W.P.(C) No. 3352 of 2010
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
____________
Welfare Society of Orissa,
(represented by its Secretary,
Bhutkun Mandal),Jajpur ... Petitioner
- versus -
Union of India ... Opposite Parties
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Coal,
New Delhi & 3 Ors.
For petitioner --- M/s. Bhagban Mohanty,
B.Moharana,.S.Mohanty
and D.Chhotray.
For opp. parties -- M/s. Saktidhar Das, A.S.G.
( For O. P. no.1 )
M/s. Jagannath Patnaik,
B. Mohanty, J.K. Patnaik &
B.S. Rajgur. (For O. P. no.2)
Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, Sr.Adv.,
Ms. Suruchi Agrawal
M/s. S. S. Das,
Soubhagya S. Das,
Ramakanta Sahoo &
K.C. Mohapatra.
( For O.P.No. 3 )
M/s. P.K. Mohapatra, S.K. Nayak,
and S.K. Sahu
( For O.P. No. 4 )
______________
2
PRESENT ;
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR V. GOPALA GOWDA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. DAS
______________________________________________________________________
Date of hearing & Date of judgment – 07.04.2010
______________________________________________________________________
V. Gopala Gowda, C.J. This writ petition in the shape of Public Interest
Litigation has been filed by the Welfare Society of Orissa represented by
its Secretary seeking following reliefs urging various facts and legal
contentions.
“(1) For issuing a Rule Nisi in the nature
of writ of mandamus and/or certiorari and/or any
other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions calling upon the opposite parties
to show cause as to why the allotment of 97 million
tons of coal blocks out of total 291 million tons in
Mandakini Coal Block of Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd.
made by the opposite party No.1 in favour of the
opposite party No.3 as per Annexure-5 shall not be
quashed.
(2) if the opposite parties fail to show
cause and /or show insufficient and /or false cause,
make the said rule nisi absolute by issuing
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/
directions as this Court deems fit and proper.
(3) Pass such other order/orders and
direction/directions as this Court deems fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The brief facts for the purpose of appreciating the rival
legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties are that the petitioner is a
registered Non-Government Organization (NGO) claims to be dedicated
itself for the cause of the public justice and to weeding out corruption and
other mal-practices at all levels. It has dedicated itself to achieve the
principles enshrined in the Constitution of India, particularly, the
Directive Principles of State Policy to establish an egalitarian society to
3
bring social and economic order in the country. It was registered in the
year 2009. The aim and objective of the Society is to carry out several
awareness campaigns, relief and rehabilitation activity, cultural activities
and to spread awareness among the under privileged and deprived
sections of the society with a vision to establish a classless and casteless
society.
3. The focus and objectives of the Society is for the social
and economic upliftment of the poor masses of Orissa State.
4. The Mandakini Coal Block of Talcher Coalfields
(Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.) is situated in Orissa with a geological reserves
of 291 million tons of coal block. The Ministry of Coal, New Delhi issued
notification in the month of November, 2006 inviting application from
interested parties for allocation of 38 coal blocks in various parts of the
country for captive mining by Companies engaged in generation of power,
production of iron and steel and cement. Out of these 15 coal blocks are
earmarked for power generation and 23 coal blocks would be available for
other specified end uses. As per the notification, preference will be given
to the power sector and steel sector. Out of power sector, priority shall be
accorded to projects with more than 500 MW Capacity so also in the steel
sector, priority will be given to steel plants with more than 1 million tons
per annum capacity. Copy of the notification is produced and marked as
Annexure-3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the said
notification many number of companies like Monnet Ispat, Tatas, Sterlite,
Lanco, GMR, Reliance, Mittal Steel, Navabharat etc. having many years of
experience in the coal industry which have their own power plant
transmission line and coal mining business applied for the allotment of
4
the Mandakini Coal Block. It is the case of the petitioner that opposite
party no.3, Jindal Photo Ltd. which has no experience in the field of
mining and power generation applied for the allotment of the coal block in
Mandakini Coal Block of Talcher Coalfields on 9.1.2007.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that Opposite party no.3,
Jindal Photo Limited (hereinafter called as ‘JPL’) has been allotted 97
million tons of coal block from the Mandakini Coal Block overlooking
other experienced and reputed Companies. It is the case of the petitioner
that opposite party no.2 did not scrutinize the application of opposite
party No.3-JPL in accordance with the guidelines for allocation of captive
blocks and conditions of allotment through the Screening Committee. The
allotment of blocks which was issued in favour of the JPL is produced and
marked as Annexure-5. The guidelines for allocation of captive blocks and
conditions of allotment through the Screening Committee is produced and
annexed as Annexure-6. It is the further case of the petitioner that two
portions of the same block have been allotted to Monnet-Ispat and Tatas,
who have got wide experience in the filed. The allotment of coal blocks
received by other bidders such as Sterlite, Lanco, GMR, Reliance, Mittal
Steel, Navabharat etc. as referred to above are comparatively very small.
