Jharkhand High Court
M/S Aaraanya Mines Private Limited Near ... vs Union Of India Through Nominated ... on 10 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.6275 of 2024
M/s Aaraanya Mines Private Limited near Ramgarh Gymkhana Club,
Ranchi Road, P.O-Marar, P.S-Marar, District-Ramgarh represented
through its Authorized signatory namely Shailendra Kumar Lal, aged about
62 years, son of late Tribeni Lal, resident of 323/B, Road No.4, Ashok
Nagar, PO-Ashok Nagar and P.S-Argora, District-Ranchi
.........Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Nominated Authority, (Constituted under Section 6
of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, having its office at,
Ministry of Coal, government of India, Shastri Bhawan, PO-Sansad Marg,
P.S-Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001, District-Central Delhi (NCT of
Delhi ............ Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the Resp-State of Jharkhand : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, CGC
Mrs. Niki Sinha, CGC
For the Intervenor : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
------
C.A.V on 18.08.2025 Pronounced on 10/09/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
I.A No.2855 of 2025.
1. The instant interlocutory application being I.A No.2855 of 2025
has been filed by the applicant-M/s Usha Martin Limited to implead it as
respondent no.2 in the present proceeding.
2. It has been contended that the applicant-M/s Usha Martin
Limited is prior allottee of the Lohari Coal Mine and subsequent thereto
after cancellation of all the Coal Mine as per the Judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of "Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secy. And
Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 516" the writ petitioner has been allotted the Lohari
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
Coal block through e-auction and the applicant-M/s Usha Martin Limited
has handed over and delivered the possession of Lohari Coal block to the
writ petitioner who is coming in possession of the same since the date of
vesting under the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 (in short
CMSP Act, 2015).
3. It has been contended that although Lohari Coal Mine has been
vested in the writ petitioner under the provisions of CMSP Act, 2015 on
22.04.2015 but the writ petitioner has not deposited the amount of
additional fixed land compensation of Rs.6,36,28,511.00 for which show
cause notices were issued to the writ petitioner under section 24 of CMSP
Act, 2015 and finally the impugned order dated 13.11.2024 has been
passed by the respondent no.1.
4. It has been contended that being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has
approached this Court for stay of the impugned order and, vide order dated
02.12.2024 ad-interim stay was granted to the writ petitioner by this Court.
5. It has been contended that admittedly the intervener is a
necessary party as it is only the intervener who is to receive revaluated
compensation amount based on fair market value determined by the
respondent no.1 amounting to Rs.6,36,28,511.00.
6. Considering the aforesaid fact, the applicant is having
interest upon the right to sue having interest upon the dispute, hence, is
necessary party in view of the fact that he was the prior allottee of the Coal
Block in question and due to the effect of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Goa Foundation v. Union of India",
(2014) 6 SCC 590 followed by an auction that the Coal block has been
allotted in favour of the writ petitioner but as has been contended that part
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
of the land to the extent of Rs.6,36,28,511.00 is still in possession of the
Usha Martin Limited by virtue of the provision of CMPS Act, 2015 found
to be eligible in the lis.
7. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impleadment of the
present applicant as party-respondent to the proceeding is necessary.
8. Accordingly, I.A No. 2855 of 2025 is allowed.
9. Let the necessary impleadment be carried out in the array of the
party-respondent during course of the day.
10. Office to proceed accordingly.
11. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
"For issuance of an appropriate writ / order /direction particularly
writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside of the order dated
13.11.2024 (Annexure-16) passed by the Additional Secretary/
Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, whereby
and whereunder, penalty to the tune of Rs. 11,36,00,000/- as of
01.11.2024 has been imposed upon the petitioner under section 24 of
the Coal Mines Special Provisions Act, 2015 for failure to comply with
the directives issued by the Central Government or
Nominated Authority along with the payment of additional fixed land
compensation Rs. 6,36,28,511/- within 15 days failing which legal
action would be taken for realization of the payment along
with the penalty;"
12. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ
petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:
(i) The grievance of the writ petitioner as per the pleadings made in
the writ petition is that the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the
Additional Secretary/Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal,
Government of India whereby and whereunder the penalty to the
tune of Rs.11,36,00.000/- as on 01.11.2024 has been imposed
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
upon the petitioner in view of the provision of section 24 of the
Coal Mines Special Provisions Act, 2015 (in short, Act of 2015)
for failure to comply with the directives issued by the Central
Government or Nominated Authority along with the payment of
additional fixed land compensation to the tune of Rs.6,36,28,511
within 15 days failing which legal action would be taken for
realization of the payment along with the penalty.
(ii) The instant writ petition relates to the Lohari Coal Block which
was earlier allotted to M/s Usha Martin Limited. However, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment and order dated
25.08.2014 passed in the case of "Manohar Lal Sharma vs
Principal Secretary" bearing W.P.(Criminal) No. 120 of 2012
cancelled the allocation of 204 coal mines out of total of 218 coal
mines which in effect cancelled the allocation of the Lohari Coal
Block in favour of the prior allotee, namely, M/s Usha Martin
Ltd. The Hon'ble Supreme Court issued specific directions with
regard to the said coal blocks and directed the Central
Government to take immediate action to implement the said
order.
(iii) The Central Government pursuant thereto took steps to allocate
Coal Mines through auction process. The Parliament of India
enacted the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 to provide
for allocation of Coal Mines and vesting of right, title & interest
in and over the land and mine infrastructure together with mining
leases to successful bidders and allottees with a view to ensure
continuity in coal mining operations and production of coal, and
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
for promoting optimum utilization of coal resources consistent
with the requirement of the country in national interest and for
the matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
(iv) The petitioner participated in the e-auction and declared
successful for Lohari Coal Block. Thereupon, a Vesting Order
No.104/30/2015/ΝΑ dated 22.04.2015 was issued by the
Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India in
pursuance of which a Coal Mine Development and Production
Agreement was signed between the Hon'ble President of India
through the Nominated Authority and the petitioner, on
16.03.2015. The petitioner had deposited an upfront money
amounting to Rs. 1,43,17,824.50/- as also Bank Guarantee of
Rs. 54,78,00,000/- towards Performance Security and had also
deposited fixed amount of Rs. 4,84,93,999/-towards cost of land
and geological report.
