##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Reserved on: 15.12.2025

Pronounced on 30.12.2025

Uploaded on 30.12.2025

Whether the operative part or full

judgment is pronounced: Full judgment.

CJ Court:

LPA No. 60/2022

CM No. 3928/2022

c/w

LPA No. 61/2022

CM No. 3929/2022

M/s Jai Ganesh Disposals, Shop No. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

115/6 Transport Nagar, Jammu through

Sole Proprietor Sudesh Kumar

Sawhney, age 67 years, S/o Late Ram

Parkash Sawhney, R/o H. No. 183

Shalamar Road, Jammu.

Through: Ms. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate

v/s

…. Respondent(s)

1. Union of India through Secretary to

Government, Ministry of Corporate

Affairs, Government of India, New

Delhi.

2. N.T.P.C. Limited, Badarpur Thermal

Power Station, Bhadarpur, New Delhi

Through, Managing Director.

3. M.S.T.C. Limited, Jewan Vikas

Building 30/31 Asaf Ali Road,

Opposite Hamdard New Delhi through

Senior Manager.

2

LPA Nos. 60/2025 & 61/2025

4. Senior Manager Store, Badarpur

Thermal Power Station Bhadarpur,

New Delhi, through Managing

Director.

Through: Mr. Dheeraj Nanda, CGSC &

Mr. Harshwardhan Gupta, CGSC.

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.

JUDGMENT

-

‘OSWAL J’

1. Two writ petitions filed by the appellant, i.e. OWP No. 1452/2010 and

OWP No. 1552/2010, were dismissed by the learned Writ Court vide a

common judgment dated 13.04.2022. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant has

preferred two separate intra-court appeals, being LPA No. 60/2022 and

LPA No. 61/2022, assailing the said common judgment dated 13.04.2022.

Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and involve

identical questions of fact and law, the same are being disposed of by this

common judgment.

2. It is contended by the appellant that the learned Writ Court has not

appreciated the controversy in its right perspective and dismissed the writ

petitions preferred by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had

not lifted the Coal Mill Reject (CMR) with stones within the stipulated

period, whereas Coal Mill Reject constitutes a distinct and separate

material. It is further contended that the learned Writ Court has not

appreciated the fact that despite repeated requests made by the appellant

to NTPC for extension of time for lifting the stock and for allotment of

alternative land for shifting the material in terms of NTPC‟s own

3

LPA Nos. 60/2025 & 61/2025

rehabilitation policy, no due consideration was accorded to such requests.

According to the appellant, the learned Writ Court, has wrongly

concluded that the rehabilitation policy was inapplicable to the appellant

and was meant only for project-affected people.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeals are extracted from

OWP 1542/2010. It is stated that, in the month of November, 2008, a lot

of Coal Mill Reject lying at Baderpur, New Delhi was purchased by the

appellant and whole amount was paid by the appellant along with security

to respondent No. 2. The said lot had been, in fact, advertised for sale by

respondent No. 3 under the banner of “Coal Mill Reject”. However, after

the purchase, it was found that the material was mixed with pebbles and

stones.

5. The appellant claimed to have sold the said Coal Mill Reject to a number

of Brick Kilns and lime units and the appellant received numerous

complaints from the purchasers of the product. Accordingly, the appellant

approached respondent No. 2 requesting it to disclose the composition of

the Coal Mill Reject, so that the appellant could be in a position to explain

the same to its purchaser and when request of the appellant was not

responded to by respondent No. 2, the appellant brought it to the notice of

Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi vide its

communications dated 22.09.2009 and 16.11.2009.

6. It was further contended by the appellant that instead of informing the

composition of the Coal Mill Reject, the respondent No. 2 wrote a letter

dated 10.02.2010 to the appella