The aforesaid companies are allotted Greenfield blocks where the
development cost is much higher than open cast blocks, though the said
companies have got sufficient experience in the industries and therefore
they are likely to make much better use of the highly efficient coal blocks
than the JPL. Most of them had applied for allotment of the Mandakini
coal block several years before the JPL has applied for the same.
5
6. It is alleged, on the basis of facts stated supra, that JPL
having hand in gloves with the opposite parties is going to sell away the
high grade coal which has been allotted to it by illegal means. The
purpose of allotment of coal block for the existing power projects is to
combat the power scarcity prevailing in the State of Orissa. The allotment
of high grade coal and that too one-third of the total reserve of Mandakini
Block in favour of JPL is illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the public
policy. It is further alleged that it has reliably learnt that JPL has
obtained the said allotment of coal block by influencing the authorities
concerned. It has suppressed the fact about the earlier coal linkage
allotment in its favour and obtained the present allotment illegally by
undue influence and on extraneous considerations. Therefore, it is illegal
and void, which would results in inappropriate and improper utilization of
the coal block.
7. Mr. Bhagaban Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, contends that the opposite party No.1-Union of
India was required to verify the expertise and other technical abilities of
JPL before allotting such a huge quantity of coal block for captive mining.
Allotment of the said coal blocks in favour of JPL, which has not
possessed the experience in the power generation plant and other plants,
defeats the purpose and objects of allotment of such major mineral in its
favour, thereby the public interest is affected so also public injury and it
is also in violation of rule of law are the relevant grounds on which the
present petition is filed seeking for the aforesaid relief. It is further
contended by him that the opposite party No.1, in the matter of entering
into contract of allotment of coal block, which is a major mineral, which
6
shall be used for the common good as provided in the Directive Principles
of State Policy under Article 39 (b) of the Constitution, has violated in
allotting the coal blocks in favour of an illegal person as it does not
possess the required experience in the filed of power generation. It is
further contended that opposite party No.1 was required to exercise its
jurisdiction by following the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution,
which excludes arbitrariness on its part and requires to act fairly and
reasonably when the contract concerns the public interest at large. It is
urged that as the JPL is not fulfilling the legal requirement having not
possessing the experience in the field of power generation for the
allotment of coal blocks in its favour and it is in violation of the guidelines
and the criteria required to be followed by the opposite party No.1.
Therefore, the action on the part of the opposite party No.1 is arbitrary
and unreasonable as it will be a loss to the State exchequer. It is further
contended that the opposite party No.1 has not discharged its function
properly as it has neither scrutinized the applications in proper
perspective nor acted in a fair and reasonable manner in the allotment of
coal blocks in favour of JPL.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his
submission has placed reliance upon the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty
Vrs. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628, Kasturi
Lal Lakshmi Reddy Vrs. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 1, Fasih Chaudhury
Vrs. Director General, Doordarshan, (1989) 1 SCC 89 and Sterling
Computers Ltd. Vrs. M&N Publications Ltd., (1993) 1 SCC 445. By relying
upon the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, learned counsel for the
7
petitioner prays to grant the relief as the public interest and public injury
is involved in this public interest litigation.
