Chattisgarh High Court
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
WP227 No. 436 of 2022
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Versus Union Of India
02/08/2022 Dr. Nirmal Shukla, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Shailendra Shukla,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents.
Learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner would submit that the coal block
was allocated to the petitioner's company during lifetime of Coal Mines
(Special Provisions) second ordinance 2014 and the said ordinance was
repealed by the Government of India. However, the ordinance was substituted
by Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015. Section 27 of Coal Mines
(Special Provisions) Act, 2015 reads as under:-
27. Dispute settlement and Bar of Jurisdiction of civil
courts.--(1) Any dispute arising out of any action of the
Central Government, nominated authority or Commissioner
of payment or designated custodian, or any dispute between
the successful bidder or allottee and prior allottee arising out
of anyissue connected with the Act shall be adjudicated by
the Tribunal constituted under the Coal BearingAreas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957).
(2) Where the Central Government is of the opinion that any
dispute arising out of any issueconnected with the Act exists
or is apprehended and the dispute should be adjudicated by
the Tribunalreferred to in sub-section (1), then, the Central
Government may by order in writing,refer the dispute orany
matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the
dispute, to the Tribunal for adjudication.
(3) The Tribunal referred to in sub-section (1) shall, after
hearing the parties to the dispute, make an
award in writing within a period of ninety days from the
institution or reference of the dispute.
(4) On and from the commencement of the Act, no court or
other authority, except the Supreme Court and a High Court,
shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction,
powers or authority, in relation to
matters connected with the Act.
If any dispute arising out of any action of Central Government,
nominated authority, Commissioner of payment or designated custodian or
any dispute between the successful bidders or allottees and prior allottees out
of any issue connected with the Act shall be adjudicated by Tribunal
constituted under Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act,
1957. He would further submit that in pursuance of that provisions of Act the
petitioner has filed an application before District Judge, Bilaspur who has been
appointed as part time Tribunal, which has been notified by Government of
India vide notification dated 23.09.2019. He would further submit that the
proceedings are pending before him and thereafter the present petition was
filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the direction be issued to learned
District Judge, Bilaspur to dispose of the matter finally within 90 days from the
date of order passed by this Court.
Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner also refers to the judgment in the
matter of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others 2003 (6) SCC
675, Radhey Shyam and Anr. vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. Jagdish Prasad
vs. Iqbal Kaur and Ors AIR 2015 SC 3269, Dr. Khursheed Khan vs. State
of Chhattisgarh 2021 SCC online Chh 3852, Anil Mishra vs. Sakshi
Mishra 2017 SCC online Chh 1573 and Central Coalfields Limited
through Its General Manager (Administration) Gopal Prasad vs. Kapurni
Khatun 2019 SCC online Jhar 1210 and would submit that the writ petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable as the coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.03.2019 in WP 227 No. 245 of 2019
has decided this issue.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Solicitor General would submit
that the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not
maintainable as the Tribunal is not a Ci436vil Court, therefore, they have to file
it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of
maintainability of the writ petition and considered the rival submission made
herein above.
Considering the submissions, primafacie, I am of the view that the
Tribunal has been constituted under Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 which is not a Civil Court, therefore, the judgment
passed by the coordinate Bench decided on 26.03.2019 in WP 227 No. 245 of
2019 has not specifically dealt with the issue as to whether the writ petition
under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. Therefore,
to settle the legal question, the matter needs to be heard and decided by the
larger Bench.
The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to place this matter before Hon'ble
the Chief Justice for obtaining necessary orders.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
santosh
