Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
M/s AT DEV PRABHA (JV), Saraidhella, Dhanbad through its Authorized Signatory - Petitioner
Versus
The Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad and others - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 931 of 2018
Decided on : 21-06-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Kumar Sundaram, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
The notings in the file cannot be relied upon for judicial review unless a final decision is taken by the designated authority.
Headnote:
Deviation Proposal - Quashing of Board's Decision - [Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 21, Section 22, Section 23, Section 24, Section 25, Section 26, Section 27, Section 28] - The court discussed the decision-making process of the Board, the remarks of the Advisor (Proc. & Vig.) CIL, and the opinions/views of various authorities. The court emphasized that the notings in the file cannot be relied upon for judicial review unless a final decision is taken by the designated authority. The court directed the respondent-BCCL to take a final decision expeditiously, considering all relevant aspects without being influenced by previous Board meetings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was awarded a work contract by the respondent-BCCL for hiring of HEMM for coal extraction. The petitioner faced difficulties due to the working area's shape and sought a deviation proposal, which was initially approved but later not confirmed by the Board. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notings in the file cannot be relied upon for judicial review unless a final decision is taken by the designated authority. The court directed the respondent-BCCL to take a final decision expeditiously, considering all relevant aspects without being influenced by previous Board meetings.
Issues: The issues involved the arbitrary decision of the Board not to confirm the 1st deviation proposal and the procedure adopted by the respondent-BCCL in arriving at the decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The notings in the file cannot be relied upon for judicial review unless a final decision is taken by the designated authority. The court directed the respondent-BCCL to take a final decision expeditiously, considering all relevant aspects without being influenced by previous Board meetings.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent-BCCL to take a final decision expeditiously, considering all relevant aspects without being influenced by previous Board meetings.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Board’s decision of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as “BCCL”) taken in the 336th Board meeting held on 09.12.2017, whereby it has been decided by the Board not to confirm the decision taken in 317th Board meeting with respect to 1st deviation proposal of Lodna Area Management for the work of “hiring of HEMM for removal of OB and extraction and transportation of coal from VIII, VII, V/VI, IV(Top), IV(Bot), III, II (Top), II (Bot) and I seams of patch F of Jeenagora Colliery, a part of NT-ST(expansion) project of Lodna Area” issued vide Tender Notice No. 142 (Reference No. BCCL/GM(CMC)/F-HEMM-OS/2014/2231) dated 15.05.2014.
2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent-BCCL floated a tender vide Tender Notice no. 142 for the work of “hiring of HEMM for removal of OB and extraction and transportation of coal from VIII, VII, V/VI, IV(Top), IV(Bot), III, II (Top), II (Bot) and I seams of patch F of Jeenagora colliery, a part of NT-ST(expansion) project of Lodna Area”. The petitioner being a joint venture firm participated in the NIT and was declared lowest successful bidder. Thereafter, a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) was issued in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 25.09.2014 in pursuance of which it furnished the Performance Bank Guarantee worth Rs. 9.04 Cr. on 20.11.2014. According to the petitioner, when it started the work, several difficulties were faced due to small area and shape available for extraction. The authorities of the respondent-BCCL visited the site and noticed that the existing site required expansion and accordingly, the petitioner was asked to submit a letter of consent for annexation of certain more area with the existing one with an undertaking to execute the work upon the contracted price itself on the same terms and conditions with further undertaking to complete the entire work including the extended work within a time frame. Accordingly, the petitioner vide letter dated 18.07.2015, gave its consent for the 1st deviation of the awarded work of “hiring of HEMM (heavy Earth Moving Machinery) for removal OB (over burden) and extraction and transportation of coal from VIII, VII, V/VI, IV(Top), IV(Bot), III, II(Top), II(Bot) and I seams of patch-F of Jeenagora colliery, a part of NT-ST (expansion) Project of Lodna Area” for revision of quantity of OB, dumped loose OB, Jhama and Coal on account of annexation of patches “D D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13” and A a b c d A2 e f g h I j k l m n o p K L M N O P Q A” with that of the existing patch “F”. The petitioner also gave its undertaking to complete the work as per existing terms and conditions of contract with no right to make any additional claim for execution of additional quantity. The petitioner further undertook to complete the extended work, if further 48 months would be allowed to it. Thereafter, the respondent authorities asked the petitioner to give another letter of consent with the similar undertaking, however, reducing the time frame to complete the work from extended 48 months to 36 months only. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another letter dated 23.07.2015 with an undertaking that the job shall be completed within the time frame of 36 months only. The proposal of the petitioner was placed in the 317th Board meeting vide item no. 317-3R and the same was approved. In the meantime, a complaint was received against the petitioner with respect to the decision taken in 317th Board meeting thus, by the decision of 318th Board meeting, the said complaint was forwarded for enquiry to the Vigilance Department. Thereafter, the respondents did not issue any formal work order. However, the Chief Vigilance Officer submitted report on 16.04.2016 stating that the complaint is without any substantial merit. The DGMS who is a central authority for mines safety, vide letter dated 13.05.2016 stated that the w
