BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

1. These writ petitions raise some overlapping issues pertaining to coal block auctions and are, therefore, being considered together. First of all, we shall take up the petition – Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited v. Union of India (WP(C) 1501/2015).

Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited

2. In this petition, the following prayers were made:-

“(a) Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of like nature and set aside Clause 3.3.2 at page 119 of the Standard Tender Document issued by Respondent No. 2 as being violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 39 (b) of the Constitution of India;

(b) pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of like nature and set aside the Order dated 18.12.2014 having No. 13016/9/2014-CA-III as being in violation of Section 3 of the Coal Mines (Special Provision) Second Ordinance 2014 and being in violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 39 (b) of the Constitution of India;

(c) pass a writ, order or direction declaring that the list of qualified bidders in Clause 3.3.2 of the Tender Document consisting of 50% of the bidders or five in number (whichever is higher) which may result into packing of the list by one company which has bifurcated its end use plants into separate units;

(d) pass a writ, order declaring that “generation of power for captive use” ought to be categorized as per Section 3(1)(v)(ii) of the Coal Mines (Special Provision) Second Ordinance 2014 alongwith “generation of power” unless such captive power plant is used for production of power for the specified end uses mentioned in Section 3(1)(v)(i), (iii), (iv) or (v).

(e) pass such other and further orders as this Hon‘ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

Insofar as prayers (a) and (c) are concerned, they relate to Clause 3.3.2 and the same was given up by the learned counsel for the appellant in the course of arguments before us. Therefore, there are essentially two reliefs which have been sought. One is for setting aside the order dated 18.12.2014 as being in violation of Section 3 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Second Ordinance, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Second Ordinance’). It may be pointed out at this juncture itself that the said Second Ordinance has now been replaced by an Act. However, since at that time of the filing of the petitions, it was the said Second Ordinance which was in place, we shall refer to the same. The second relief that has been sought is essentially tied up with the first one inasmuch as a declaration is sought that the generation of power for captive use ought to be categorized in terms of Section 3(1)(v)(ii) of the said Second Ordinance along with ‘generation of power’ and not separately.

3. Section 3(1)(v) of the said Second Ordinance is as under:-

“3. (1) In this Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires,—

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(v) “specified end-use” means any of the following end-uses and the expression "specified end user" shall with its grammatical variations be construed accordingly,—

(i) production of iron and steel;

(ii) generation of power including the generation of power for captive use;

(iii) washing of coal obtained from a mine;

(iv) cement;

(v) such other end-use as the Central Government may, by notification, specify;

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx”

The said provision defines specified end-use to mean (1) production of iron and steel; (2) generation of power including the generation of power for captive use; (3) washing of coal obtained from a mine; (4) cement; and (5) such other end-use as the Central Government may, by notification, specify. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said definition of specific end-use is an exhaustive definition. There are four specified end-uses and the fifth