(v) Further, pursuant to the execution of the Agreement dated
16.03.2015, the lands within the leasehold area as acquired by
M/s Usha Martin Limited stood vested in favour of the petitioner.
Thereafter, a valuation summary of Lohari Coal Mine was
prepared by RBSA Advisory wherein the petitioner was required
to pay compensation of Rs. 3,53,48,674/- towards cost of
Rs. 126.40 hectares land and interest thereon.
(vi) Thereafter, the Additional Secretary/Nominated Authority,
Ministry of Coal, Government of India vide Provisional Order
dated 28.03.2023 has directed the petitioner to deposit additional
land compensation amount of Rs. 6,36,28,511/- in the designated
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
account of Ministry of Coal and further the petitioner and M/s
Usha Martin Limited were called upon to present their objection/
comments on 03.04.2023. The said order has mentioned that the
issue of revised claim for land was raised by M/s Usha Martin
Limited vide email dated 26.02.2018 and letter dated 23.03.2023
and thereupon, the land was valued by the authority. It is
pertinent to mention herein that vide order dated 28.03.2023, the
petitioner for the first time came to know that an area of 145.69
hectares has been acquired by M/s Usha Martin Limited under
the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act,
1957.
(vii) Further, the petitioner, vide letter dated 03.04.2023, submitted its
reply before the Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Govt.
of India stating therein that the petitioner cannot be saddled with
the additional liability of Rs. 6,36,28,511/-towards the value of
land as the land valuation done by the land valuer mentions that
the fair market value is calculated using the market rate received
from the official website of Maharashtra which cannot be relied
upon for the calculation of value of land and the petitioner had
also raised other grounds with the request to recall the order
dated 28.03.2023.
(viii) The Additional Secretary/Nominated Authority, Ministry of
Coal, Government of India vide Final Order dated 11.04.2023
has directed the petitioner to deposit additional land
compensation amount of Rs. 6,36,28,511/- in the designated
account of Ministry of Coal within 7 days and in accordance with
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
section 27 of Act, 2015, it was kept open for the petitioner and
M/s Usha Martin Limited to raise disputes with regard to
compensation before the Tribunal constituted under the Coal
Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
(ix) Further, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Government of
India vide letter dated 21.04.2023 sent final reminder to the
petitioner to deposit additional land compensation amount of
Rs. 6,36,28,511/- in the designated account of Ministry of Coal
within 7 days.
(x) The petitioner vide letter dated 24.04.2023 informed the Under
Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Coal, Government
of India that the management of petitioner company has decided
to challenge the order dated 11.04.2023 before the appropriate
forum disputing the quantum of compensation and is in the
process of filing application under section 27 of the Coal Mines
(Special Provisions) Act, 2015 and requested to keep the order
dated 11.04.2023 at abeyance till the disposal of the matter/any
further direction from the concerned Court.
(xi) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 11.04.2023 passed
by the Additional Secretary/ Nominated Authority, Ministry of
Coal, Government of India, the petitioner filed an application
dated 25.04.2023 under section 27 of the Coal Mines (Special
Provisions) Act, 2015 which was registered as C.B.C Case No.
15 of 2023 before the Court of learned AJC-I-cum- Special Judge
under CBA (A&D) Act at Ranchi.
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
13. The grievance of the writ petitioner as per the pleading made in
the writ petition is that the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Additional
Secretary/Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, government of India,
whereby and whereunder, penalty to the tune of Rs. 11,36,00,000/- as on
01.11.2024 has been imposed upon the petitioner in view of Section 24 of
the Coal Mines Special Provisions Act, 2015 for failure to comply with
the directives issued by the Central Government or Nominated Authority
along with the payment of additional fixed land compensation of
Rs.6,36,28,511 within 15 days failing which legal action will be taken for
realization of the payment along with the penalty.
14. The background of the issuance of the said demand, as per the
pleading made in the writ petition, is that one Lohari Coal Block which
was earlier allotted to M/s Usha Martin Limited but in view of the
judgment dated 25.08.2014 of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case
of "Manohar Lal Sharma V. Principal Secretary", being W.P (Criminal)
No.120 of 2012, the allocation of 204 coal mines out of total of 218 coal
mines have been cancelled which also includes the cancellation of
allocation of Lohari Coal Block in favour of the prior allottee being M/s
Usha Martin Limited.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court has issued a specific direction with
regard to the said coal block and directed the Central Government to take
immediate action to implement the said order.
16. The Central Government, pursuant to the aforesaid direction of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, took steps to allocate the said Coal Mines through
auction process.
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
17. The Government of India enacted the Coal Mines (Special
Provisions) Act, 2015 to provide for allocation of coal mines and vesting
of right, title and interest in an over the land and mines infrastructure
together with mining lease to successful bidders and allottees with a view
to ensure continuity in coal mining operations and production of coal, and
for promoting optimum utilization of coal resources consistent with the
requirement of the country in national interest and for the matters
connected therewith an incidental thereto, the Act 2015 came into effect.
18. The writ petitioner has participated in e-auction and has been
declared successful for Lohari Coal Block. Thereupon the Nominated
Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, has issued a vesting
order being 104/30/2015/NA dated 22.04.2015 and in pursuant thereto the
Coal Mine Development and Production Agreement was signed between
His Excellency the President of India through the Nominated Authority
and the petitioner, on 16.03.2015.
19. The writ petitioner has deposited an upfront money amounting to
Rs.1,43,17,824.50 as also Bank Guarantee of Rs.54,78,00,000/- towards
performance security and had also deposited fixed amount of
Rs.4,84,93,999/- towards cost of land and geological report.
20. The land within the leased area as acquired by M/s Usha Martin
Limited stood vested in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the Agreement
dated 16.03.2015. Thereafter, the valuation summary of Lohari Coal Mine
was prepared by RBSA wherein the petitioner was required to pay
compensation of Rs.3,53,48,674/- towards cost of Rs.126.40 heactares
land and interest thereon.
