Jharkhand High Court
M/S. National Mineral Development ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 16 January, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2433 of 2024
---
M/s. National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC)
through its Senior Manager, Mining, namely Atul Singh
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of
Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors. .... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : M/s. Amrendra Pradhan, Avishek Chandra &
Piyush Kumar Singh, Advocates
For the Resp. Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Shray Mishra, A.C. to A.G.
For the Resp. No. 3 : M/s. Rohitashya Roy, Tarun Kr. Mahato,
Vibhor Mayank, Shivam Kr. & Oishi Das, Advocates
For the Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, C.G.C.
Order No. 06 Dated: 16.01.2025
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is Government of India Enterprises having Corporate
Identity No. L13100TG1958GOI001674 and its registered office
and place of business is at Hyderabad, Telangana.
2. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 -
Rohne Coal Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi is a joint venture
company. The Ministry of Coal, Government of India, vide letter
no. 38011/4/2006-CA-I dated 05.06.2008, allocated the Rohne
Coal Block in CCL Command Area, Jharkhand to M/s. JSW Steel
Ltd. subject to the condition that it would form a joint venture
company including M/s. JSW Steel Ltd, M/s. Bhushan Power &
Steel Ltd and M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. as well as the equity
holding in the joint venture company would be in proportion to
the assessed coal requirement of the company.
3. It is also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
vide orders dated 25.08.2014 and 24.09.2014 passed in the
case of "Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and Ors.",
ordered de-allocation of 214 coal blocks which were allocated by
the Ministry of Coal, Government of India including the Rohne
Coal Block allocated to the respondent no. 3. Subsequent to the
aforesaid judgment, an Ordinance being Coal Mines (Special
Provision) Ordinance, 2014 was promulgated by the President of
India which was subsequently replaced by the Parliament by
enacting the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 (in short,
"the Act, 2015") which came into force retrospectively from
21.10.2014 and pursuant thereto, the Central Government has
also framed Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Rules, 2015.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the Act, 2015 was passed for allocation of coal mines and
vesting of the right, title and interest over the land and mines
infrastructure together with mining leases to successful bidders
and allottees with a view to ensure continuity in coal mining
operation and production of coal as well as for promoting
optimum utilization of coal resources consistent with the
requirement of the country in national interest and for matters
connected therewith. As per Section 5 of the Act, 2015, the said
coal mines was allotted to the petitioner. Therefore, the land
acquired by the respondent no. 3 in accordance with law in
connection with its Rohne Coal Project stood statutorily
transferred by way of legal fiction in favour of the petitioner.
5. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 3 has
already filed various writ petitions including W.P.(C) No. 2691 of
2021 challenging different orders passed by the Presiding
Officer-cum-Minister, Department of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled
Caste, Minority and Backward Class Welfare, Government of
Jharkhand exercising power under Section 49(5) of the
Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
6. Issue notice to the respondents.
7. Mr. Shray Mishra, learned A.C. to A.G. appears and
waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
8. Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate, appears and waives
notice on behalf of the respondent no. 3.
9. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned C.G.C., appears and
waives notice on behalf of the respondent no. 4.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the aforesaid
respondents pray for and are allowed four weeks' time to seek
instruction and file respective counter affidavits.
11. The necessity of issuance of notice upon the
respondent nos. 5 and 6 will be considered after filing of
respective counter affidavits by the aforesaid respondents.
12. Put up this case under the heading "For Admission"
after four weeks.
Ritesh/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.)
