Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3939
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J.
Electrosteel Castings Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 8006 of 2023, CM APPL. 30822 of 2023, CM APPL. 30823 of 2023& CM APPL. 30824 of 2023
Decided On : 17-08-2023
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Lavania, Ms. Monika Singh, Mr. Hemant Kothari, Mr. Ayush Kashyap and Mr. Vikram Dalal, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC for UOI (through VC) with Ms. Kanika Kharbanda, Ms. Gurleen Kaur and Mr.Vikramaditya, Advocates, for the Respondent-1 & 2.
Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjaya Mishra, Mr. Navneet Dogra and Ms. Ira Mahajan, Advocates, for the Respondent.
The determination of compensation for land and mine infrastructure should be with reference to the date of the execution of the vesting order. Staying the vesting order would cause irreparable injury to the successful bidder and affect the extraction of coal on a continuous basis, which would not be in line with the legislation's objective of ensuring continuity in coal mining operations and production of coal.
Headnote:
The petitioner, a prior allottee of a coal block, sought compensation for its land and mine infrastructure after the block was de-allocated. The court considered the petitioner's claim for compensation under Section 16 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015. The court found that the compensation for land and mine infrastructure should be determined with reference to the date of the execution of the vesting order. The court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged the notice inviting bids, the tender document, or the declaration of the successful bidder. The court dismissed the petitioner's application for interim relief, stating that staying the vesting order would cause irreparable injury to the successful bidder and affect the extraction of coal on a continuous basis, which would not be in line with the legislation's objective of ensuring continuity in coal mining operations and production of coal.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Mahajan, J.
CM APPL. 30822/2023 (Application for interim relief)
1. Aggrieved by the inaction of respondents no.1 and 2 in determining the compensation which is due and payable to the Petitioner towards its land and mine infrastructure in respect of the Parbatpur Coal Block, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Declare that the Respondent No. 2's decision to not classify `Pits' as Mine Infrastructure is ultra vires the Act and accordingly declare that the `Pit' is Mine Infrastructure in terms of Section 3(1)(j) of the Act.
(b) Declare that 'Coal Washery' is Mine Infrastructure in terms of Section 3(1)(j) of the Act.
(c) Declare that all costs (apart from the costs for statutory consents/permits) which form part of the entry of "Mine Planning and Design expenses" in the audited balance sheet of the Petitioner are to be compensated as Mine Infrastructure in terms of Section 3(1)(j) of the Act.
(d) Declare that the decision of Respondent No. 2 to not classify `movable' assets that are meant for mining operations as Mine Infrastructure is ultra vires the Act.
(e) Declare that the list of assets, which form part of Annexure 28as Mine Infrastructure in terms of the Section 3(1)(j) of the Act.
(f) Declare that the quantum of `Land' pertaining to the Coal Block should be considered in terms of Section 3(1)(p) of the Act and the same to be valued based on circle rates in the `Commercial category'.
(g) Consequently, issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) directing the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to promptly determine and disburse the compensation due to the Petitioner for Land, Mine Infrastructure, costs for statutory consents/permits and costs for preparation of Geological Reports before the vesting of the Coal Block."
2. Vide the present interim application, the petitioner is seeking a direction to respondents no.1 and 2 to not vest the assets of the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.3/successful bidder, primarily on the ground that determination and disbursal of compensation for the aforesaid assets have not been done till date. The prayer made by the petitioner in the application reads thus:
"(a) Direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to not vest any asset that has not been taken over and for which the determination of fair valuation and the consequent disbursement of compensation in favour of Petitioner is pending as the same would amount to violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India;"
FACTS
3. The brief facts relevant for adjudicating the present application is that on 07.07.2005, the petitioner in accordance with Section 3(3)(a)(iii) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 was allocated the Parbatpur Central Coal Block situated in Jharkhand [in short `the coal block'] to meet the coal requirement of its 5.8 lakh tonne per annum capacity sponge iron project at Kardah in West Bengal and Kalahasti in Andhra Pradesh.
4. The said coal block was de-allocated by the Supreme Court in 2014 vide its judgment titled Manohar Lal Sharma vs. The Principal Secretary and Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 516. As a corollary to the de-allocation, a prior allottee is liable to be compensated for its Land and Mine Infrastructure. Thus, to compensate prior allottees for the investment made by them and to ensure continuity in coal mining operations, the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 [in short `the Act'] was introduced.
5. To be noted, the coal block that was allotted to the petitioner and then de-allocated has been classified as a Schedule-I mine under the Act.
6. Under the Act, the petitioner is to be compensated in terms of Section 16 of the Act. Apt would it be to refer to Section 16 at this juncture, which reads as under:
"16. Valuation of compensation for payment to prior allottee.-(1) The quantum of compensation for the land in relation to Schedule I coal mines shall be as per the registered sale deeds lodged with the nominated autho