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
21. The Additional Secretary/Nominated Authority, Ministry of
Coal, Government of India vide provisional order dated 28.03.2023 has
directed the petitioner to deposit additional land compensation amount of
Rs.6,36,28,511/- in the designated account of Ministry of Coal.
22. The petitioner and M/s Usha Martin Limited were called upon to
present their objection/comments on 03.04.2023.
23. The land was valued by the authority and vide order dated
28.03.2023 the petitioner came to know that an area of 145.69 hectares has
been acquired by M/s Usha Martin Limited under the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
24. The petitioner has replied and by taking the plea that so far as the
area of 145.69 hectares acquired by M/s Usha Martin Limited under the
Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 is
concerned, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the additional liability of
Rs.6,36,28,511/-.
25. The Additional Secretary/Nominated Authority, had passed the
final order on 11.04.2023 directing the writ petitioner to deposit the
additional land compensation amount of Rs.6,36,28,511/- within seven
days in accordance with the section 27 of the Act of 2015 and it was kept
open for the petitioner and M/s Usha Martin Limited to raise disputes with
regard to the compensation before the Tribunal constituted under the Coal
Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
26. The writ petitioner has challenged the quantum before the
Tribunal by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under section 27 of the
Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 and also by filing an
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
application to keep the order dated 11.04.2023 at abeyance till the disposal
of the application registered as C.B.C Case No.15 of 2023.
27. The authority thereafter has come with an order on 26.04.2023
directing the petitioner to deposit the amount within 7 days to avoid penal
action and other action which led the petitioner to approach this Court by
filing the present writ petition.
Submission on behalf of the writ petitioner:
28. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants has
taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order:
(i)The ground has been taken that no power has been conferred
under the executive authority to impose penalty by way of
punishment in exercise of power conferred under section 24 of
the Act of 2015.
(ii) It has been contended that the said power is only vested
upon the competent Court of jurisdiction as would be evident
from bare perusal of section 23, 25 and 26 thereof. Therefore, the
impugned order raising the demand against the writ petitioner by
the executive authority invoking the jurisdiction conferred under
section 24 is without jurisdiction.
(iii) The contention has been raised that this Court has not
taken into consideration that the grievance is already lying before
the Tribunal in view of the provision of section 27, then the
direction ought to have been passed by this Court for early
conclusion of the said proceeding instead of passing an order of
stay of further proceedings due to which the petitioner is also not
getting the amount of its part.
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
29. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has
submitted that the impugned order, therefore, needs interference by this
Court.
Submission on behalf of the Respondents:
30. Per contra, the learned ASGI appearing for the respondent-UOI
to defend the impugned order has raised the following grounds:
(i) It has been contended that section 23 of the Act 2015 is to be read
out along with sections 25 and 26 wherein the power has been
conferred upon the Court to impose penalty by taking cognizance
only with respect to the commission of offences as incorporated
under section 23.
(ii) Section 24 stipulates with respect to the conferment of power upon
the Executive Authority for imposition of penalty for failing to
comply with directions from the Central Government, a Nominated
Authority, or a Designated Custodian and if any person fails to
comply with such direction without reasonable cause, with a
direction given by the Central Government or its Nominated
Authority or the Designated Custodian, he shall be liable to pay a
fine of Rs. One lakh and in the case of continuing failure with a
maximum fine of Rs. Two lakhs for every day during which the
failure continues depending upon the nature of offence.
(iii) It has been contended that the reference made in section 24 that "if
any person fails to comply, without reasonable cause, itself suggests
by the cause shown to be reasonable is to be seen by the executive
functionary and not by the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction,
rather, the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction is to go by the
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
evidence not only on the reasonable cause to be shown by the person
who fails to comply. Therefore, section 24 is altogether different
which the conferment of power of executive authority while section
23 speaks about penalty for certain offences which have been
available under section 23 by (a), (b), (c) and (d).
(iv) It has been contended that section 25 speaks about the offences if
committed by the Companies while section 23 speaks about the
offences committed by any person and section 26 speaks with
respect to the issue of cognizance of offence wherein it has been
provided that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence
punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder except upon
complain in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by
the Central Government or by the Nominated Authority or
Designated Custodian.
(v) It has been contended by the learned ASGI that herein the demand
which has been raised against the writ petitioner, impugned in this
writ petition, by way of penalty inflicted under the provision of
section 24 of the Act of 2015.
(vi) It has further been contended that it is the admitted case of the
petitioner that dispute pertaining to the same cause of action has
already been agitated before the Tribunal under the provision of
section 27 of the Act of 2015, but for the same cause of action this
writ petition has also been filed, which is not maintainable.
(vii) The contention has also been raised that it is the writ petitioner who
has chosen to avail the jurisdiction of the Tribunal incorporated
under the provision of section 27 way back in 2023 and the same is
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
at the stage of evidence but during its pendency the present writ
petition has been filed on 22.11.2024.
31. The learned ASGI based upon the aforesaid grounds has
submitted that the impugned order, thus, needs no interference and the
present writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
Submission on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent-M/s Usha
Martin Limited:
32. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the
newly impleaded party-respondent, i.e., M/s Usha Martin Limited has
submitted that it is absolutely not available for the writ petitioner to
approach this Court during pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal
when the writ petitioner itself has chosen to contest the case before the
Tribunal.
33. It has been contended that before the Tribunal also the interim
application for getting the demand stayed has been filed. But in the
advance stage of said lis the present writ petition has been filed. Therefore,
the present writ petition is not fit to be entertained.
34. The grievance has been shown that this Court has passed an order
on 02.12.2024 staying the further proceeding including recovery of
penalty levied on the petitioner by the respondent under the impugned
order dated 13.11.2024 until further orders.
Analysis:
35. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition and the counter-
affidavit including the averments made in the interlocutory application
being I.A. No. 2855 of 2025 which we have disposed of today.
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
36. This Court before proceeding further needs to refer herein that
this Court has passed the order directing the respondent-Central
Government to file an affidavit but no affidavit has been filed on behalf of
the Central Government.
