ORDER :

[Arvind Singh Chandel, J.]

1. Heard Dr. Nirmal Shukla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Shri Shailendra Shukla and Shri Himank Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents.

2. Initially, this petition was preferred by the petitioner as Writ Petition (C) No.3036 of 2022 for the following reliefs:

“10. Reliefs Sought:-

The Petitioner most humbly prays for the following reliefs:-

10.1. That, the Hon’ble High Court be kindly pleased to issue a direction that the Learned Coal Tribunal, District Judge, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) dispose of the matter finally within 90 days from the date of order passed by this Hon’ble Court without fail.

10.2. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and appropriate.”

3. When the matter was taken up by a learned Single Judge on 12.7.2022, it was observed and directed as under:

“xxx xxx xxx

Considering the nature of dispute, this court is of the opinion that the writ petition has been wrongly classified as WPC. It has to be under the classification of WP(227).

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Registrar (Judicial) for taking necessary steps in this regard, who, in turn, after necessary correction may list it before the appropriate Bench having roster.”

4. Thereafter, this petition has been converted into Writ Petition (227) No.436 of 2022. When the matter was heard by another learned Single Judge on 2.8.2022, it was observed as follows:

“xxx xxx xxx

Considering the submissions, prima-facie, I am of the view that the Tribunal has been constituted under Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 which is not a Civil Court, therefore, the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench decided on 26.03.2019 in WP 227 No.245 of 2019 has not specifically dealt with the issue as to whether the writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. Therefore, to settle the legal question, the matter needs to be heard and decided by the larger Bench.

The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to place this matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for obtaining necessary orders.”

5. On the above factual backgrounds, this petition has been listed before us.

6. As referred to by the learned Single Judge, the only question for consideration before us is that “whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution will lie” in respect of a matter, which relates to the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.

7. Vide this petition, a direction was sought by the petitioner that the learned District Judge, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in his capacity as Coal Tribunal, Bilaspur, constituted under the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 and the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, be directed to dispose of the matter bearing Part Time Tribunal Case No.24 of 2019 (Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited v. Union of India and others) within 90 days as per the mandate of Section 27(3) of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015.

8. It would be appropriate to first reproduce the provisions of Section 27 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, which run as follows:

“27. Dispute settlement and Bar of Jurisdiction of civil courts.—(1) Any dispute arising out of any action of the Central Government, nominated authority or Commissioner of payment or designated custodian, or any dispute between the successful bidder or allottee and prior allottee arising out of any issue connected with the Act shall be adjudicated by the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957).

(2) Where the Central Government is of the opinion that any dispute arising out of any issue connected with the Act exists or is apprehended and the dispute should be adjudicated by the Tribunal referred to in