The public trust doctrine enjoins the government to protect natural resources for public benefit and mandates affirmative state action for effective management of natural resources.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. This petition impugns the letter dated 02.07.2003 of the Ministry of Coal, Government of India, de-allocating the “Utkal-A captive coal block for supply of coal to the proposed Duburi Thermal Power Station” of the petitioner. The petition also seeks to restrain the respondents from allotting „the area in question?to anyone else including the respondent No.5 Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. or to the respondent No.6 Coal India Ltd. (CIL). The petitioner also seeks mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to carry on the development and other activities necessary for the project. Before the notice of this petition could be issued, Jindal Thermal Power Company Ltd. And Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Ltd. applied for impleadment averring that the „coal mine in question?after de-allocation from the petitioner stood allotted to them and any decision in this petition would affect their rights. They were impleaded as respondents No.7&8. Notice of the petition was issued. Pleadings have been completed and the counsels have been heard. The counsel for the petitioner has also filed a synopsis of submissions.

2. The petitioner proposes to set up a 2x250 MW coal based thermal power plant at Duburi in Jajpur district of Orissa; the capacity of the power plant is proposed to be expanded by another 500 MW in the second phase. For meeting the coal requirement for the power plant, the Ministry of Coal, Government of India vide letter dated 10.08.1993 allotted the aforesaid Utkal-A Coal Block to the petitioner under the Scheme for Allotment of Captive Coal Mining Blocks to Power, Steel and Cement Sectors.

3. The letter dated 02.07.2003 impugned in this petition, while cancelling the aforesaid allotment in favour of the petitioner, records:

(i) that the progress of the coal mining development project as well as the proposed captive thermal power station was reviewed in the various meetings of the Screening Committee from time to time;

(ii) that in the meeting on 03.04.1996, it was informed by the CIL that the petitioner had not made any progress with regard to the development of the captive block and even the exploration cost had not been paid to CIL; accordingly a decision was taken that unless the exploration cost was paid within thirty days, the offer for the captive mining block shall be liable for cancellation;

(iii) that in the meeting held on 14.11.1996, the Director of the petitioner Company had informed that no steps for development of the captive mining block had been taken till then i.e. for three years, since the Power Purchase Agreement in respect of the proposed Duburi Thermal Power Station was under revision and further since the requisite approvals for the mining project had not been received till then;

(iv) in the meeting of the Screening Committee held on 26-27.09.1997, it was noted that the petitioner inspite of several communications had not paid the exploration charges till then; it was again decided that unless the exploration charges were paid within three months, the allotment will be cancelled;

(v) that in the meeting of the Screening Committee held on 03.04.1998, it was observed that in the absence of a fixed time frame, the said block may be considered for other applicants; the representative of the petitioner present in the said meeting had also explained the problem being faced by the petitioner in implementing the power project inasmuch as the Government of Orissa had backed out of the MOU on purchase of power; the Screening Committee deferred the decision by three months;

(vi) in the meeting of the Screening Committee held on 24.08.1998, the matter was again deferred;

(vii) in the meeting of the Screening Committee held on 18/19.06.1999, it was again noticed that the petitioner had not paid the exploration charges till then and that the representative of the petitioner had informed that though the mining plan had been submitted by the petitioner but had been found to be based on