37. The learned ASGI appearing for the concerned respondent, i.e.,
Union of India through Nominated Authority has submitted that he will
argue the issue on merit, since, the factual aspect has not been disputed,
rather only the issue of jurisdiction has been raised regarding the
applicability of the statutory provision as contained under section 24 under
which the demand has been raised saying it is not fit to be exercised by the
executive authority in the light of the provision as available under
section 23.
38. This Court, therefore, on the pretext of the submission made on
behalf of the learned ASGI that he does not intend to file a counter-
affidavit, rather ready to argue the issue has proceeded to hear the matter
on merit.
39. This Court before proceeding further needs to refer herein that
the Hon'ble Apex Court has pronounced a judgment with respect to the
issue of allotment of coal block through the auction process only in the
judgment rendered in the case of " Manoharlal Sharma v. Union of India
(supra).
40. The Central Government acting upon the direction and mandate
of the said judgment has come out with a legislation as Coal Mines
(Special Provision Act) 2015, Act No. 11 of 2015 with the following
objects:
THE COAL MINES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 2015
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
ACT NO. 11 OF 2015.
An Act to provide for allocation of coal mines and vesting
of the right, title and interest in and over the land and mine
infrastructure together with mining leases to successful
bidders and allottees with a view to ensure continuity in
coal mining operations and production of coal, and for
promoting optimum utilisation of coal resources
consistent with the requirement of the country in national
interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto. WHEREAS the Supreme Court vide judgment
dated 25th August, 2014 read with its order dated 24th
September, 2014 has cancelled the allocation of coal
blocks and issued directions with regard to such coal
blocks and the Central Government in pursuance of the
said directions has to take immediate action to implement
the said order; AND WHEREAS it is expedient in public
interest for the Central Government to take immediate
action to allocate coal mines to successful bidders and
allottees keeping in view the energy security of the country
and to minimise any impact on core sectors such as steel,
cement and power utilities, which are vital for the
development of the nation; AND WHEREAS Parliament is
competent to legislate under entry 54 of List I of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution for regulation of
mines and mineral development to the extent to which such
regulation and development under the control of Union is
declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the
public interest."
41. Thus, the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, was
enacted to streamline and regulate the allocation of coal mines in India,
ensuring a transparent and efficient process for coal mining operations. It
aims to facilitate the continuity of coal mining and its optimal utilisation,
aligning with the country's national interests. The Act lays down the
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
procedures for the auction of coal mines and establishes clear guidelines
for the transfer of rights, titles, and interests in land and mining
infrastructure.
42. The core provisions related to the allocation of coal mines are
laid out in Chapter II of the Act, which focuses on the auction process and
the eligibility of participants. Section 4 of the Act outlines the eligibility
criteria for participating in coal mine auctions. Coal mines listed in
Schedule I of the Act are to be allocated through public auctions. To
participate in the auction, interested parties must pay fees as prescribed by
the rules. This provision ensures that only eligible and responsible
companies participate in the auction, promoting fairness and transparency
in the process.
43. In certain cases, coal mines may be allotted directly to
government companies or corporations, as specified under Section 5 of the
Act. This section provides that the Central Government has the
authority to allot Schedule I coal mines to Government
companies or corporations or to a Joint ventures between two or more
Government companies or corporations or to a Private companies that
have been awarded power projects through competitive bidding, including
Ultra Mega Power Projects. This provision helps in ensuring that key
projects, particularly those related to power generation, have access to coal
mines for their fuel supply.
44. Now this Court is adverting to the section 6 wherein it has been
stipulated that the Central Government to act through Nominated
Authority, the Section 6 thereof is being referred hereinbelow which reads
as under:
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
"6. Central Government to act through nominated authority.--(1)
The Central Government shall appoint an officer not below the rank
of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India as the nominated
authority who shall act for and on behalf of the Central Government
for the purposes of this Act and shall exercise such powers as may
be prescribed.
(2) The nominated authority may engage any expert having such
qualifications and experience and, on such terms, and conditions as
may be prescribed to make recommendations to the authority for the
conduct of auction and in drawing up of the vesting order or
allotment order in relation to Schedule I coal mines.
(3) The Central Government shall act through the nominated
authority for the following purposes, namely: -- (a) conduct the
auction process and allotment with the assistance of experts;
(b) execution of the vesting order for transfer and vesting of
Schedule I coal mines pursuant to the auction;
(c) executing the allotment order for any Government company or
corporation in pursuance of section 5;
(d) recording and mutating incorporeal rights of whatsoever nature
including, consents, permissions, permits, approvals, grants,
registrations;
(e) collection of auction proceeds, adjustment of preferential
payments and transfer of amount to the respective State
Governments where Schedule I coal mine is located in accordance
with the provisions of this Act.
(4) The nominated authority shall complete the auction or execute
the allotment orders of Schedule I coal mines within such time and
in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed.
(5) The Central Government may appoint such other officers and
staff as it may think fit to assist the nominated authority.
(6) The salaries and allowances and other terms and conditions of
service of the nominated authority and such other officers and staff
appointed under this section shall be such as may be prescribed.
(7) The nominated authority shall be bound by the written direction
given by the Central Government on the question of policy."
45. From perusal of Section 6 of the Act 2015 it is evident that
Section 6 of the Act mandates that an officer not below the rank of Joint
Secretary to the Government of India be appointed as the nominated
authority. This officer is responsible for managing the entire allocation
process and ensuring that all legal requirements are met.
46. Section 8 by which the Nominated Authority has been conferred
with the power to issue allotment order which is being quoted hereunder
as:
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
"8. Nominated authority to issue vesting order or allotment
order.--(1) The nominated authority shall notify the prior allottees
of Schedule I coal mines to enable them to furnish information
required for notifying the particulars of Schedule I coal mines to be
auctioned in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed.
(2) The information required to be furnished under sub-section (1)
shall be furnished within a period of fifteen days from the date of
such notice.
(3) A successful bidder in an auction conducted on a competitive
basis in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed, shall be
entitled to the vesting of Schedule I coal mine for which it bid,
pursuant to a vesting order drawn up in accordance with such rules.
