Jharkhand High Court
Union Of India Through The Secretary vs Jsw Steel Ltd on 16 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.66 of 2023
------
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Government of India, having its office at 120, 1st floor, F-wing,
Shahstri Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-New Delhi, District-New Delhi
2. The Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of
India, having its office at 120, 1st floor F-wing, Shahstri Bhawan, P.O.
& P.S.-Shastri Bhawan, District-New Delhi
.... .... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. JSW Steel Ltd., a Company Incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956, having its registered office at JSW Center, Bandra
Kurla Complex, P.O. & P.S. Bandra East District Mumbai, and it's
Project Office at B-236, Ground Floor, Road No.3, Ashok Nagar,
P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi, through its
authorized representative and Associate Vice President-Projects,
Sri Dhananjay Kumar Sinha, son of Sri Upendra Nath Sinha, aged
about 55 years, resident of Flat No.201, Shakti Apartment,
Ashokpuram, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.
2. Dhananjay Kumar Sinha, son of Sri Upendra Nath Sinha, aged
about 55 years, resident of Flat No.201, Shakti Apartment,
Ashokpuram, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.
.... .... Petitioners/Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate
Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate
Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG
------
C.A.V. on 13.10.2025 Pronounced on 16/10/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
Prayer
1. The instant appeal, preferred by the Union of India under
Clause-10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the
order/judgment dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.1127
of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been
disposed of by quashing the show cause notices issued by the
Deputy Secretary being the Nominated Authority, Ministry of
Coal, Govt. of India with a liberty to pass order afresh.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ
petition being W.P.(C) No.1127/2020, required to be
enumerated, which read as under: -
(i) It is the case of the writ petitioners that the
petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act,
1956.
(ii) The petitioners propose to set up an integrated
steel plant in Jharkhand. The State of Jharkhand and the
petitioner had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
on 09.11.2005 in terms of which the Government of Jharkhand
had assured to provide all assistance to the petitioner inter alia
in acquiring land, getting mining lease etc.
(iii) The Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated
25.08.2014 and 24.09.2014 passed in Manohar Lal Sharma
vs. The Principal Secretary & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 516, had
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
de-allocated 214 Coal Blocks which were previously allocated
by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India including the
Moitra Coal Block which allocated to the prior allottee.
(iv) Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment, an
ordinance was promulgated by his Excellency the President of
India, being Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance,
2014.Thereafter, the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015
was brought into force retrospectively from 21.10.2014 and in
terms thereof the Central Government has also framed Coal
Mines (Special Provisions) Rules, 2014.
(v) After passing of the Act by the Parliament, fresh
bidding was conducted for allocation of the different Coal
Blocks in which the petitioner had also participated. In the
auction, Moitra Coal Block was allocated to the petitioner.
(vi) Pursuant thereof, an agreement was executed
between His Excellency the President of India, acting through
the Central Government represented by the Nominated
Authority and the petitioner on 17.03.2015 in terms of Rule-
13(5) of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Rules, 2014 and
the said agreement is termed as "Coal Mines and Development
and Protection Agreement".
(vii) Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, the petitioner
was required to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.
1,715,803,210.00 in terms of Clause 6.1 of the agreement, the
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
petitioner accordingly furnished a bank guarantee of Rs.
1,715,803,210.00 dated 26.03.2015.
(viii) The Government of India through Office of
Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, issued a vesting order
no. 104/21/2015/NA dated 22.04.2015 in terms of Section 8(4)
of the Act of 2015, read with Rule 7(2)(b) and Rule 13(1) of the
Rules of 2014, in favour of the petitioner by virtue of which all
rights, title and interest of the prior allottee in and over the land
(including land compensatory afforestation) and mine
infrastructure of the prior allottee vested in the petitioner free
from all encumbrances.
(ix) The Moitra Coal Block was earlier allocated to M/s
Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. For the purpose of working the
coal block, the prior allottee had purportedly acquired 242.55
acres of land within the coal block area comprised within 10
villages in the District of Hazaribagh within the State of
Jharkhand.
