[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
M/S Jai Ganesh Disposals vs Respondent(S) on 30 December, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2025:JKLHC-JMU:4594-DB
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
2025:JKLHC-JMU:4594-DB
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
2025:JKLHC-JMU:4594-DB
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 appellant, thereby complaining appellant‟s poor
2025:JKLHC-JMU:4594-DB
performance in lifting the material and appellant was further asked to
mobilize all its sources to lift the balance material without any further
delay, failing which action in terms of Clause 11.9 of Special Terms and
Conditions of E-auction shall be resorted to. This communication was
followed by another communication dated 28.09.2010, whereby the
appellant was again cautioned in respect of slow progress in lifting the
Coal Mill Reject as the work of lifting was to be completed by
26.06.2010. The appellant was also informed that the space where CMR
was lying was required for new gas project and accordingly three months‟
time was granted to the appellant to do the needful and failure to do so
would result in forfeiture of EMD and the amount deposited by the
appellant and further appellant would be barred from further lifting of
CMR. The said communication was responded to by the appellant vide
communication dated 23.10.2010, wherein it was asserted that the delay
had occurred due to non-disclosure of the composition of the purchased
CMR. It was further stated that in the last week of September, 2010, an
expert technical team, along with management, suggested the land of
Khudh near Jaitpur for shifting and stocking the CMR material.
7. In OWP No. 1452/2010, the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 had filed an
application for vacation of interim direction stating therein that no
fundamental or statutory right of the appellant was involved in the matter
and further that the learned writ court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the writ petition because the contract for lifting the Coal Mill
Reject was completed at New Delhi. It was stated that the Coal Mill
Reject weighing at 15000 MT was put to e-auction by the respondent No.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:4594-DB
2 though respondent No. 3 and the same was open for physical inspection
by the interested parties from 10.11.2008 to 20.11.2008. The appellant
submitted his bid in two earlier e-auctions conducted for the sale of the
same lots of Coal Mill Reject by respondent No. 3 on 20.08.2008 and on
06.10.2008. The Coal Mill Reject was sold to the appellant and the
appellant was under an obligation to lift the entire lot of Coal Mill Reject
weighing 15000 MT at his own cost latest by 08.03.2010 and further by
24.03.2010 (maximum period of two weeks thereafter, subject to payment
of Ground Rent @ 2% of the value of un-lifted stock of Sale Release
Order). No relaxation of schedule of payment or lifting of Coal Mill
Reject was allowed and the Special Terms and Conditions were strictly
followed in its letter and spirit. The appellant lifted 9091.820 MT of CMR
against the total SRO quantity of 15000 MT within a period of almost
nine years, which clearly shows that the appellant was a defaulter in terms
of NTPC/MSTC, E-auction Special Terms and Condition Clause 11.3.
The last date of lifting of 15th SRO was 08.03.2010 but despite several
communications, the appellant failed to lift the total SRO quantity. It was
also stated that on being declined the permission to operate the said unit
by Delhi Pollution Control Committee, NTPC management took the
decision for the permanent closure of Baderpur unit on 15.10.2018. It was
further stated that their business activities had been closed and plant was
under the process of disposal. NTPC, Badarpur unit had already
intimated all its business partners and stakeholders in that regard, so that
all the liabilities of the said unit were properly discharged. It is stated that
even after the permanent closure of its Badarpur Unit, NTPC extended all
2025:JKLHC-JMU:4594-DB
support to the appellant to lift the entire CMR, however, the appellant had
failed to avail the opportunity.
8. In the objections filed by respondents 2 to 4 in OWP No. 1552/2010
adopted as objections in OWP No. 1452/2010 as well, a similar stand has
been taken by the respondents that the appellant participated in the e-
auction process conducted by respondent No. 3 on 09.02.2009 for sale of
one lakh MT of scrap "Coal Reject Mixed with stones" from Badarpur
Plant of respondent No. 2, offered on "as is where is basis". It is stated
that the said scrap was offered for sale through e-auction, the terms and
conditions regarding the same were fully advertised on the web site of the
respondent No. 3 and further the said scrap was open to physical
inspection by the interested parties for 15 days from 24.01.2009 to
08.02.2009 and officer, namely, Mr. D. R. Sori, DGM (Stores) NTPC
Badarpur, whose phone number was also advertised, was specially
designated for the purpose of addressing to any query in that regard.
9. It was further stated that the appellant had failed to discharge its
contractual obligation to lift the entire CMR material till 28.02.2011 i.e.
the appellant had 24 months‟ time to lift the 60,000 MT CMR. As per the
terms and condition of the sale, the appellant was under an obligation to
remove the partial lot of 60,000 MT Coal Mill Reject mixed with stone on
"as is where is basis" from the BTPS scrap yard in 24 lots of 25000 MT
each latest by 28.02.2011. It was further stated that as per Clause 11.9 of
the Special Terms and Conditions of the said sale, a ground rent @ 2%
per week or part thereof beyond 30 days has to be levied and up to two
weeks maximum, in default of the appellant in lifting the same against
2025:JKLHC-JMU:4594-DB
the value of particular Sale Release Order, provided a request in that
regard is received in the office of respondent No. 2 before the expiry of
30 days free lifting period. During the validity of various Sale Release
Orders, the said clause was invoked by the respondents number of times,
and the appellant never objected to the same. It is further stated that
rehabilitation and resettlement policy of the respondents is meant for the
project affected persons only and for none else and they were not under
obligation to provide alternative land to the appellant for running its
business.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had purchased Coal Mill Reject
through the e-auction process and further that the appellant failed to lift
the material within the stipulated time frame, despite the grant of several
extensions. The appellant has admitted the communications issued by
respondents Nos. 2 & 4 intimating the appellant to speed up the lifting of
the material and these communications were also responded to by the
appellant in terms of various communications, whereby the appellant
sought to raise an issue regarding the composition of the material
purchased. Even in the writ petition also, the appellant complained of
having received numerous complaints from its own purchasers concerning
the quality of the product. In essence, the appellant has tried to project his
grievance with regard to the composition of the product purchased,
particularly by asserting through communication dated 22.09.2009 that
the constitution of the Coal Mill Reject was not disclosed by the NTPC at
any stage.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:4594-DB
12. The appellant admittedly participated in the e-auction process and
emerged as the successful bidder. It is unbelievable that a prudent person
would purchase a product without examining its quality, particularly in an
open and transparent bidding process. Having voluntarily participated in
the bidding process and purchased the product, the appellant is now
precluded from raising claims regarding product quality to justify failure
to lift the material within the prescribed time frame. Furthermore, the
appellant lacks any standing to seek rehabilitation through the provision
of alternative land for lifting the Coal Mill Reject. It is the stand of the
respondents that the said rehabilitation policy is explicitly meant to apply
to the „project-affected persons and not to the appellant. The appellant has
miserably failed to show as to how the rehabilitation policy is applicable
in the case of appellant.
13. We have examined the judgment passed by the Writ Court and find no
ground to warrant any interference. The appellant had purchased the
product with full knowledge of its specifications and therefore, cannot be
permitted to raise the issue of alleged quality of the product as a defence
to justify the delay in lifting the same.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in these appeals.
The same are, accordingly, dismissed.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU:
30.12.2025
Karam Chand
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