(4) The vesting order shall transfer and vest upon the successful
bidder, the following, namely:--
(a) all the rights, title and interest of the prior allottee, in Schedule
I coal mine concerned with the relevant auction;
(b) entitlement to a 1 [prospecting licence, mining lease or
prospecting licence-cum-mining lease, as the case may be] to be
granted by the State Government;
(c) any statutory licence, permit, permission, approval or consent
required to undertake coal mining operations in Schedule I coal
mines if already issued to the prior allottee;
(d) rights appurtenant to the approved mining plan of the prior
allottee; (e) any right, entitlement or interest not specifically
covered under clauses (a) to (d).
(5) The nominated authority shall, in consultation with the Central
Government, determine the floor price or reserve price in
accordance with such rules as may be prescribed.
(6) The successful bidder shall, prior to the issuance and execution
of a vesting order, furnish a performance bank guarantee for an
amount as notified in relation to Schedule I coal mine auctioned to
such bidder within such time, form and manner as may be
prescribed.
(7) After the issuance of a vesting order under this section and its
filing with the Central Government and with the appropriate
authority designated by the respective State Governments, the
successful bidder shall be entitled to take possession of the Schedule
I coal mine without let or hindrance.
(8) Upon the execution of the vesting order, the successful bidder
of the Schedule I coal mine shall be granted 2 [prospecting licence,
mining lease or prospecting licence-cum-mining lease] as
applicable, by the concerned State Government in accordance with
the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
(67 of 1957).
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
(9) A Government company or corporation or a joint venture
company formed by such company or corporation or between the
Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be,
or any other company incorporated in India, allotted a Schedule I
coal mine shall be granted 2 [prospecting licence, mining lease or
prospecting licence-cum-mining lease] as applicable, by the
concerned State Government in accordance with the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957).
(10) In relation to Schedule II coal mines, the successful bidder
which was a prior allottee, shall continue coal mining operations
after the appointed date in terms of the approved mining plan, till
the mining lease in terms of sub-section (8) is granted, upon the
grant of a vesting order and to that extent, the successful bidder
shall be deemed to have been granted a mining lease till the
execution of the mining lease in terms of the said sub-section.
(11) In relation to Schedule II coal mines, the Government company
or corporation which was a prior allottee can continue coal mining
operations after the appointed date in terms of the approved mining
plan, till the mining lease in terms of sub-section (9) is granted, upon
execution of the allotment order and to that extent, the allottee shall
be deemed to have been granted a mining lease till the execution of
the mining lease in terms of the said sub-section.
(12) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) and sub-sections (4)
to (7) (both inclusive) of this section as applicable to a vesting order,
shall mutatis mutandis be also applicable to an allotment order.
47. It is evident from the aforesaid Section that once a coal mine has
been successfully auctioned, the nominated authority issues a vesting
order, transferring the rights and titles of the coal mine to the successful
bidder. This process involves several key steps like:
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
Vesting of rights: The successful bidder is granted all rights, titles,
and interests related to the coal mine, including mining leases and
statutory permits.
Payment of performance guarantee: Before the vesting order is
issued, the bidder must provide a performance bank guarantee to
ensure that they will meet the obligations set out in the auction terms.
Transfer of mining lease: Once the vesting order is executed, the
bidder is granted a mining lease or other necessary licenses to begin
coal mining operations.
48. This process ensures that the successful bidder receives the
necessary rights and approvals to begin mining without delays.
49. Chapter III speaks with respect to the treatment of right and
obligation to of prior allottees wherein as per the provision provided under
section 10 which speaks that a successful bidder or allottee in respect of
coal mines, may negotiate with prior allottee to own or utilize such
movable property used in coal mining operations on such terms and
conditions as may be mutually agreed to them. Section 11 deals with the
continuity of third-party contracts that the prior allottee may have entered
into for the operation of the coal mine. These could be contracts with
suppliers, service providers, contractors, or any other external party.
50. Section 12 addresses the status of secured creditors who held
security interests in the land or mine infrastructure of the coal mine before
its reallocation. Secured creditors are typically financial institutions that
provided loans secured against the assets of the coal mine.
51. Section 14 speaks with respect to the liability of the prior
allottees, which reads as under:
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
14. Liabilities of prior allottees.--(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force, no
proceedings, orders of attachment, distress, receivership, execution
or the like, suits for the recovery of money, enforcement of a security
or guarantee (except as otherwise provided for under this Act), prior
to the date of commencement of this Act shall lie, or be proceeded
further with and no remedies shall be available against the
successful bidder, or allottee, as the case may be, or against the land
and mine infrastructure in respect of Schedule I coal mines.
(2) The proceedings as referred to in sub-section (1), shall continue
as a personal remedy against the prior allottee but shall not be
maintainable or continued against the land or mine infrastructure
of Schedule I coal mine or the successful bidder or allottee, pursuant
to this Act.
(3) Every liability of any prior allottee in relation to a Schedule I
coal mine in respect of any period prior to the vesting order or
allotment order, shall be the liability of such prior allottee and shall
be enforceable against it and not against the successful bidder or
allottee or the Central Government.
(4) All unsecured loans shall continue to remain the liability of the
prior allottee.
(5) The additional levy imposed against the prior allottees of
Schedule II coal mines shall continue to remain the liability of such
prior allottees and such additional levy shall be collected by the
Central Government in such manner as may be prescribed.
(6) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that--
(a) no claim for wages, bonus, royalty, rate, rent, taxes, provident
fund, pension, gratuity or any other dues in relation to a Schedule I
coal mine in respect of any period prior to the date of vesting order
or allotment order, as the case may be, shall be enforceable against
the Central Government or the successful bidder or the allottee, as
the case may be;
(b) no award, decree, attachment or order of any court, tribunal or
other authority in relation to any Schedule I coal mine passed prior
to the date of commencement of this Act, in relation to the land and
mine infrastructure of Schedule I coal mines, shall be enforceable
against the Central Government or the successful bidder or the
allottee, as the case may be;
(c) no liability for the contravention of any provision of law for the
time being in force, relating to any act or omission prior to the date
of vesting order or allotment order, as the case may be, shall be
enforceable against the successful bidder or allottee or the Central
Government."