9. Learned Assistant Solicitor General has filed notes of
preliminary submission on behalf of the opposite party No.1 by referring
to various facts pleaded in the writ petition. It is stated that the Ministry
had advertised 38 coal blocks on 6th November, 2006 inviting application
for allocation of the said blocks for captive mining for specified end uses,
namely, power generation, production of iron & steel and production of
cement as per the provisions of Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973
(hereinafter called “the Act, 1973”) as amended from time to time. In
response to the said advertisement, more than 1400 applications were
received for allocation of said blocks, out of which 744 applications were
for power sector blocks. In all, about 207 companies had applied for
power sector coal blocks. Notice along with details of blocks, guidelines
indicating procedure for submission of application, criteria for allocation
etc. were placed on the Ministry’s website as well. As per the procedure
laid down in the guidelines, allocation of coal/lignite blocks was made
through the Screening Committee as the said applications were sent to
the Central Ministries of Power, Commerce and Industry (Department of
Industrial policy & Promotion) Steel as well as the State Governments
concerned, where the blocks were located and where the end use projects
were proposed to be located for their comments. The first meeting of the
Screening Committee was held from 20.06.2007 to 23.06.2007. All the
applicants were invited to make their representations individually outlying
the salient features of their respective cases. Altogether, 193 companies
came and made presentation before the Committee. Ministry of Coal
8
could not finalise the recommendation since the Ministry of Power
informed that they had not been able to examine the applications.
Subsequent thereto another meeting of the Screening Committee was
convened on 30.07.2007. Ministry of power had furnished their views
with the observation that authenticity of data/comments submitted need
to be verified separately. Accordingly, the Committee decided that the
State Governments may be asked to carry out a quick verification of the
data used by the Ministry of power for techno-economic evaluation of end
use projects. The next Committee meeting was convened on 13.9.2007.
The verification reports from the State Government as requested were
received and placed before the screening committee. Financial strength of
applicants was scrutinized independently with the help of financial
experts from Coal India Ltd. Taking cognizance of the advice given by the
Ministry of Power that in view of the capacity constraints in transmission
network, power producers should limit plant capacity to 500 to 1000 MW,
the Committee agreed that this should be taken as the guiding principle.
Therefore, 1000 MW was taken as the maximum limit for allocation of coal
blocks and the shares of geological reserves in the block, in case the
capacity indicated in the application is higher than the maximum limit
suggested by the Ministry of Power.
10. Based on the recommendation of the Screening
Committee as approved by the Government, the Mandakini captive coal-
blocks have jointly been allocated to M/s. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd., M/
s. Jindal Photo Ltd and M/s. Tata Power Company Ltd., for their
respective power plant. It is specifically asserted that Ministry of Power
and Ministry of Coal have applied uniformly the guidelines before deciding
9
the allocation of coal blocks and consequent equitable proportionate
distribution of shares of geological reserves in favour of the allottee.
Therefore, the allegation of not following the guidelines, so also the
allegation of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and illegality on the part of
the opposite party No.1 in allotting the coal blocks in favour of JPL is
specifically denied by Mr. Das, learned Assistant Solicitor General.
11. It is further stated that based on the recommendation of
the Screening Committee as approved by the Government, an offer letter
was issued on 09.01.2008 intimating the option for allocation of
Mandakini captive coal block jointly to M/s. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd.,
M/s. Jindal Photo Ltd and M/s. Tata Power Company Ltd. with equal
shares of the geological reserves for their power plants of 1000 MW
capacity. Further it is contended that the allottees were asked to
intimate their option and form a Joint Venture Company by entering into
a joint venture agreement within four weeks from the date of the aforesaid
offer letter, failing which appropriate action would be taken by the
Government. Accordingly, they entered into a joint venture agreement
and submitted the required bank guarantee and purchased the geological
report from CMPDIL within the prescribed time limit. The mining plan in
respect of the coal block was approved by the Ministry under the MC
Rules of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957
(hereinafter called “MMRD Act”). Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner that the coal block has been allotted illegally and arbitrarily in
favour of JPL is not correct.
12. Opposite party No.3 has filed the counter affidavit raising
certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the writ
10
petition to the effect that the petitioner-Society was registered in the year
2009, but the allotment of coal blocks was made in the year 2008. It is
further alleged that the present writ petition has been filed to abuse the
process of the Court and so also to sub-serve some private interest and for
harassing the opposite party No.3. Therefore, it deserves to be dismissed.
13. Further, with regard to the allegation made for allotment
of coal blocks, the petitioner is unable to show anything by furnishing
relevant material facts that the opposite party No.3 was allotted the coal
block by using influence or on extraneous consideration. The allegation
with regard to illegal allotment of coal block in its favour for power
generation and so also to sell it outside the State is not supported by any
other factual foundation is vague and lacks material particulars.
14. Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for opposite party No.3, placed strong reliance upon the counter affidavit
by referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, reported in JT 2010 (1) SC 329,
wherein it has been held that frivolous and vexatious petitions in the garb
of public interest litigation must be discouraged by the Court in exercise
of its Constitutional power. He has placed reliance on the relevant
guidelines laid down in the aforesaid case in justification of allotment of
coal block in favour of JPL and the Joint Venture Companies (JVC).
15. The relevant guidelines enumerated in the said case are
extracted hereunder for better appreciation of rival contentions in this
matter:
“(a) Verification of the credentials of the P.I.L. petitioner.
(b) Satisfaction of correctness of the contents of the
petition,
11
(c) Substantial public interest is involved.
(d) Petition should involve larger public interest, gravity
and urgency,
(e) The PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm
or public injury and that there should be no personal
gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the
public interest litigation.
(f) Petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and
ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing
exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods
to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for
extraneous considerations.”
16. Further it is contended by Mr. Mohanty that no substantial public
interest are involved in the present case and it does not amount to redressal
of genuine public interest or public injury. Therefore, it is requested that the
writ petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs, as the same has
been filed with ulterior motive and on extraneous consideration. It is further
alleged that the attempt of the petitioner to challenge the allotment of
Mandakini Coal Block of Talcher coal fields in favour of JPL, which has got
only 33% shareholding does not involve redressal of any public injury and no
public interest is shown to be served by filing the present writ petition as
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra)
and also in a catena of decisions on PIL matter. Further, as the petitioner
has no grievance against M/s. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd and M/s. Tata
Power Company Ltd. who are the JVC of JPL and as JPL has got only 33%
share in the project, it cannot be said that there will be any public injury
even if the JPL is having no experience in the filed of power generation. It is
contended that this Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, as the petitioner is unable to show to this Court that neither public
interest nor any public injury or any violation of rule of law is involved in this
case, this Court should decline to exercise its Constitutional power under
12
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Mohanty further seeks to justify
the allotment in favour of opposite party No.3 and its status contending that
opposite party No.3 is a flagship company of the B.C. Jindal Group which is
one of the well reputed industrial groups in the country known for its multi-
product on multi location manufacturing establishment for the last five
decades, such as Jindal Photo Ltd., Jindal Poly Films Ltd., Jindal India Ltd..
However, we do not feel it necessary to elaborate the
details about the company in this judgment, which are given in the counter
affidavit.
17. It is further submitted that opposite party No.3 is acting
in the interest of public and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has
been entered into with Govt. of Orissa for establishment of a power project of
1200 MW by using coal as fuel. Several measures involving huge financial
investment and stake have been taken for establishment of the Thermal
Power Plant in Angul district in the State of Orissa. It is duty bound to act in
terms of the undertakings given to the Govt. of Orissa with regard to the
establishment of its Thermal Power Plant. The conditions include supply of
generated power to the State of Orissa in the proportion as stipulated under
the MOU at concessional rate. The opposite party No.3 has to utilize the coal
from assured captive coal mines /coal linkages by the Govt. of Orissa for End
Use Projects, namely, the power plant alone, to be located in the State of
Orissa and to provide employment to local people in terms of the allotment
letter as well as MOU. Therefore, the allegation made in the PIL that
allotment of coalmines in its favour will hamper the public at large is
certainly a wrong understanding of the petitioner with the concept of public
interest or injury. Rather it will sub-serve the public interest by generating
13
large number of employment and also supply of power directly to the
consumer in the rural parts of the Orissa State as well as in the town and
urban areas and will certainly augment the per capita income of the people of
the State of Orissa. Therefore, the allotment of the coal block in its favour is
in the public interest and it definitely subserves the interest of the common
man of the State. Hence, the petition is wholly untenable in the eye of law
and deserves to be rejected.
18. Mr. Mohanty, further referred to the allotment of the coal
blocks in favour of the JVC on the basis of the recommendation of the State
of Orissa and submits that the coal block allocation is subject to terms and
conditions related to performance and the opposite party No.3 is bound by
the terms and conditions of utilization of coal block allotted in its favour for
the purpose of End Use. If the same is not used for that purpose and is sold
in the public market it has to face the consequence of cancellation of the
allotment as per the condition enumerated in the MOU. Therefore, the
apprehension of the petitioner’s society that the JPL will not utilize the
material resources of coal block and sale it in the open market is also
without any factual foundation and is devoid of any merit.