(x) The prior allottee had also acquired a total area of
266.17 acres of land in the district of Dhanbad, Garhwa, Gumla
and Palamau for the purpose of Compensatory Afforestation.
(xi) The said CMDPA was amended on 06.05.2015
whereby the efficiency parameter was rescheduled.
(xii) In terms of the provisions of Section 8(4) of the Act
of 2015, once a vesting order is issued in terms of Rule 7(2)(b)
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
and Rule 13(1) of the Rules of 2014, all the rights, title and
interest of the prior allottee in an over the land and mining
infrastructure stand fully and absolutely transferred and vested
in the successful bidder, i.e., the petitioner free from all
encumbrances.
(xiii) Therefore, the land purchased by the prior allottee
in connection to Moitra Coal Project stood statutorily
transferred by way of legal fiction in favour of the petitioner.
(xiv) The respondent no. 1/appellant no.1 herein, vide its
letter dated 19.05.2015 had categorically directed the Chief
Secretary, Government of Jharkhand for transfer of all licenses
of the prior allottee in favour of the successful bidder including
mutation of the land without any delay and with no extra
liability.
(xv) After the issuance of the vesting order, the
petitioner made several representations before the concerned
respondent authorities through its letters dated 03.06.2015 and
10.07.2015 requesting the respondent authorities to transfer
and mutate the land held by the prior allottee both within the
mining lease area and land for compensatory afforestation, in
favour of the petitioners, otherwise the petitioner will be
rendered incapacitated to comply with the efficiency parameter
contained in Schedule-E of the CMDPA.
(xvi) The State of Jharkhand in order to resolve the issue
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
relating to transfer and mutation of the vested land, constituted
a committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State, which
in a meeting held on 10.08.2015 had proposed to realize stamp
duty and registration charges by executing a registered deed of
transfer.
(xvii) While the decision regarding payment of
registration fee and stamp duty was pending, the petitioner vide
its letter dated 04.09.2015 had apprised the State of Jharkhand
that the vesting order is issued in terms of Rule-7(2)(b) and
Rule-13(1) of the Coal Mines (Special Provision) Rules, 2014
as per which the land and mining infrastructure stand fully and
absolutely transferred and vested in favour of the successful
bidder, i.e., the petitioner.
(xviii) The respondent No. 1 once again through its letter
being letter No. F. No. 13016/36/2015-CA-III dated 13.10.2015
clarified that the entire land owned by the prior allottee whether
the same was previously owned and/or acquired by the
government and transferred to the prior allottee or purchased
by the prior allottee have directly vested in favour of successful
bidder, i.e., the petitioner in the present case as per Section
8(4) read with Section 3(1)(p) of the Act of 2015 and the same
is required to be transferred and mutated in favour of the
successful allottee without any extra liability.
(xix) In the said letter dated 13.10.2015, the respondent
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
No. 1 had specifically mentioned that any guideline which
stipulates payment of sum to the Government on the basis of
assessment of present value of land are not applicable in the
case of vesting done under the Coal Mines Special Provision
Act. It was also stated that the special act has an overriding
effect on any other law which is inconsistent with or in
contravention to the provision of the Coal Mines Special
Provision Act as such the same will prevail over any rules or
guidelines.
(xx) The writ petitioner made a representation dated
24.11.2015 before the Ministry of Coal, Government of India
that the Government of Jharkhand is intending to take a
decision to charge stamp duty and registration fee for the
transfer of land from the prior allottee to the petitioner ignoring
the fact that the same has already been vested upon the
petitioner by legal fiction and an Act of legislature, as such the
decision to that effect will be totally inconsistent and contrary to
the notification issued by the Ministry of Coal.
