1. Challenge against inclusion in a list of illegal coal block allocations and demand for compensatory levy despite following statutory procedures under the MMDR Act and MC Rules. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 708
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
B.L.A. Industries Private Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 63 of 2015
WITH
Union of India – Petitioner
Versus
Shri Anup Agarwalla – Respondent
Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 7 of 2016, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 120 of 2012
Decided On : 17-08-2022
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mr. Samarvir Singh, Adv. Ms. Monica Benjamin, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Prasenjeet Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ayush Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Victor Dass, Adv. Ms. Rubina, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Shally Bhasin, AOR Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mr. Samarvir Singh, Adv. Ms. Monica Benjamin, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Prasenjeet Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mr. Samarvir Singh, Adv. Ms. Monica Benjamin, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Prasenjeet Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ayush Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Victor Dass, Adv. Ms. Rubina, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Shally Bhasin, AOR Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mr. Samarvir Singh, Adv. Ms. Monica Benjamin, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Prasenjeet Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Allocation of coal mines – No parity can be drawn between petitioner and other allottees of coal blocks when petitioner followed correct procedure of applying through proper channel for grant of a mining lease.
Headnote:
Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 5(1) – Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Rule 22 – Allocation of coal mines – Claim for compensatory payment – State Government has affirmed stand taken by petitioner that procedure of allocation of coal block through Screening Committee Route/Government Dispensation Route had not been followed in case of petitioner and there was no illegality in allocation of specified coal mines in its favour, unlike other cases – No parity can be drawn between petitioner and other allottees of coal blocks when petitioner followed correct procedure of applying through proper channel for grant of a mining lease – Mining lease granted in favour of petitioner was not tainted by mala fides, as was case of other allottees – Allocation of coal block made in favour of petitioner did not run foul of procedure prescribed in MMDR Act and MC Rules – Respondent No. 1-UOI is not entitled to claim payment of an additional levy for coal extracted by petitioner from subject mine – Any such demand raised by respondent No. 1-UOI hereby quashed and set aside. (Paras 19, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 32 of Constitution of India raising a grievance against the respondent No.1 – Ministry of Coal, Union of India for having included its name and mining lease area in the Schedules appended to Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 20142, even though, Screening Committee constituted by the Ministry of Coal, Union of India had not allocated any coal block to it.
Issue that requires to be answered in the instant case is whether the petitioner was allocated coal mines through Screening Committee Route and/or the Government Dispensation Route.
Findings of Court:
Here is a case where a private party followed all the rules and the law, as applicable, before investing large sums of money to undertake business. In fact, it appears from the facts of case that it was respondent no. 1 – UOI that did not follow the letter of the law. But ultimately, it was private party that had to suffer the consequences of the careless and callous approach of the respondent no. 1 – UOI.
Result : Writ Petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
writ jurisdiction
- article 32 (Para 1)
-
writ jurisdiction
- administrative law
- mining law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims statutory compliance via State Government recommendation; Respondent contends participation in Screening Committee meetings justifies the compensatory levy for illegal allocation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. The court found the mining lease was granted based on independent State Government recommendation under the MMDR Act, not the flawed Screening Committee or Government Dispensation routes. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Compensatory levies for illegal coal block allocations apply only to beneficiaries of the Screening Committee or Government Dispensation routes, not those granted leases via statutory State Government recommendations. (Para 21 )
5. Demand for additional levy quashed, contempt petition dismissed, and litigation costs awarded to the petitioner. (Para 22 , 24 )
6. When is a coal block allocation considered illegal under the Manohar Lal Sharma precedents?
Allocations made through the Screening Committee Route or the Government Dispensation Route are illegal if they are inconsistent with the MMDR Act and CMN Act, lacking merit-based evaluation or inter se comparison of applicants. (Para 7 , 15 )
7. Does participation in a Screening Committee meeting automatically render a coal block allocation illegal?
No. If the lease was granted following the correct statutory procedure—application to the State Government, independent state recommendation, and subsequent Central Government approval under the MMDR Act—participation in meetings does not make the allocation illegal. (Para 17 , 19 )
8. Who is liable to pay the compensatory levy imposed by the Court in the coal block allocation cases?
Only those allottees who were beneficiaries of the flawed administrative process, specifically the Screening Committee or Government Dispensation routes, are liable for the compensatory levy; those who followed the statutory legal regime are not. (Para 14 , 21 )
JUDGMENT :
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India raising a grievance against the respondent No. 1-Ministry of Coal, Union of India1 [for short ‘UOI’] for having included its name and mining lease area in the Schedules appended to the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 20142 [for short ‘Ordinance’] even though, the Screening Committee constituted by the Ministry of Coal, Union of India had not allocated any coal block to it.
2. A quick glance at the relevant chronology of events, as narrated in the petition, are considered necessary. The petitioner had submitted an application dated 8th November, 1994 under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 19803 [for short ‘FC Act’] to the District Collector, Narsinghpur District, Narsingpur, Madhya Pradesh for permission to undertake coal mining on forest land. On 21st November, 1994, the petitioner applied to the respondent No. 2-State of Madhya Pradesh4 [for short ‘State Government’] in Form-I under the Mineral Concession Rules, 19605 [for short ‘ MC Rules ’] for grant of a mining lease. On 7th April, 1995, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent No. 1-UOI under Section 5(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 19576 [for short ‘MMDR Act’] for approval of the mining plan.
3. On 15th May, 1995, the District Collector, Narsinghpur forwarded the petitioner’s application to the Principal Secretary of the respondent No. 2-State Government with a recommendation for grant of a mining lease in its favour. In the very same month, in reply to a letter dated 5th May, 1995 received from the respondent No. 1-UOI seeking essential details regarding the approval of the mining plan, the petitioner furnished the necessary information under cover of letter dated 19th May, 1995. On 15th December, 1995, the respondent No. 1-UOI issued a letter to the petitioner calling upon it to appear before the Screening Committee in a meeting scheduled on 20th December, 1995 for screening the proposals relating to captive mining by power generation companies and companies engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel. Accordingly, the petitioner participated in the 9th Meeting held by the Screening Committee on 20th December, 1995.
4. On 23rd December, 1995, the Department of Mineral Resources of the respondent No. 2-State Government addressed a letter to the respondent No. 1-UOI for seeking prior approval under Section 5(1) of MMDR Act for grant of mining lease for coal in favour of the petitioner for a period of 30 years over an area measuring 249.243 hectares situated in Villages Mohapani, Richhai and Chargaonkhurd. On 21st June, 1996, the respondent No. 1-UOI wrote a letter to the petitioner informing it that the Screening Committee had identified “Gotitoria (East and West) Coal Blocks” in Mohapani Coalfield, Madhya Pradesh to meet the coal requirements of the captive power plant and that the petitioner should approach the authorities for obtaining a mining lease of the specified blocks. Pertinently, a copy of the aforesaid letter was not marked by the respondent No. 1-UOI to the respondent No. 2-State Government. Instead, the same was marked to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai. The fact that the said letter was not endorsed to the respondent No. 2-State Government was also confirmed by the respondent No. 1-UOI in its reply dated 10th April, 2015 to a query raised in an application under the Right to Information Act, 20057 [for short ‘RTI’].
5. On its part, the petitioner responded to the letter dated 21st June, 1996 sent by the respondent No. 1-Union of India by writing back on 3rd July, 1996, stating inter-alia that it had already applied to the State Government in the prescribed form for grant of a mining lease through the District Collector, Narsinghpur, Madhya Pradesh and the said proposal had been recommended by the respondent No. 2-State Government to the Ministry of Coal f
