Baitarani West Coal Ltd. (BWCCL), Bhubaneswar ….. Union of India & Others v. …
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No.4011 of 2013 Baitarani West Coal Ltd. (BWCCL), Bhubaneswar ….. Union of India & Others Vs. ….. Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
Mr. D.P. Nanda, Sr. Advocate Along with Mr. R.K. Kanungo, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. G. Mohanty, Sr. Panel Counsel, Govt. of India (O.Ps.) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 31.01.2023 Order No. 28 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. D.P. Nanda, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. R.K. Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Union of India-opposite parties. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the letter dated 10.12.2012 under Annexure-1 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal with regard to de-allocation and invocation of 50% Bank Guarantee in respect of Baitarani West Coal Block allocated to M/s Gujarat Power Corporation Limited (GPCL), M/s Kerela State Electricity Board (KSEB) and Orissa Hydro Power Corporation (OHPC). 4. Mr. D.P. Nanda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the question involves in this writ petition 2 has already been considered by the apex Court in Manohar Lal Sharma v. The Principal Secretary & Ors. (Writ Petition (Crl.) No.120 of 2012 & batch disposed of on 25.08.2014). Therefore, the bank guarantee, which is remaining with the opposite parties should be refunded to the petitioner. As such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the writ petition save and except refunding the bank guarantee to the petitioner. 5. Mr. G. Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Union of India-opposite parties contended that referring to Manohar Lal Sharma (supra), the High Court of Chhatisgarh in W.P.(C) No.132 of 2013 had directed for refund of bank guarantee and the said matter was challenged before the apex Court in SLP No.3937 of 2019, which is pending for consideration. Therefore, this writ petition may be awaited till the above noted SLP is decided by the apex Court. 6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the only claim which revolves around in this case is with regard to refund of bank guarantee. The High Court of Chhatisgarh in W.P.(C) No.132 of 2013, taking into consideration the ratio decided in Manohar Lal Sharma (supra), in paragraphs-16 to 18 observed as follows: “16. It is also argued that the subsequent decision or declaration of law in relation to allotment of coal b l o c k s m a d e b y t h e H o n ' b l e S u p r e m e C o u r t M a n o h a r L a l S h a r m a ( s u p r a ) c a n n o t b e r e a d i s o l a t i o n a n d t h e r e i s a d i r e c t n e x u s a n d f a l l - b a c k on the decision taken by the Ministry of Coal to allot coal to this Public Sector Undertaking as well. Since the allotment of the coal blocks which was sought to be de-allocated through the impugned order was also an issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in no uncertain terms declared that the allocation of the coal blocks based on the 3 recommendation made in all the 36 meetings of the Screening Committee to be illegal, therefore, the impugned order dated 30.11.2012 contained in Annexure P/1 cannot be seen in isolation. It is also highlighted that since the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court goes to the root of the decision of making allocation of coal blocks which means that it relates back to the time when the allocation of the coal blocks was made, therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma (supra) squarely also covers the situation and predicament of the present petitioner. 17. This factual and legal position now go longer can virtue of law be the matter of debate or argument. Bu Supreme and the declaration made by the Court since the allocation made the Petitioner- Corporation was held to be illegal, therefore, any right or which flows from the letter of allotment obligation dated 25.07.2007 will be non est in law and as if no such offer or agreement ever took place. Hon’ble to In view of the above, the impugned order dated 18. 30.11.2012 i.e Annexure P/1 to the writ stands quashed. The decision of the Respondent-Union of India to forfeit any of the amount which was by way of invocation or encashment of bank guarantee etc. would be also held to be bad in law”. application 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the relief granted by the High Court of Chhatisgarh in W.P.(C) No.132 of 2013 should be granted to the petitioner herein, which has been quoted in paragraph-6 of I.A. No.3712 of 2019. Mr. G. Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel, Govt. of India did not dispute such position and contended that the order passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh has been challenged before the apex Court in SLP No.3937 of 2019, which is pending for adjudication. 8. In course of hearing, when this Court called upon learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Panel Counsel, Govt. of India to explain as to whether the apex Court has passed any interim order against the order passed 4 by the High Court of Chhatisgarh, both of them stated that no interim order has been passed by the apex Court. 9. In the above view of the matter, the order dated 10.12.2012 under Annexure-1 issued by the Government of India is quashed. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the order passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh in W.P.(C) No.132 of 2013, as mentioned above. 10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (B. P. SATAPATHY) JUDGE