(xxi) The Govt. of Jharkhand through Department of
Land Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms issued
notification no.5281 dated 26.11.2015 specifying that the land
owned by the prior allottee will be transferred and mutated in
favour of the successful bidder, i.e., the petitioner on payment
of registration fee and stamp duty over the present valuation of
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
the land.
(xxii) The writ petitioner again made a representation
dated 10.03.2016 requesting the concerned respondent for
their intervention and support on expeditious transfer and
mutation of the land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner
has specifically informed that delay in transfer and mutation of
the vested land will adversely affect in achieving the milestone.
(xxiii) It is the further case of the petitioners that the
respondents have not responded to the representations made
by the petitioner. In spite of repeated requests and
representations made by the petitioner, the Govt. of Jharkhand
failed to take any positive step for complying with the
clarification issued by the Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India and
the petitioner did not receive any favourable response from the
State of Jharkhand till 25.05.2016.
(xxiv) The State of Jharkhand vide its letter dated
25.05.2016 issued the direction after notification dated
26.11.2015 directing the petitioner to get the vested land
transferred by way of a registered transfer deed and on
payment of requisite stamp duty.
(xxv) In order to avoid any further delay, the petitioner
was compelled and constrained to enter into transfer of land
vide 10 deeds of transfer executed on payment of the
demanded stamp duty and registration charges. Therefore, the
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
transfer of vested land within the mining lease area was
affected by executing registered transfer deeds on 30.05.2016
on payment of stamp duty and registration fee.
(xxvi) Meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioner,
Hazaribagh has issued a communication dated 02.01.2016
wherein the petitioner has been informed that prior to mutation
of the vested land, a permission under Section 49 of the CNT
Act is required to be obtained and a proceeding under Section
49 of the CNT Act will be initiated with respect to the vested
land and in this regard, the Circle Officer, Barkagaon,
Hazaribagh had issued notice(s) to several persons who were
the original owners of the land.
(xxvii) The transfer and mutation of land for compensatory
afforestation being major pre-requisite for achieving Stage-II
Forest Clearances and subsequent execution of mining lease,
the petitioner made several representations before the
concerned authorities for expediting the matter of transfer and
mutation. However, the petitioner failed to fetch any favourable
response from the concerned respondents.
(xxviii) The petitioners had also represented before the
concerned respondent for their intervention and support in
achieving the Efficiency Parameter No.9, i.e., Forest Clerance
and subsequent achievement of Efficiency Parameter No.12,
i.e., Grant of Mining Lease well before eleven months from the
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
schedule date of completion, i.e., on 24.03.2016. However, the
concerned respondents never replied to the same.
(xxix) The mining lease thereafter granted to the
petitioner on 31.10.2019 but the same has not been executed.
However, the respondents in their endeavour to shift the entire
blame upon the petitioner started issuing show cause notices
to the petitioner for not meeting the time schedule as provided
under the efficiency parameter.
(xxx) In this regard, the respondent nos.1 and 2 before
the writ court, issued the show cause notice dated 21.03.2017
for not meeting the timeline with respect to Forest Clerance.
The said show cause notice was replied by the petitioner.
(xxxi) Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, writ petition
being W.P.(C) No.1127 of 2020 has been filed and the same
has been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court,
which is the subject matter of the instant appeal.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellants-
U.O.I.
3. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the appellants-U.O.I.
has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned
judgment: -
(i) Learned Single Judge has not taken into
consideration the fact that the terms and
conditions as referred under Clause 6.2 of the
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
Coal Mine Development and Production
Agreement (in short 'CMPDA') for Moitra Coal
Mine has not properly been appreciated,
reason being that, due show cause notice has
been issued as required to be issued under
Clause 6.3 of the Agreement and as such, there
was no need to have an opportunity at the
stage of determination, as referred under
Clause 6.2 of the Agreement.
(ii) It has been contended that the writ petitioners
have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
Nominated Authority, in pursuance to the show
cause notice issued in the light of Clause 6.3 of
the Agreement without raising the issue of non-
compliance of the issue of determination, as
referred under Clause 6.2 of the Agreement.
