Jharkhand High Court
M/S Jai Maa Kali Udyog Limited vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors on 3 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2313 of 2017
----
M/s Jai Maa Kali Udyog Limited... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2302 of 2017
----
M/s Kali Mata Soft Coke Manufacturing Industries
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2304 of 2017
----
M/s Chhotanagpur Hard Coke Industries
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2308 of 2017
----
M/s Uttamchand Virbhandas & Company Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
Shree Krishna Hard Coke Industries
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
M/s Akash Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
M/s Smiriti Sourabh India Private Limited
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
M/s Oriental Coke MFG Pvt. Ltd.... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
Shree Durga Hard Coke Manufacturing Company
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
M/s Mahadev Coke Limited ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
Shree Shyam Coke Manufacturing Industries Private Limited
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
M/s OSD Coke Pvt. Ltd. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
M/s Khetwat Coke Manufacturing Company
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
M/s Kala Coke & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
M/s Shree Ganesh Laxmi Industries ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
Shree Dwarka Bee Hive Plant Private Limited
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
M/s P R Fuels Private Limited... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
M/s Sanjay Hard Coke Industries
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
M/s Rahul Coke Private Limited... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
M/s Maithan Coal Company Private Limited
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
M/s Shiv Shakti Coke Industries... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
M/s Coal Product India
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
M/s Bihar Coke Manufacturing Company
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
Sri Aurobindo Fuels Limited
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
with
----
M/s S.K. Coal and Coke Private Limited
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Biren Poddar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Piyush Poddar, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate
Mr. Manav Poddar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mrs. Alpana Verma, Advocate
Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
Ms. Khushboo Kumar, Advocate
Mr. (Dr.) Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. S. Toppo, Advocate
Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
--------
Order No. 08 : Dated 3rd April, 2025
1. At the outset, Mr. B. Poddar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners in all the cases, has submitted
by making reference of order dated 05.03.2024 by which
notice was directed to be issued upon the respondent no. 5-
Coal India Limited, which according to him is not a necessary
party.
2. Such submission has been made on the pretext that in
earlier round of litigations, the direction was passed upon the
respondent-BCCL to take decision on the representation
which was to be filed in pursuance to the said order and in
terms thereof, the BCCL has passed order rejecting the
claim(s), which is impugned in these writ petitions.
3. It has been submitted that the decision was to be taken
by the BCCL with respect to individual claim of the petitioner,
which is having no concern by the Coal India Limited, which
admittedly is the apex body under which the BCCL is one of
the subsidiaries company.
4. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents-BCCL.
5. This Court considering the aforesaid fact and taking into
consideration the order dated 24.02.2016 passed in earlier
round of litigation, in the batch of writ petitions, being W.P.
(C) No. 4562 of 2012 and batch matters, which has been
appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, wherein the
individual petitioners were granted liberty to make
representation before the competent authority of BCCL/the
General Manager (S & M), Bharat Coking Coal Limited and in
turn thereof, the BCCL was directed to take decision thereof
within a stipulated period of time and in pursuance to the
said order, the individual petitioners submitted
representation(s), which was disposed of by the respondent-
BCCL/the General Manager (S & M), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited rejecting the claim of the petitioners, which is
impugned in these writ petitions, therefore, is of the view that
the Coal India Limited is not a necessary party.
6. The view of this Court gets fortified in view of judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Poonam v.
State of U.P., [(2016) 2 SCC 779], wherein the Hon'ble has
dealt with the issue of 'necessary party'. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is quoted as under:
"14. First, it is necessary to understand about the concept of
necessary and proper party. A four-Judge Bench in Udit
Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue [Udit Narain
Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786]
has observed thus: (AIR p. 788, para 7)
"7. ... it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain
who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding.
The law on the subject is well settled: it is enough if
we state the principle. A necessary party is one
without whom no order can be made effectively;
a proper party is one in whose absence an
effective order can be made but whose presence
is necessary for a complete and final decision on
the question involved in the proceeding."
7. Accordingly, the matter has been heard.
8. The matter has been argued at length by learned
counsel for the parties.
9. Hearing concluded.
10. Judgment reserved.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Alankar/
