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.

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 for