(iii) The ground has been taken that once the
respondents-writ petitioners have submitted to
the jurisdiction of the concerned authority, it is
not available for the respondents-writ
petitioners to take the ground that merely
because the determination is not there, as
required to be there under Clause 6.2 of the
Agreement, the decision so taken by the
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
authority, suffers from infirmity.
(iv) The ground has been taken that the authority
while considering the response furnished on
behalf of the writ petitioners in pursuance to the
show cause notice issued in terms of Clause
6.3 of the Agreement, has taken into
consideration the issue of waiver or
appropriation depending upon the factual
aspect, as also, depending upon the said
response. Therefore, the issue is still left open
by the authority and after getting the report from
the State, the issue either of waiver or
appropriation is to be considered and in case,
the State will not forward its report, then, the
Nominated authority will decide the issue of
waiver or appropriation of amount, therefore, it
cannot be said that any prejudice has been
caused to the writ petitioner.
(v) Lastly, it has been submitted that the similar
matter is lying pending for consideration in
L.P.A. Nos.67 and 61 of 2023 which was
reserved on 23rd September, 2025.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondents-writ
petitioners
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
4. Per contra, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the
respondents-writ petitioners has submitted that it is a case
where the terms and conditions of the bilateral contract in
pursuance to the Coal Mine Development and Production
Agreement has not been complied with, which aspect of the
matter has been taken into consideration by the learned Single
Judge and based upon the same, the order impugned passed
by the authority, has been interfered with.
5. The contention which has been raised of no prejudice having
been caused to the writ petitioners, cannot be said to be
acceptable and it is not acceptable at all, reason being that,
when the terms and conditions of the contract is available,
then, it is the bounden duty of the parties to comply with the
terms and conditions of the contract, there cannot be any go-by
to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
6. It has been contended that in the agreement, it has been taken
care of, the opportunity is to be provided to the respondents-
writ petitioners before taking the decision of the appropriation
of the performance security at two stages, i.e., at the stage of
condition stipulated under Clause 6.2 and 6.3 of the
Agreement. Clause 6.2 provides the issue of determination of
the laches committed on the part of the respondents-writ
petitioners and on the basis of such determination, the penal
action is required to be taken in view of the terms and
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
conditions stipulated under Clause 6.3 of the Agreement.
7. The argument therefore has been advanced that directly taking
action in view of the provision of Clause 6.3 after issuance of
show cause notice to the writ petitioners, the vital right of the
issue of determination as required to be there in view of Clause
6.2 of the Agreement, has been taken away and thereby, the
petitioners have been deprived to have one opportunity to put
their defence.
8. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that if the learned Single Judge after taking into
consideration these issues, has interfered with the impugned
judgment by passing the judgment dated 06.12.2022
(impugned in the instant memo of appeal), the same cannot be
said to suffer from an error.
Analysis
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgment as also the judgment passed by this Court,
vide order dated 13.10.2025 in L.P.A. Nos.67 and 61 of 2023.
10. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the
parties and perused the judgment passed by this Court in
L.P.A. Nos.67 and 61 of 2023 on 13.10.2025.
11. We, after going through the pleadings made in the instant
memo of appeal, as also, the judgment dated 13.10.2025
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
passed in L.P.A. Nos.67 and 61 of 2023, have found that the
issue, which is the subject matter of the present appeal, has
been decided by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, for ready
reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment
being L.P.A. Nos.67 and 61 of 2023, are being referred as
under:-
"29. It requires to refer herein that even if there is no
statutory provision requiring an opportunity to be
given, in order to follow the cardinal principle of
natural justice, an opportunity of hearing is to be
given to the party concerned who is going to be
adversely affected, reference in this regard may be
made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vrs.
Union of India and Anr., reported in (1978) 1 SCC
248, wherein, the proposition has been laid down
that even if there is no statutory provision requiring
an opportunity to be given, in order to follow the
cardinal principle of natural justice, an opportunity of
hearing is to be given to the party concerned who is
going to be adversely affected.
31. This Court, therefore, is of the view that merely
because there is no reference to provide an
opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners under
Clause 6.2, the vital right of putting their defence at
the stage of determination of liability cannot be taken
away, otherwise, the same will violate the principle of
natural justice.
32. Clause 6.3 is the consequence of the issue of
determination which is to be done as per the
condition stipulated under Clause 6.2 of the
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
Agreement.
33. Initiation which is to be taken under Clause 6.2 of
the Agreement is to be based upon the determination
of the liability of appropriation of the performance
security and for which also, depending upon the
outcome of the issue of determination as per Clause
6.2 of the Agreement, a fresh show cause notice is to
be given to the party concerned.
34. However herein, show cause notice has been
given in terms of Clause 6.3 of the Agreement which
has been responded by the respondents-writ
petitioners and for that reason, the ground has been
taken that the writ petitioners have submitted to the
jurisdiction of the authority concerned and hence, the
writ petitioners are seized to agitate the issue of non-
compliance of the condition stipulated under Clause
6.2 of the Agreement.
35. This Court, is of the view that merely because the
petitioners have responded to the response given in
view of Clause 6.3, they will not seize in agitating the
issue of laches committed on the part of the
appellants in depriving the petitioners in providing the
opportunity of being heard by issuance of show
cause notice at the stage of determination.
36. The issue of natural justice has been held to be
instinct and if not followed, then the same will be said
to be in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and in that view of the matter, even if the writ
petitioners have submitted to the jurisdiction by
submitting response to show cause notice in terms of
Clause 6.3, the issue of having no opportunity of
hearing at the stage of determination is being in the
teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
hence, the contention which has been raised that
merely because the writ petitioners have submitted
to the jurisdiction of the Nominated Authority in terms
of show cause notice issued under Clause 6.3, will
seize to agitate the non-determination of the issue as
required to be determined in view of Clause 6.2 of
the Agreement, is having no foundation. Hence, such
argument is hereby, rejected.
37. Further, if the stage of Clause 6.2 and Clause
6.3, the proceeding is at two stages and if the
petitioners will be deprived from their right to have
opportunity at the stage of Clause 6.2 of the
Agreement, then, petitioners will lose one opportunity
and straightaway, the party concerned will have to
jump to the stage of condition stipulated under
Clause 6.3 of the Agreement.
38. The law is well settled that if the terms and
conditions of the agreement has been provided, the
same are to be adhered to in strict sense and there
cannot be any deviation and if the deviation will be
permitted, then, the same will amount to re-writing
the terms of the Contract, which is not permissible.
Otherwise also, deviating from the terms and
conditions will amount to relaxation in the terms and
conditions, which is also not permissible once the
agreement has been entered in between the parties.
39. Accordingly, both the issues are being answered.
40. This Court, adverting to the impugned judgment,
has found that the learned Single Judge has taken
into consideration before the recourse of Clause 6.3,
it was mandatory requirement to follow the condition
required under Clause 6.2 with regard to the
performance security, the said consideration has
2025:JHHC:32219-DB
been given in terms of the condition stipulated in the
Agreement."
12. This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the factual
aspect is identical and the issue has already been dealt with by
this Court in L.P.A. Nos.67 and 61 of 2023 on 13.10.2025,
hence, there is no reason to take distinct view.
13. Since, this Court has taken the similar view in L.P.A. Nos.67
and 61 of 2023 on 13.10.2025 by declining to pass positive
direction in favour of the appellants-U.O.I., hence, the instant
appeal also deserves to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed, in terms of
the judgment dated 13.10.2025 passed in L.P.A. Nos.67 and
61 of 2023.
15. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if
any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
16/10/2025
Rohit/-A.F.R.
Uploaded on 17.10.2025