19. Justifying the stand taken by the learned Assistant
Solicitor General with regard to non violation of any guideline for allocation of
Coal Blocks in favour of JPL, it is contended that strictly in conformity with
the guidelines the allocation has been made. Further, huge investments has
already been made by the company for setting up of the power plant, several
measures have already been taken and infrastructural facilities have been
obtained from the State Government, for acquiring 1055 acres of land (both
Government and private) investment to the tune of Rs. 72 crores have been
14
made, water commitment for 40 cusecs of water has been obtained from the
State Government and various other approvals, namely, clearance from the
Ministry of Environment and Forest, Pollution control Board, Airport
Authority etc. have already been obtained and financial closures for 1200
MW for first and second unit has been completed and it is almost ready for
manufacturing / production activities by establishing the plant but on
account of the status quo order passed by this Court, further steps as
required to be taken are stalled.
20. Mr. Mohanty placing reliance upon the guidelines under
Annexure-6 sought to justify the allocation of coal blocks in favour of JPL
and its JVC and further submitted that the company has fulfilled all the
criteria prescribed in the guidelines. In order to fortify his submission, he
has relied upon the provisions of Sub-Section (3) to Section 3 of the Act,
1973 which reads thus :
“(iii) a company engaged in :
(1) the production of iron and steel,
(2) generation of power
(3) washing of coal obtained from a mine, or
(4) such other end use as the Central Government may
by notification specify
xxx xx xxx xxx”
Clause (iii) of Sub-section (3) came by way of amendment
to the aforesaid provision of the Act,1973 with effect from 9.6.1993. By
careful reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the guidelines, Mr.
Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the JPL submits that the
exclusively power generation is not the criteria for allotment of coal blocks as
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the
Screening Committee has verified the application of the applicants, examined
each one of the application on merit, applying its mind after procuring
15
reports from the respective State Governments and keeping in view the
public interest of the State, the contract is awarded in favour of opposite
party no.3 for a period of 30 years for generating power. Therefore, he
submits that there is no public interest involved in this matter. Further, it
is contended that after lapse of two years from the date of allocation, when
the company has already invested huge amounts of money and obtained all
necessary permission from different Authorities as required under the
various Statutory enactments, at this stage petitioner has come up before
this Court seeking to quash the allocation of coal block in favour of JPL
contending that it is bad in law and as there is delay and latches on the part
of the petitioner, the petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be
dismissed.
21. Mr. P.K.Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for
opposite party no.4 submits that he has no submission to make for the
reason that opposite party no.4 is neither a proper or necessary party to this
proceeding as no relief is sought against it. The same is placed on record.
22. With regard to the above rival contentions, the following
questions are framed for consideration of this Court.
(i) Whether the JPL, in whose favour award of the
contract of coal blocks was made for establishment
of power generation plant, is a eligible person to
submit the application pursuant to the notification
under Annexure-3 ?
(ii) Whether the allotment of coal blocks in favour of
opposite party no.3-JPL, for establishment of
power plant for generation of power by using the
coal blocks which are end uses, is vitiated on
account of illegality, arbitrariness and
unreasonableness as contended by the petitioner ?
(iii) Whether there is any public interest involved by
allotting Mandakini Coal Block of Talcher
Coalfields in favour of JPL and its consortium
16
companies or it will affect either any public interest
or injury or is in violation of Rule of Law ?
23. To answer the first question, it is necessary for us to refer
the guidelines at Annexure-6 and the same are considered in the backdrop of
the statutory provisions of Sub-Section (3) to Section 3 of the Act, 1973. On
careful reading of the notification and guidelines, it appears that the
applications were invited by opposite party No.1 for the purpose of allotment
of coal blocks for generating power by establishing the plant. In our
considered view, the contention urged by the petitioner’s counsel that the
JPL is ineligible as it did not have engaged itself in any power generation as
on the date of filing the application, cannot be accepted by this Court for the
reason that the guidelines are read with the statutory provisions referred to
supra, did not provide anywhere that a person must have the experience in
the field of power generation at the time of submission of its application.
