11.07.2025 was issued by DFO, Angul, for filing of FC application for additional lookalike forest land to the stage-I approval for subject mine, however, the same will have no bearing in the present case as EC was obtained on

23.01.2023 against the due date of 03.09.2022 and therefore, the same cannot now be a ground to assail the impugned order, after a lapse of two years, which has been passed for non-completion of MS-3 within the stipulated time period in terms of Schedule D- Efficiency Parameters. It is further submitted that the said letter has been issued independent of the impugned appropriation order. It is also the case of the respondents that this letter cannot come to the aid of the petitioner as they have Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 defaulted in making good of their own undertaking given for operationalising the subject mine by 03.06.20259. xiv) It is, thus, prayed that the impugned appropriation order need not be interfered and the present petition be dismissed. REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

5. Learned Senior Counsels for the petitioner have made the following rejoinder submissions: - i) Firstly, regarding the preliminary issue of maintainability of the present petition, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of Constitution. Further, availability of alternative remedy cannot operate as an absolute bar in cases where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. It is further submitted that the existence of an adequate or suitable alternative remedy available to the litigant is merely a factor which the Court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution will consider for exercising the discretion to issue writ in said jurisdiction; however, the same does not impinge upon the jurisdiction of the High 9 The date mentioned in the letter dated 12.08.2024 is 06.06.2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:02.12.2025 18:44:55 W.P.(C) 10686/2025 Court to deal with the matter itself when it is in position to do so on the basis of the affidavits filed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks 10, S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar11, Union of India v. Tantia Construction (P) Ltd.12, T.N. Cements Corpn. Ltd. v. Unicon Engineers13, India Glycols Ltd. v. S.R. Technologies 14, in support of this contention. Learned Senior Counsels have drawn attention of this Court towards Section 27(4) of the CM (SP) Act, 2015, to submit that the jurisdiction of the High Court is not affected by Section 27 of the said Act and this Court is entitled to exercise jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to matters connected with the Act. It is further submitted that the plea of alternate efficacious remedy before learned Tribunal misconceived as the said Tribunal is not fully functional, and in fact, no case is being heard as it has been recently constituted and has not started fully functioning due to the lack of supporting staff and required infrastructures. It is further submitted that the said Tribunal has been established for the purpose of dealing with the cases relating to the land acquisition issued relating to coal bearing areas and for adjudicating on the disputes pertaining to land acquisition/compensation and thus, given the nature of the dispute arising in the present case, the same cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal.