Jharkhand Ispat Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Coal, having Office at Shastri Bhawan, P.O. Shastri Bhawan, Police Station Parliament Street, Town & District New Delhi (NCT of New Delhi)

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1041

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J., Deepak Roshan, J.
Jharkhand Ispat Pvt. Ltd., and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Coal, having Office at Shastri Bhawan, P.O. Shastri Bhawan, Police Station Parliament Street, Town & District New Delhi (NCT of New Delhi) and ors. – Respondents
W.P (C) No. 7130 of 2012,W.P (C) No. 7154 of 2012,W.P (C) No. 7331 of 2012,W.P(C) No. 2165 of 2013,W.P(C) No. 2249 of 2013,W.P(C) No. 2551 of 2013,W.P(C) No. 2552 of 2013,W.P(C) No. 7329 of 2012,W.P(C) No. 7334 of 2012,W.P(C) No.7330 of 2012
Decided On : 13-02-2025

Important Points

Writ petitions should adhere to procedural rules and timelines, with the court allowing amendments due to subsequent events.

Subject

Administrative Law - Writ Petitions

Headnote

(A) The legal proceedings primarily concern writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertaining to coal allocation and regulatory issues. The court addresses procedural aspects regarding mandatory filings and timelines. (Paras 1-9)

Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions were filed by various parties regarding coal allocation issues, with some petitions dismissed as not pressed.

Findings of Court:
Writ petitions were dismissed as not pressed and subsequent amendments were permitted.

Issues: The main issues included diligence in filing amendments and procedural compliance with court rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized adherence to procedural rules and timelines in the consideration of writ petitions, highlighting the need for prompt legal action following events.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed as not pressed; amendments allowed.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C to G.P.-II, Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate (ASGI), Ms. Niki Sinha, Advocate, CGC

Table of Content
1. dismissal of writ petitions not pressed. (Para 1 , 2)
2. amendment allowed due to subsequent events. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. amendments allowed; cases scheduled for future hearing. (Para 7)
4. cases delinked and rescheduled awaiting supreme court decision. (Para 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT :

W.P.(C) Nos. 7130 of 2012, 7154 of 2012 & 7331 of 2012

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners does want to press these writ petitions.

2. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed as not pressed.

W.P.(C) Nos. 7329 of 2012, 7330 of 2012 & 7334 of 2012

3. I.A. No. 10311 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.7329 of 2012 is filed seeking amendment to the prayer in the writ petition on account of certain subsequent events.

4. I.A. No. 10311 of 2023 is ordered since it is necessitated by subsequent events.

5. Counsel for petitioners shall file amended copy of the writ petition in W.P.(C) No.7329 of 2012 within three weeks from today.

6. Respondents shall file a counter affidavit to the amended writ petition within four weeks thereafter.

7. List these cases on 10.07.2025.

W.P.(C) Nos. 2165 of 2013, 2249 of 2013, 2551 of 2013 & 2552 of 2013

8. Let these cases be delinked from the other cases.

9. At the request of Mr. Sachin Kumar, list these cases on 07.08.2025 awaiting the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.16888 of 2017.