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
52. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the Act ensures that
liabilities tied to the land or mine infrastructure before the date of the
vesting order or allotment order are not enforceable against the new
successful bidder or allottee. This means that no actions such as
attachment, distress, or receivership can be pursued against the new
allottees. Any such claims must be settled personally with the prior
allottee.
53. Section 15 of the Act 2015, establishes the role of
the Commissioner of Payments, an officer who will manage the
disbursement of compensation to prior allottees.
54. Section 16 speaks about Valuation of compensation for payment
to prior allottee, which reads as under:
"16. Valuation of compensation for payment to prior allottee.--
(1) The quantum of compensation for the land in relation to
Schedule I coal mines shall be as per the registered sale deeds
lodged with the nominated authority in accordance with such rules
as may be prescribed, together with twelve per cent. simple interest
from the date of such purchase or acquisition, till the date of the
execution of the vesting order or the allotment order, as the case
may be.
(2) The quantum of compensation for the mine infrastructure in
relation to Schedule I coal mines shall be determined as per the
written down value reflected in the statutorily audited balance sheet
of the previous financial year in accordance with such rules and in
such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) If the successful bidder or allottee is a prior allottee of any of
the Schedule I coal mines, then, the compensation payable to such
successful bidder or allottee shall be set off or adjusted against the
auction sum or the allotment sum payable by such successful bidder
or allottee, as the case may be, for any of the Schedule I coal mines.
(4) The prior allottee shall not be entitled to compensation till the
additional levy has been paid."
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
55. Section 16 provides the methodology for valuing compensation
to be paid to the prior allottee for their land and mine infrastructure.
56. Chapter IV of the Act 2015 deals with the powers of the central
government after the appointed date. Section 17 outlines the
responsibilities of the Central Government regarding Schedule II coal
mines after the appointed date. As per mandate of Section 18 in cases
where the auction or allotment of Schedule I coal mines has not been
completed, the Central Government is empowered to appoint a designated
custodian to manage and operate these coal mines. Section 19 delves
deeper into the powers and functions of the designated custodian in
relation to Schedule II coal mines. The custodian's role is crucial in
maintaining order and ensuring that mining operations continue smoothly.
57. Section 20 allows for the Central Government's approval of
certain arrangements between successful bidders, allottees, and coal
linkage holders.
58. Chapter VI provides that the miscellaneous provision on
acquisition of land as under section 21, realization of addition levy as
under section 22, penalty for certain offences as under section 23, penalty
for non-compliance of the direction of the Central Government, as per
section 24, the offences as provided under section 25 and cognizance of
the offences under section 26, and dispute settlement and bar of
jurisdiction of Civil Court under section 27, for ready reference the said
provisions are being referred hereinbelow as:
21. Acquisition of land.--(1) All existing land acquisition
proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), in relation to Schedule I coal mines, shall
continue in respect of such areas of land in accordance with the
provisions of the said Act.
(2) All such areas of land which are not subject matter of land
acquisition proceedings, in relation to the coal mines, under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), may be
proceeded with by the Central Government in terms of the Coal
Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of
1957).
(3) The State Governments which have initiated land acquisition
proceedings under provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), and all such lands which are
also subject matter of the said Act in respect of Schedule I coal
mines, shall--
(a) not transfer any land to the prior allottees which have been
acquired under the said Act;
(b) continue the land acquisition proceedings till the appointed
date;
(c) for such Schedule I coal mines which have not vested in the
successful bidder or the allottee, as the case may be, by the
appointed date, continue the land acquisition proceedings for
and on behalf of the Central Government;
(d) upon the vesting or the allotment, as the case may be, after
the appointed date, continue such land acquisition proceedings
on behalf of the successful bidder or the allottee.
22. Realisation of additional levy.--If a prior allottee of Schedule
II coal mine fails to deposit the additional levy with the Central
Government within the specified time, then, such additional levy
shall be realised as the arrears of land revenue.
23. Penalties for certain offences.--If any person--
(a) obstructs or causes any impediment in taking possession or
in the management and operation of the Schedule I coal mines
by the Central Government or the designated custodian; or
(b) fails to deliver to the designated custodian any books of
account, registers or any other document in his custody relating
to Schedule I coal mines and coal mining operations in respect
of the management of which the designated custodian has been
appointed; or
(c) destroys or misuses any mine infrastructure or coal stock;
or
(d) retains any property of such coal mine or removes or
destroys it,
he and any officer-in-default of the company shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
two years, or with the minimum fine of one lakh rupees per day
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
and in the case of continuing failure, with a maximum fine of
two lakh rupees for every day during which the failure
continues or with both, depending upon the nature of the
offence.
24. Penalty for failure to comply with directions of Central
Government.--If any person fails to comply, without reasonable
cause, with a direction given by the Central Government or
nominated authority or the designated custodian, he shall be
punishable with a fine of one lakh rupees and in the case of
continuing failure with a maximum fine of two lakh rupees for every
day during which the failure continues, depending upon the nature
of the offence.
25. Offences by companies.--(1) Where an offence under this Act
has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the
offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the
company for the conduct of business of the company as well as the
company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be
liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any
such person liable to any punishment, if he proves that the offence was
committed without his knowledge and that he had exercised all due
diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any
offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is
proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or
connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of any
director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such
director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be deemed to be
guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and
punished accordingly.
26. Cognizance of offences.--No court shall take cognizance of any
offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except
upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf
by the Central Government or nominated authority or the designated
custodian.
27. Dispute settlement and Bar of Jurisdiction of civil courts.--(1)
Any dispute arising out of any action of the Central Government,
nominated authority or Commissioner of payment or designated
custodian, or any dispute between the successful bidder or allottee
and prior allottee arising out of any issue connected with the Act shall
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
be adjudicated by the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957).
59. The Chapter VI of the Act 2105 is important herein in order to
decide the present lis as the question of jurisdiction has been raised on the
ground that the demand has been issued by the executive functionary under
section 24 and as per the petitioner, the provision as contained under
section 23 to section 26 are to be read out together.