Such type of interpretation of the notification by the learned counsel for the
petitioner cannot be accepted. If such an interpretation is given, the same
would be contrary to the statutory provisions and the guidelines. As long as
the statutory provision and the guidelines are intact, this Court cannot go
beyond the same and fix a criteria that if a person not having existing power
generation plant cannot submit the application as contended by the
petitioner, which would run contrary to the statutory provisions and defeat
the purpose for which the applications were invited by the opposite party
no.1 for allotment of coal blocks in favour of a successful Tenderer for
establishment of power generating plant. Accordingly the first question is
answered against the petitioner.
17
24. To answer the second and third questions, it is necessary
to mention that, elaborate procedure has been followed by the Union of India
and other Ministries. A Screening Committee headed by the Secretary (Coal)
as the Chairman, was constituted to process the applications received
pursuant to the notification. It would be seen from the notes of preliminary
submission made on behalf of the opposite party No.1 that the Committee
has met on several occasions i.e. from 20.06.2007 to 23.06.2007 and on
30.07.2007. The applications were scrutinized, processed, and the reports
from the concerned State Governments were received for the purpose of
allotment of coal blocks and thereafter the same were considered. During
the process of scrutinisation of the applications, Screening Committee
thoroughly examined the same on the basis of the detailed data and notes
submitted by each one of the applicants and the representations which were
filed before the said Committee. The Screening Committee is the fact finding
Committee to examine various relevant factors like, financial capacity,
technical capacity and various other aspects as required, which have been
examined for allotting the coal blocks in favour of the eligible applicants for
the purpose of establishment of power generation plant, by using the coal
blocks for that purpose. On the basis of relevant criteria and guidelines the
Committee has applied its mind, expressed its opinion and recommended for
allotment of the coal blocks in favour of Opposite party No.3-JPL and its
consortium companies. Unless cogent and positive materials are produced
before this Court regarding the correctness of the decision of the fact finding
Committee, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the same.
Therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner that the allotment of coal
blocks awarded in favour of opposite party No.3 and its consortium
18
companies is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable which attracts Article 14 of
the Constitution of India is not based on any valid grounds and evidence. We
are of the view that petitioner’s society has got very limited resources in
placing the materials before this Court. In public interest litigation, it is not
for this Court to go into the correctness of the allegations made against the
granting authority in the absence of material evidence to substantiate the
allegations. Opposite party No.1 is the authority which has allotted the coal
blocks in favour of JPL and its consortium companies. Further, a Committee
constituted by some responsible bureaucrat headed by the Secretary (coal) as
its Chairman has carefully scrutinized the applications and being satisfied
with the eligibility of opposite party No.3, has awarded the contract in its
favour. The said fact is not at all denied by the petitioner as incorrect. In the
absence of the same we cannot, on the basis of surmises, record any finding
that the action of the Ministry of Coal in allotting the coal blocks in the
favour of JPL is bad in law and JPL has influenced the Ministry in getting the
allocation of coal blocks in its favour, and the same cannot be accepted by
this Court.
25. The Court should be very cautious while deciding a
matter relating to PIL, if there is any public interest affected or any injury or
any violation of rule of law is made out, then only this Court has to exercise
its Judicial Review Power.
26. In S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1982 SC
149, a Seven Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly defined
‘what PIL means and is’ and held as follows :
“It may therefore now be taken as well established
that where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a
19person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of
violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden
is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal
provision or without authority of law or any such legal
wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and
such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of
poverty, helplessness, or disability or socially or
economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach
the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain
an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in
the High Court under Article 226 and in case of breach of
any fundamental right of such person or determinate class
of persons, in this Court under Article 32 seeking judicial
redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person
or determinate class of persons …………… This Court will
readily respond even to a letter addressed by such
individual acting pro bono publico. It is true that there are
rules made by this Court prescribing the procedure for
moving this Court for relief under Article 32 and they
require various formalities to be gone through by a person
seeking to approach this Court. But it must not be
forgotten that procedure is but a handmaiden of justice
and the cause of justice can never be allowed to be
thwarted by any procedural technicalities. The court would
therefore unhesitatingly and without the slightest qualms
of conscience cast aside the technical rules of procedure in
the exercise of its dispensing power and treat the letter of
public-minded individual as a writ petition and act upon
it …. But we must hasten to make it clear that the
individual who moves the court for judicial redress in cases
of this kind must be acting bona fide with a view to
vindicating the cause of justice and if he is acting for
personal gain or private profit or out of political motivation
or other oblique consideration, the court should not allow
itself to be activised at the instance of such person and
must reject his application at the threshold, whether it be
in the form of a letter addressed to the court or even in the
form of a regular writ petition filed in court. We may also
point out that as a matter of prudence and not as a rule of
law, the court may confine this strategic exercise of
jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injury is
caused to a determinate class or group of persons or the
constitutional or legal right of such determinate class or
group of persons is violated and as far as possible, not
entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the
instance of a third party, where there is an effective legal-
aid organisation which can take care of such cases.”
In Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors., AIR 1993 SC
892, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding a PIL matter, referred to the
decision in S.P.Gupta (supra) and held that the decision in Gupta’s case is a
20golden master key which has provided access to the Courts for the poor and
down trodden.
27. In Giani Devender Singh Sant Sepoy Sikh Vs. Union of
Inida & Anr, AIR 1995 SC 1847, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :
“….If the High Court intends to pass an order on an
application presented before it by treating it as a public
interest litigation, the High Court must precisely indicate the
allegations or the statements contained in such petition
relating to public interest litigation and should indicate how
public interest was involved and only after ascertaining the
correctness of the allegation, should give specific direction as
may deem, just and proper in the facts of the case.”
28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R&M Trust Vs.
Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group & Ors, AIR 2005 SC 894 held as
under :
“……Courts should be very very slow in entertaining
petitions involving public interest: in very rare cases where
the public at large stand to suffer….”
29. In M/s. Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prem Chandra
Mishra & Ors, AIR 2008 SC 913, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :
“……Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be
used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary
has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful
veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest
and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an
effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social
justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public
interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products
of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public
wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded
on personal vendetta…..”
30. In the instant case, as could be seen from the event that
had taken place, only after the allotment of coal blocks is made in favour of
JPL, particularly when, private and Government lands to the extent of 1055
acres have been acquired by the State Government and handed over in
21
favour of the JPL is the statement of counter filed by the opposite parties.
The aforesaid land which includes both Government and Private lands, were
provided to the JPL for establishment of plant by using coal blocks for end
uses. Further, this writ petition has been filed in the year 2010 but the offer
of allotment was made in the year 2008. Thereafter, the MOU and the
supplementary agreement were entered into by opposite party No.1 with JPL
and its consortium companies. Apart from the said agreement, necessary
permissions from the different departments like Pollution Control Board,
Airport Authority and other necessary organizations had already been
obtained for establishment of the plant. As stated by the learned Senior
Counsel huge investment has already been made for the purpose of
procuring the water, for obtaining geological reports from CMPDI and GSI,
bank guarantees, approval of mining plans etc. for establishment of the
plant. Further, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, JPL and
its consortium companies have entered into an agreement with the State
Government to supply the power that would be generated for consumption of
the consumers of the State at large. Therefore, this writ petition at the
instance of a public spirited person alleging that the public interest will
suffer in the present case is not correct. Rather, in our considered view, if we
interfere at this stage and quash the allotment by granting relief sought for
by the petitioner, in that event, the public interest will suffer and injury will
be caused to the public at large. Therefore, we are of the view that public
interest is in favour of the allocation of coal blocks and not against it as
alleged in the writ petition, for the reason that awarding of the contract in
favour of JPL and its consortium companies for establishment of plant,
referred to supra, by using the coal blocks for end uses is in the public
22
interest, which will generate employment for thousands of unemployed youth
of the State and will augment the State exchequer. Not only it will mitigate
the unemployment problem of the State but also mitigate the power
generation problem as per the MOU entered into by the JPL and its
consortium companies with the State Government. The State Government
under Section 11 of the Electricity Supply Act, 2002 can issue notification to
the power generating companies to supply power to the Corporation which
will supply the same to the consumers and in that process both the
agricultural and industrial development would take place in the State and as
a result of which large number of farmers and industrial workers will be
benefited and the per capita income of the people of the State will increase
and in that process the public interest is protected and safeguarded. In view
of the aforesaid reasons, we have answered the question Nos. 2 and 3 in
justification of the allocation of the coal blocks in favour of JPL and its
consortium companies.
31. As we have answered all the points in justification of the
award in allotting the coal blocks in favour of JPL and its consortium
companies, the fact situation is not in favour of the petitioner’s society,
which has filed this public interest litigation for grant of the reliefs.
Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Since we have dismissed the writ
petition the status quo order granted by this Court on 25.2.2010 stands
vacated.