Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand State Mineral ... vs M/S Tirupati Niryat Private ... on 18 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A No. 229 of 2022
Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited and another
...... Appellants
Versus
M/s Tirupati Niryat Private Limited and another .... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellants : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate
---------
Order No. 07 /Dated: 18th August 2022
I.A. No.7332 of 2022 which has been filed for early hearing of L.P.A
No.229 of 2022 is disposed of.
I.A. No.4733 of 2022 which has been filed for filling additional
document in L.P.A No.229 of 2022 is allowed.
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1-
Company has taken us through various correspondences to submit that
before the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 5 th April 2022 was filed in
the writ proceeding, the JSMDC never raised any grievance against the
alleged non-lifting of required quantity of coal by the Company. It is
submitted that it was the interim order dated 22 nd February 2021 passed by
the writ Court in W.P(C) No.271 of 2021 which intervened and by virtue of
the said order except to the extent of 12,000 MT of coal the Company could
not lift the balance quantity of coal. Since the interim order dated 22 nd
February 2021 was finally vacated on 14 th December 2021, the Company
cannot be held responsible for the alleged non-lifting of coal within 45 days'
period.
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the Company submits that
in view of the nature of the dispute which primarily centers around the
arbitrary action of JSMDC in declining/withholding issuance of D.Os for
75,800 MT of coal, the writ Court rightly entertained the writ petition.
On the question of public law element in a contractual matter,
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the Company submits that coal is
not freely available in the market for every one and there is a regulatory
regime which is governed by a statute and, therefore, acts of JSMDC which
is an instrumentality of the State in arbitrarily resiling from the contract
would definitely involve public law element in the present case.
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the Company submits that
in a concluded contract escalation of price and, that too, not at the instance
of the aggrieved party cannot be a ground to resile from the contract and not
to fulfill the contractual obligation by JSMDC.
In support of his contention, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel
for the Company has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in "ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee
Corporation of India Ltd. and Others" (2004) 3 SCC 553, "Maharashtra
Chess Association v. Union of India and Others" (2020) 13 SCC 285,
"Unitech Limited and Others v. Telengana State Industrial Infrastructure
Corporation (TSIIC) and Others" 2021 SCC OnLine SC 99, "Indsil Hydro
Power And Manganese Limited v. State of Kerala and Others" (2020) 16
SCC 276, "Odisha Forest Development Corporation Limited v. Anupam
Traders and Another" (2020) 15 SCC 146 and "Sarah Mathew v. Institute
of Cardio Vascular Diseases By its Director Dr. K.M. Cherian and Others"
(2014) 2 SCC 62.
In rejoinder, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the
appellants refers to Annexure-9 and Annexure-12 to submit that the original
period of 45 days had long back expired and only extension of time for
lifting 12000 MT coal was granted to the Company.
Judgment reserved.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
sudhir