60. While, on the other hand, the learned ASGI appearing for the
respondents has submitted that the power under section 24 is to be invoked
by the executive functionary and, therefore, section 23, 25 and 26 speak
about the power conferred upon the competent Court to impose
punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.
While section 24 confers power upon the competent authority/Nominated
Authority in case where a person fails to comply without reasonable cause,
he will be punishable with Rs. One lakh fine and in case of continue failure
Rs. Two lakhs every day during which the failure continues depending
upon the nature of offence.
61. We, on consideration of the rival submissions is now proceeding
to extract the underlying scope of Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 as quoted and
referred hereinabove.
62. It needs to refer herein that Section 21 discusses how land
acquisition proceedings are handled in relation to Schedule I coal mines.
This is crucial for ensuring that land required for coal mining is properly
acquired and compensated. Further, Section 22 deals with the realization
of additional levy imposed on prior allottees, particularly in the context of
Schedule II coal mines. As per mandate of the Section 22 if a prior allottee
of a Schedule II coal mine fails to deposit the additional levy within the
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
specified timeframe, the Central Government is authorised to recover this
levy as arrears of land revenue. This measure ensures that the levy is
collected efficiently and that there are no delays in the financial obligations
of the prior allottees.
63. Section 23 outlines penalties for various offences that could
obstruct the effective management of coal mines under the Act. These
penalties ensure that all stakeholders comply with the law and maintain the
integrity of coal mining operations. As per the mandate of this Section if
any person obstructs the Central Government or the designated custodian
from taking possession or managing Schedule I coal mines, they can be
penalised. This includes obstructing the transfer or management of the coal
mine infrastructure.
64. Further, if a person fails to deliver books of accounts, registers,
or any other documents relating to Schedule I coal mines, they face
penalties. This ensures transparency and accountability in coal mining
operations. Further if any person who destroys or misuses mine
infrastructure, coal stocks, or retains property of the coal mine can be
penalised. This provision prevents the mismanagement or wastage of
resources in the coal mining sector.
65. The penalties for such offences include imprisonment for up to
two years, or a fine of at least one lakh rupees per day. For continuing
offences, the fine may increase to two lakh rupees per day.
66. As per mandate of Section 24 of the Act 2015 if a person fails to
comply with a direction without reasonable cause, they are subject to a fine
of one lakh rupees. If the failure continues, the fine increases to two lakh
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
rupees per day. This ensures that the instructions and orders related to coal
mine management are followed promptly.
67. Section 25 deals with the Offences by Companies wherein it has
been stipulated that if a company commits an offence under the Act, the
directors, managers, or any officers responsible for the conduct of the
company's business at the time of the offence are deemed to be guilty.
They will be held liable and prosecuted accordingly. However, they may
be absolved of responsibility if they can prove that the offence was
committed without their knowledge and that they had exercised due
diligence to prevent it.
68. Section 26 of the Act 2015 provides a mechanism for taking
cognizance of offences under the Act. It has been stipulated therein that no
court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act, unless
a written complaint is made by a person authorised by the Central
Government, nominated authority, or designated custodian. This ensures
that only authorised individuals or bodies initiate legal proceedings related
to offences under the Act.
69. Section 27 focuses on how disputes related to the Act are resolved
and limits the jurisdiction of civil courts. It has been stipulated therein that
Any dispute arising from the actions of the Central Government, nominated
authority, Commissioner of payment, or designated custodian or any dispute
between the successful bidder or allottee and prior allottee is to be adjudicated
by the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957. This tribunal is empowered to handle disputes
regarding the implementation of the Act. The jurisdiction of civil courts is
limited in matters related to this Act. Only the Supreme Court and High
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
Courts are allowed to hear appeals or cases under this Act, providing a
specialised legal framework for handling coal mine-related disputes.
70. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position we are now
adverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent
wherein the argument has been advanced on behalf of the learned counsel
for the respondents that the writ petitioner has already approached before
the Tribunal under section 27 and, as such, it is not available for the writ
petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
71. This Court, therefore, is to consider as to whether in a situation
where the writ petitioner itself has approached the Tribunal under section
27 of the Act of 2015 by raising the same lis which is the subject matter of
the present writ petition, is it available for the writ petitioner to approach
this Court for same cause of action on the ground of jurisdiction?
72. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that in the case of
"K.S. Rashid and Sons v. Income Tax Investigation Commission", AIR
1954 SC 207, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the issue that when the remedy under Section 8(5) of the
Taxation of Income Tax (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 has been
pending, whether the High Court could entertain the writ petition. The
Hon'ble Apex Court held that a person may choose/effect where it will
proceed with the alternative remedy or with the writ petition, but both
cannot be pursued simultaneously. It would be advantageous to reproduce
paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment hereunder:
4.----. So far as the present case is concerned, it has been brought
to our notice that the appellants before-us have already availed
themselves of the remedy provided for in Section 8(5) of the
Investigation Commission Act and that a reference has been made to
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
the High Court of Allahabad in terms of that provision which is
awaiting decision. In these circumstances, we think that, it would not
be proper to allow the appellants to invoke the discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at the present stage,
and on this ground alone, we would refuse to interfere with the orders
made by the High Court. ---
73. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "A.V.
Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj
Wadhwani", AIR 1961 SC 1506 held that where the petitioner has already
approached the alternative forum for appropriate relief, it is not
appropriate that the writ petition should be entertained. The rule is based
on public policy and motivating factor is that of existence of the parallel
jurisdiction in another Court.
74. In the case of "Bombay Metropolitan Region Development
Authority, Bombay v. Gokak Volkart Ltd.", (1995) 1 SCC 642 the
petitioner therein had filed a writ petition during the pendency of the
appeal before the Statutory Authority. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that
such a writ was not maintainable.
