M/s. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No.34206 of 2023 M/s. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad ….. Petitioner Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. A. Sharma, Advocate Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Sambalpur & Ors. Vs. …..
Legal Reasoning
Opposite parties Mr. R. Sharma, Advocate (O.P.1) Mr. D.P. Nanda, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. A. Acharya,Advocate (O.Ps.2, 3 & 5) Order No. 02 CORAM: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Decision
ORDER 06.11.2023 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. R. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for opposite party- Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL) and Mr. D.P. Nanda, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.2, 3 & 5. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue notice to the Opposite Parties calling them to show cause as to why; Page 1 of 4 a) the compensation bills dated 11.08.2023 for the Financial Years F.Y. 2018-19, F.Y. 2019-20, F.Y. 2020-21 and F.Y. 2021-2022 and Impugned Letters dated 21.08.2023 & 06.09.2023 issued by the Opposite party No.1 vide Annexure 50 series and Annexure-52 shall not be set aside/quashed; b) issued/taken action(s)/order(s)/direction(s) all pursuant to the compensation bills dated 11.08.2023 for the Financial Years F.Y. 2018-19, F.Y. 2019-20, F.Y. 2020-21 and F.Y. 2021-2022 and Impugned Letters dated 21.08.2023 & 06.09.2023 issued by the Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure 50 series and Annexure-52 shall not be set- aside/quashed; c) the Opposite Party No.1 shall not be directed to pay compensation to the Petitioner for non-supply/short supply of coal to the Petitioner under the Fuel Supply Agreement dated 26.08.2013; d) taking any coercive action against Petitioner, and the Opposite Party No.1 shall not be restrained from And in the event, the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show sufficient cause, direct that; a) The compensation bills dated 11.08.2023 for the Financial Years F.Y. 2018-19, F.Y. 2019-20, F.Y. 2020-21 and F.Y. 2021-2022 and Impugned Letters dated 21.08.2023 & 06.09.2023 issued by the Opposite party No.1 vide Annexure 50 series and Annexure-52 shall not be set aside/quashed; b) issued/taken action(s)/order(s)/direction(s) all pursuant to the compensation bills dated 11.08.2023 for the Financial Years F.Y. 2018-19, F.Y. 2019-20, F.Y. 2020-21 and F.Y. 2021-2022 and Impugned Letters dated 21.08.2023 & 06.09.2023 issued by the Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure 50 series and Annexure-52 shall not be set- aside/quashed: and c) the Opposite Party No.1 shall not be directed to maintain continuous, uninterrupted supply of coal and under the Fuel Supply Agreement dated 26.08.2013 and in the event of non-supply/short supply of coal compensate the Petitioner under the Fuel Supply Agreement dated 26.08.2013; d) taking any coercive action against Petitioner, and the Opposite Party No.1 shall not be restrained from And may pass any further writ(s), order(s) and/or directions(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. And for this Act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray;” 4. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner seeks to quash Page 2 of 4 the compensation bills raised by the authority vide Annexure-50 series and Annexure-52. It is contended that there is a strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, for which it has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instead of approaching the forum to resolve the dispute and, as such, it has already approached the authority for resolving the dispute. 5. Mr. R. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-MCL contended that there is a Fuel Supply Agreement executed between the parties on 26.08.2013. Clause-15 thereof deals with settlement of disputes and, as such, the case of the petitioner comes under clause-15.3. It is further contended that the petitioner, vide representation dated 25.08.2023 under Annexure- 51, has stated that in case the opposite party-MCL is not agreeable to withdrawing the compensation bills, it shall consider the representation as a Dispute Notice in terms of Clause 15.3 of the Fuel Supply Agreement. For the purpose of negotiations, the petitioner has nominated Mr. P.K. Pradhan, VP Fuel on its behalf. In the event of non-withdrawal of the compensation bills, the petitioner has requested the opposite party-MCL to nominate their representative to participate in the negotiation proceedings. In such event, the petitioner has requested the opposite party-MCL to instruct their representative to call for an in-person meeting with its representative at a convenient date, place and time. Therefore, it is contended that once the petitioner has sought to resolve the dispute, the writ petition filed at its instance is not maintainable. 6. Mr. D.P. Nanda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for opposite parties no.2, 3 & 5 contended that since the parties have Page 3 of 4 already proceeded to resolve the dispute as per clause-15 of the Fuel Supply Agreement, the writ petition may not be maintainable. 7. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and looking at the nature of prayer made in the writ petition, this Court is of the prima facie view that since the disputed questions of fact are involved in this case, the same cannot be resolved under the writ jurisdiction. Apart from that, the grievance of the petitioner emanates from a contract. As per clause-15 of the Fuel Supply agreement, since the petitioner has already named its nominee to resolve the dispute and steps have been taken in that regard, liberty is granted to the petitioner to proceed in terms of the said clause. As such, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Alok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 07-Nov-2023 11:16:03 Page 4 of 4