Delhi High Court
Electrosteel Castings Limted vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 November, 2015
$~5&75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM No.27080/2015 in W.P.(C) 3455/2015
ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMTED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Gaurav Juneja & Mr. Vaibhav
Choudhary, Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with
Mr. A. Mukherjee & Mr. Prashant
Ghai, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Gp. Cpt. Karan Singh Bhati, Advs. for
CIL & BCCL.
Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora & Ms.
Shreya Agarwal, Advs. for R-3.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 11092/2015 & CM No.28746/2015 (for stay)
ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Gaurav Juneja & Mr. Vaibhav
Choudhary, Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with
Mr. A. Mukherjee & Mr. Prashant
Ghai, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Gp. Cpt. Karan Singh Bhati, Advs. for
CIL & BCCL.
W.P.(C) 3455/2015& W.P.(C) 11092/2015 Page 1 of 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 30.11.2015
CMs No. 28747/2015 & 28748/2015 (both for exemptions) in W.P.(C)
No.11092/2015.
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The applications are disposed of.
CM No.27080/2015 (of the petitioner for directions) in W.P.(C) No.
3455/2015
3. The senior counsel for the applicant under instructions states that since
fresh W.P.(C) No.11092/2015 has been filed, this application is not pressed .
4. Dismissed as not pressed.
W.P.(C) No.11092/2015
5. The petition impugns the order dated 26 th March, 2015 of the
Nominated Authority (NA) under Section 6 of the Coal Mines (Special
Provisions) Act, 2015 in the matter of disposal of coal stock in respect of
Schedule II coal mines. The petition axiomatically seeks a direction to the
respondent No.3 Steel Authority India Ltd. (SAIL) being the subsequent
allottee of the coal mine of which the petitioner was the prior allottee, to
transfer the sale proceeds of the coal stock to the petitioner after the same is
sold or consumed itself by the respondent No.3 SAIL.
6. Having prima facie not found any merit in the petition, the senior
counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length.
7. The petitioner had challenged the same order dated 26 th March, 2015
earlier also in W.P.(C) No.3455/2015 which was disposed of vide order
dated 13th April, 2015.
8. The order dated 26th March, 2015 required the prior allottees as the
petitioner to remove the coal stock within a period of seven calendar days i.e.
by 8th April, 2015 and further provided that upon the failure of the prior
allottee to remove the said coal stock by 8th April, 2015, the subsequent
allottee, as the respondent No.3 SAIL is in the present case, shall be entitled
to dispose of such stock of coal and appropriate the sale proceeds to the
extent to recover any cost incurred in removal, storage, sale and disposal of
such coal stock and pay the remaining sale proceeds to the NA.
9. In the order dated 13th April, 2015 in the earlier writ petition filed by
the petitioner, the petitioner only pressed for extension of time for removal
of the coal stock and the said petition was disposed of by extending such
time and leaving open the question whether the money received from the
sale proceeds, in the event of the petitioner not being able to so remove the
coal stock, enure to the benefit of the petitioner, to be examined if and when
the sale takes place.
10. Suffice it is to state that the petitioner did remove the coal stock within
such extended time also and the coal stock remains in the coal mine which
since stands allotted to respondent No.3 SAIL.
11. It has as such been enquired from the senior counsel for the petitioner
as to how the petitioner can maintain a second petition entailing the same
challenge to order dated 26th March, 2015 inasmuch as as per the order dated
13th April, 2015 in the earlier petition, the petitioner is now only entitled to
claim the sale proceeds as and when the sale happens and which sale has not
happened till now.
12. The senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner
in this petition is challenging the order dated 26 th March, 2015 "insofar as it
deprives the petitioner of its proprietory rights over the coal stock".
13. I am afraid, the challenge on all grounds has to be in one go and the
petitioner having given up the challenge to the order dated 26 th March, 2015
in the earlier petition cannot now urge that it is entitled to challenge
the same on some new ground, even if not taken in the earlier petition. The
principles of res judicata and principles akin thereto as well as the principles
of estoppel clearly apply.
14. The senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to Section
10(5) of the Act aforesaid and especially to first proviso thereto and has
contended that thereunder the remaining sale proceeds are to be deposited
with the Central Government towards any compensation that may be payable
to the owner of such movable property sold.
15. Though there is some ambiguity whether Section 10 including Sub-
Section (5) thereof would apply to the coal stocks or applies only to movable
property used in coal mining operations but the same is not necessary to be
adjudicated for the purposes of the present petition. Suffice it is to state that
even if the same were to be applicable, what has been provided by the order
dated 26th March, 2015 to be done is not found to be in contravention
thereof. As and when the respondent No.3 SAIL transfers the remaining sale
proceeds of the coal stocks to the Central Government (and which powers
are being exercised by the NA), it would be open to the petitioner to make a
claim to the Central Government / NA and only if such claim is denied,
would a cause of action accrue to the petitioner.
16. The senior counsel for the petitioner has then drawn attention to the
letter dated 18th November, 2015 written by the petitioner to the respondent
No.3 SAIL asking the respondent No.3 SAIL to inform whether it proposes
to consume the coal stock itself or intends to sell the same. It is argued that
no response thereto has been received and the respondent No.3 SAIL should
be asked to respond thereto.
17. No obligation of respondent No.3 SAIL as a subsequent allottee of the
coal mine to respond to a prior allottee of the subject coal mine is shown or
borne out from any of the provisions. There is nothing to show that
respondent No.3 SAIL would not act in accordance with the laws and the
order dated 26th March, 2015.
18. Accordingly, leaving it open to the petitioner to make a claim if
entitled to, for the sale proceeds once deposited with the Central Government
/ NA, the petition is dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
NOVEMBER 30, 2015
„gsr‟..