75. Thus, from the aforementioned enunciation of law, it is clear that
a person may have a right to choose the forum for redressal of his
grievance, but he/she cannot be permitted to choose two forums in respect
of the same subject-matter for the same relief. If parallel proceedings are
allowed, they may give rise to forum hunting, wherein, a party who filed
a suit and was not able to get the interim relief abandons the remedy before
the civil Court and approaches the remedy of filing the writ petition, it will
amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
76. Herein it is admitted case of the writ petitioner that the Tribunal
has already been approached under section 27 of the Act 2015 wherein the
case is at the stage of evidence.
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
77. But even in such circumstances and in such situation, the present
writ petition has been filed after lapse of about more than a year from the
date of approaching the Tribunal under section 27 of the Act of 2015.
78. The fact about the jurisdiction which has been raised itself is
clarified from the conduct of the writ petitioner that the demand which has
been issued under section 24 by the Nominated Authority giving rise to a
dispute between the successful bidder and allottees and prior allottees
arising out of any issue connected with the Act shall be adjudicated by the
Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition And
Development) Act, 1957.
79. By approaching the Forum under section 27 of the Act of 2015
by the petitioner, the issue of jurisdiction of the issuance of demand notice
under section 24 itself has been admitted otherwise there was no occasion
available to the writ petitioner to approach the Forum by questioning the
demand.
80. The contention on behalf of the writ petitioner that the competent
Court of criminal jurisdiction is to be approached in view of the provision
as contained under section 23 of the Act of 2015 is not fit to be accepted.
81. The writ petitioner since has chosen the Forum under section 27
of the Act of 2015 which itself clarifies that the competent authority, under
section 24, is having jurisdiction to issue the said demand otherwise the
writ petitioner would not have approached the Tribunal rather would have
awaited for the prosecution to be launched by the competent authority in
the light of the provision under section 23.
82. Moreover, the issue of jurisdiction since has been raised and, as
such, this Court will fail in its duty if the same will not be answered and,
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
therefore, the question which has been raised regarding implication of
section 23 and section 24 the same is being answered herein.
83. It is evident from the provision of section 23 which speaks with
respect to penalty for certain offences, if any person, (a) obstructs or causes
any impediment in taking possession or in the management and operation
of the Schedule I coal mines by the Central Government or the designated
custodian; or (b) fails to deliver to the designated custodian any books of
account, registers or any other document in his custody relating to
Schedule I coal mines and coal mining operations in respect of the
management of which the designated custodian has been appointed; (c)
destroys or misuses any mine infrastructure or coal stock; or (d) retains any
property of such coal mine or removes or destroys it, he and any officer-
in-default of the company shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to two years, or with the minimum fine of one lakh
rupees per day and in the case of continuing failure, with a maximum fine
of two lakh rupees for every day during which the failure continues or with
both, depending upon the nature of the offence.
84. It is evident from the provision of section 23 that the offences
have been categorized in four categories that is evident from sub-section
23 (a), (b), (c) and (d) and, in such circumstances, the prosecution is to be
lodged for the purpose of punishing the imprisonment for a term which
extends upto two years or with minimum fine of Rs. One lakh per day and
in the case of continued failure the maximum fine of Rs. Two lakhs per
day or both depending upon the nature of offences which clarifies that if
any person have been found to commit the aforesaid offences either 23 (a),
or (b), or (c) or (d) as referred above, then the prosecution is to be lodged
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
for the purpose of imprisonment of a term of which extends upto two years
or with minimum fine of Rs. One lakh per day and in the case of continued
failure the maximum fine of Rs. Two lakhs per day or both depending upon
the nature of offences. Section 24 also speaks with respect to penalty to
failure to comply with direction of Central Government wherein it has
been provided that if any person fails to comply with such direction given
by the Central Government or its Nominated Authority or the Designate
Custodian, he shall be punishable with a fine of Rs. One lakh and in a case
of continue failure with a maximum fine of Rs. Two lakhs per day during
which the failure continues, depending upon the nature of offences.
85. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the word bearing
with reasonable cause is to be taken into consideration and thus, the
insertion of the said word clarifies that the penalty by way of fine of
Rs. One lakh and in a case of continue failure with a maximum fine of
Rs. Two lakhs per day during which the failure continues, depending upon
the nature of offences is to be inflicted by the executive functionary.
86. If the said conclusion is being arrived that without reasonable
cause, is not the parameter for the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction
to punish the person in case of commission of offence either section 23
(a), or (b), or (c) or (d), rather the moment the prosecution will be launched
before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction the same is to be
carried out by the principle of proving the charge beyond all reasonable
doubt.
87. The principle of proving the charge beyond all reasonable doubt
is the parameter which is only to be adopted by the competent Court of
criminal jurisdiction and the criminal Court cannot go on the basis of
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
satisfaction based upon the reasonable cause. Then, why is the difference
in between the accusation said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt
and the reasonable cause, if shown by the party.
88. The moment the reasonable cause is the parameter for inflicting
punishment, the same denotes the subjective satisfaction of the authority
concerned and if such authority will not be satisfied on the basis of the
cause not shown to be reasonable, then in such circumstances the
punishment can be inflicted under section 24 of the Act of 2015 but that
parameter can be adopted by the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction,
since, the criminal trial does not based upon the subjective satisfaction of
the Presiding Judge, rather it is based upon the proving of the charge
beyond all reasonable doubt on appreciation of the evidences put forth in
course of the trial.
89. This Court, in view of the aforesaid parameter, is of the view that
section 23 and section 24 are on two different parameters, section 23 is to
be proceeded by the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction while section
24 confers power upon the executive functionary.
90. Therefore, aforesaid interpretation coupled with the conduct of
the writ petitioner that he himself has approached to the Tribunal clarifies
the position that the decision so taken by the competent authority under
section 24 has correctly been exercised by the executive functionary.
91. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the contention which
has been raised that the impugned order suffers from an error due to want
of jurisdiction is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the present writ petition
stand dismissed.
2025:JHHC:28223-DB
92. Before parting with the order, we hereby clarify that since the
dispute lying pending before the Tribunal under section 27 of the Act of
2015, the same is to be decided strictly in accordance with law without
being prejudiced of the dismissal of the present writ petition.
93. Consequently, the interim order dated 02.12.2024 stands
vacated.
94. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Sudhir
Dated:10/09/2025
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
