M/S Swastika Smokeless Coke ... vs Central Coalfields Limited ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4496 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          W.P.(C) No. 5529 of 2022
      M/s Swastika Smokeless Coke Company Pvt. Ltd.
      represented through its Managing Director,
      Pramod Kumar Singh                                    ..... Petitioner
                                  Versus
     Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman
     cum Managing Director and others                      ..... Respondents
                                  ---------

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

---------

     For the Petitioner     : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
     For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
                                  ---------
02/ 10.11.2022      Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has prayed for

interim relief based on the following submissions:

That the fresh termination order of the Fuel Supply Agreement was passed on 3rd March, 2021 and thereafter by an order dated 29th June, 2021, at Annexure 15, petitioner's participation in Tranche- IV Linkage Auction was also denied in terms of clause 4 (a) (iii) of the Scheme document dated 30th May, 2019. They also forfeited the Bid Security Amount. Now, by the impugned letter dated 2nd November 2022 (Annexure-20), they have denied participation in the e-auction scheme notified on 1st November 2022 to be held tomorrow without any fresh reason.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon clause 4 of the new scheme at page 334 and Annexure IV to the scheme at page 357 of the writ petition where the eligibility conditions and the modalities for barring/debarment have been laid down. He submits that termination of the agreement is not a condition for ineligibility, though suspension / banning are the conditions for being ineligible for participating in any such e-Auction Scheme. As such, given the background history of the litigation starting from the suspension of Fuel Supply Agreement of the petitioner in 2016, the quashing of the termination of FSA by learned Single Judge by judgment dated 18th June, 2018, the order passed in LPA No. 623 of 2018 dated 7th April, 2020 (Annexure-4), the period of disability from the date of suspension i.e. five years from 2016 having already ceased, the decision to declare the petitioner ineligible to participate in the present e-Auction Scheme is dehors the provision of the scheme itself and also an exercise of power which is not proper in the eye of law. The petitioner may be allowed to participate in the e- auction scheduled tomorrow, subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Even if the petitioner succeeds in the e-auction to be held tomorrow he may not be

allotted any coal till a decision is taken in that regard by this Court.

Learned counsel for the respondent- C.C.L submits that in terms of clause 5.7.2 read with 5.7.3 since the petitioner's FSA has earlier been terminated and he has been disqualified for misrepresentation on his part he is ineligible for participating in the subsequent tranche of auction. Therefore, the impugned decision conveyed by respondent No.7 is correct and traceable to the power available under clause 5.7.2 and 5.7.3, both of the e-Auction Scheme, 2019 and the present e-Auction Scheme.

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties on the interim relief, we are of the view that in view of the termination of the FSA of the petitioner even after the judgment of the learned appellate court on 3rd March, 2021 for acts of misrepresentation on its part, the respondents are justified in terms of the relevant provision of e-Auction Scheme, 2019 and the pari materia clauses in the e-Auction Scheme of 2022 to declare him as ineligible for participation in the e-Auction to be held tomorrow. Therefore, prayer for interim relief is rejected.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that there are other issues also raised in the writ petition for consideration.

Learned counsel for the respondent C.C.L is allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit.

Let the matter be listed after five weeks so that petitioner, if so advised, may also file a reply in the meantime.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

sm/pramanik