Chattisgarh High Court
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan ... vs Union Of India on 15 December, 2022
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (227) No.436 of 2022
Order Reserved on : 8.12.2022
Order Passed on : 15.12.2022
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. through Shri Arvind
Kumar Agrawal, Superintending Engineer (Fuel RVUN, Jaipur), S/o
Shri Raghuveer Sharan Saral, aged about 56 years, Authorised
Signatory of the Petitioner, R/o H178 Indira Nagar Jagatpura Jaipur
(Now through Ashok Prasad, S/o Late Shri B. Prasad, aged about 57
years, R/o C.R. Heights Near Kharsia Road, Ambikapur, District
Surguja (Chhattisgarh) working as Executive Engineer and Authorised
Representative of the Petitioner)
---- Petitioner
versus
1. Union of India, through its Secretary Ministry of Coal, Government of
India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001
2. The Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, World
Trade Tower, Ground Floor, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi - 110001
--- Respondents
For Petitioner : Dr. Nirmal Shukla, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Shri Shailendra Shukla and Shri Himank Saluja,
Advocates
For Respondents : Shri Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Singh Chandel, Judge
C.A.V. ORDER
Per Arvind Singh Chandel, J.
1. Heard Dr. Nirmal Shukla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Shri
Shailendra Shukla and Shri Himank Saluja, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Also heard Shri Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy
Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents.
2. Initially, this petition was preferred by the petitioner as Writ Petition
(C) No.3036 of 2022 for the following reliefs:
"10. Reliefs Sought:-
The Petitioner most humbly prays for the following
reliefs:-
10.1. That, the Hon'ble High Court be kindly pleased to
issue a direction that the Learned Coal Tribunal,
District Judge, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) dispose of the
matter finally within 90 days from the date of order
passed by this Hon'ble Court without fail.
10.2. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and appropriate."
3. When the matter was taken up by a learned Single Judge on
12.7.2022, it was observed and directed as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
Considering the nature of dispute, this court is of the
opinion that the writ petition has been wrongly classified as
WPC. It has to be under the classification of WP(227).
The petitioner is directed to appear before the Registrar
(Judicial) for taking necessary steps in this regard, who, in turn,
after necessary correction may list it before the appropriate
Bench having roster."
4. Thereafter, this petition has been converted into Writ Petition (227)
No.436 of 2022. When the matter was heard by another learned
Single Judge on 2.8.2022, it was observed as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
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."
5. On the above factual backgrounds, this petition has been listed
before us.
6. As referred to by the learned Single Judge, the only question for
consideration before us is that "whether a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution or a writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution will lie" in respect of a matter, which relates to the
Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957.
7. Vide this petition, a direction was sought by the petitioner that the
learned District Judge, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in his capacity as
Coal Tribunal, Bilaspur, constituted under the Coal Mines (Special
Provisions) Act, 2015 and the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957, be directed to dispose of the matter
bearing Part Time Tribunal Case No.24 of 2019 (Rajasthan Rajya
Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited v. Union of India and others) within
90 days as per the mandate of Section 27(3) of the Coal Mines
(Special Provisions) Act, 2015.
8. It would be appropriate to first reproduce the provisions of Section
27 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, which run as
follows:
"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 any issue
connected with the Act shall be adjudicated by the Tribunal
constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957).
(2) Where the Central Government is of the opinion that
any dispute arising out of any issue connected with the Act
exists or is apprehended and the dispute should be adjudicated
by the Tribunal referred to in sub-section (1), then, the Central
Government may by order in writing, refer the dispute or any
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."
9. The Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue whether a writ
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will lie against
the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 620 (Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe
Buildhome Private Limited), observed thus:
"21. Whether the National Commission can be said to be
a tribunal for the purpose of exercise of powers under Article
227 of the Constitution of India by the High Court is concerned,
has been considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the
case of Associate Cement Companies Limited (supra), which is
required to be referred to. In paragraphs 44 and 45, it is
observed and held as under:
"44. An authority other than a court may be
vested by statute with judicial power in widely different
circumstances, which it would be impossible and indeed
inadvisable to attempt to define exhaustively. The proper
thing is to examine each case as it arises, and to ascertain
whether the powers vested in the authority can be truly
described as judicial functions or judicial powers of the
State. For the purpose of this case, it is sufficient to say
that any outside authority empowered by the State to
determine conclusively the rights of two or more
contending parties with regard to any matter in
controversy between them satisfies the test of an authority
vested with the judicial powers of the State and may be
regarded as a tribunal within the meaning of Article 136.
Such a power of adjudication implies that the authority
must act judicially and must determine the dispute by
ascertainment of the relevant facts on the materials before
it and by application of the relevant law to those facts.
This test of a tribunal is not meant to be exhaustive, and it
may be that other bodies not satisfying this test are also
tribunals. In order to be a tribunal, it is essential that the
power of adjudication must be derived from a statute or a
statutory rule. An authority or body deriving its power of
adjudication from an agreement of the parties, such as a
private arbitrator or a tribunal acting under Section 10-A
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not satisfy the
test of a tribunal within Article 136. It matters little that
such a body or authority is vested with the trappings of a
court. The Arbitration Act, 1940 vests an arbitrator with
some of the trappings of a court, so also the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 vests an authority acting under Section
10-A of the Act with many of such trappings, and yet, such
bodies and authorities are not tribunals.
45. The word "tribunal" finds place in Article
227 of the Constitution also, and I think that there also the
word has the same meaning as in Article 136."
22. Therefore, the National Commission can be said to
be a 'Tribunal' which is vested by Statute the powers to
determine conclusively the rights of two or more contending
parties with regard to any matter in controversy between them.
Therefore, as observed hereinabove in the aforesaid decision, it
satisfies the test of an authority vested with the judicial powers
of the State and therefore may be regarded as a 'Tribunal' within
the meaning of Article 227 and/or 136 of the Constitution of
India. Also, in a given case, this Court may not exercise its
powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, in view of
the remedy which may be available to the aggrieved party
before the concerned High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, as it is appropriate that aggrieved party
approaches the concerned High Court by way of writ petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."
10. From a careful reading of the provisions as contained in Section 27
of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, it is apparent that
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 any issue connected with the Act
shall be adjudicated by the Tribunal constituted under the Coal
Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
11. As held by the Supreme Court in Ibrat Faizan (supra), the proper
thing is to examine in this case as it arises, to ascertain whether the
powers vested in the Tribunal can be truly described as judicial
functions or judicial powers of the State. In the instant case, the
District Judge, Bilaspur has been appointed as the Part Time
Tribunal, which has been notified by the Government of India vide
notification dated 23.9.2019. As contained in sub-section (3) of
Section 27 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, the
Tribunal 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. It is further contained in sub-section (4) of
Section 27 that 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. Meaning thereby, the Tribunal is fully empowered to
adjudicate the matter referred to it and it has to follow the
procedure of the Civil Court, like hearing of the parties and making
of award/judgment. Thus, in our considered view, though the
subject Tribunal, constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, is not a Civil Court, it has
powers of the Civil Court vested by the Statute, i.e., the powers to
determine conclusively the rights of two or more contending parties
with regard to any matter in controversy between them and the
matters relating to such a Tribunal can be challenged under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is held that for the instant
matter, a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
maintainable.
12. List this matter before the appropriate Bench having roster.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Chief Justice Judge
Gopal
