JUDGMENT :

Jyoti Singh, J.

1. Since both these appeals have been filed challenging the orders dated 31.01.2018, 21.02.2018 and 07.03.2018, and have similar grounds they are being disposed of by a common order. LPA No. 173/2018 has been filed by the Union of India and LPA No. 169/2018 has been filed by Coal India Limited assailing the three orders mentioned above. For the sake of convenience, Union of India is hereinafter being referred to as appellant No. 1 and Coal India Limited as appellant No. 2.

2. The brief and necessary facts relevant for adjudication of the present appeals, as culled out from the pleadings of the parties on record, are as under:-

a. An application was originally made for Coal Linkage by Reliance Mineral Resources Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘RMRL’) to the Ministry of Coal on 05.05.2006 stating therein that Reliance Energy Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘REL’) was selected as implementing agency for setting up 130MW coal-based Group Captive Power Plant (hereinafter referred to as GCPP) at Butibori Nagpur, through International competitive bidding. A request was made for long-term coal linkage with preferred source of coal as Western Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘WCL).

b. On 19.02.2007, a letter was received by appellant No. 1 from Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘VIPL) informing them that the name of the company had been changed to Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. from RMRL and request was made for additional long-term coal linkage, as it was decided to enhance the capacity of the GCPP from 130MW to 300 MW, so as to supply power to Industrial Consumers of Butibori/Hingna and other industrial areas of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘MIDC’). Vide letter dated 07.03.2007, Appellant No. 1 sought clarification from the Ministry of Power as to whether VIPL (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1) is to be treated as Independent Power Plant (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPP’) or Captive Power Plant (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPP’), as per the Ministry’s guidelines. Vide OM dated 30.04.2007, Ministry of Power (hereinafter referred to as MOP) informed appellant No. 1 about the conditions which were required to be fulfilled by a CPP, as per Electricity Rules, 2005 viz.; (a) not less than 26% of the ownership to be held by captive user and (b) not less than 51% of the aggregate electricity generated in such a plant to be consumed for captive use. For an IPP status, the tariff policy of 2006 required that all future requirements of the power had to be procured competitively by the Distribution Licensee. The MOP left the discretion of deciding the status of respondent No. 1 on appellant No. 1.

c. Appellant No. 1 thereafter requested respondent No. 1 to clarify whether their plant was IPP or CPP and submit the supporting documents.

d. The Central Electricity Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘CEA’) looked into the status of Respondent No. 1 and based on the documents submitted before it, opined, that as per the guidelines, the proposed project of Respondent No.1 could be categorized only as a Group Captive Power Plant and not as IPP. Respondent No. 1 who had been seeking to be classified as an IPP project, on 15.10.2007, wrote to the Chairman, Standing Linkage Committee (Long Term) [hereinafter referred to as ‘SLC(LT)’] stating therein that the Government of Maharashtra had recommended the project for coal linkage, by treating the project as GCPP and the power would be mainly supplied to Industrial consumers.

e. In its meeting held on 06.11.2007, SLC(LT) recommended issue of Letter of Assurance (hereinafter referred to as ‘LOA’) to Respondent No. 1 as GCPP for its Butibori Plant, following the recommendations of MOP in this regard. One of the conditions of the LOA was that the end use of the total coal assured was for use as CPP.

f. At this stage, it is relevant to point out that the two coal companies, Appellant No.2 - C