UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Vs. SOVA ISPAT LIMITED AND ORS
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 1182 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jan 27, 2015
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1182 of 2015
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.431 of 2015)
Union of India & Another ... Appellants
Versus
Sova Ispat Limited & Others ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Chelameswar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by an interim order passed by the High Court of Calcutta in
AST No.432 of 2014 dated 23.12.2014, the respondents 1 and 2 therein
preferred the instant appeal. The relevant portion of the order reads as
follows:-
"As the writ application has been admitted and as affidavits have been
called for and as the constitutionality of the said Ordinance is under
challenge, any auction conducted by the respondents, in respect of the
Ardhagram coal block, as incorporated under serial No.19 of the allotment
list in Annexure-II of the memorandum dated 18th December, 2014, shall
abide by the result of the writ application. In the event any such auction
is held, the instant order should be indicated in the auction notice."
3. The following are the facts relevant for the purpose of this order.
The first respondent, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956
along with one M/s. Jai Balaji Sponge Ltd., secured the allotment of a coal
block known as "Ardhagram Coal Block" under the memorandum of the appellant
dated 6th December, 2007, which was subsequently renewed on 24.2.2014.
4. Pursuant to the said allotment, the third respondent herein executed
a mining lease in respect of the said 'coal block' in favour of the first
respondent.
5. The legality of the various allotments of the coal blocks became the
subject matter of public interest litigation before this Court. By
judgments dated 25.8.2014 and 24.9.2014, the allocation of various coal
blocks including the one allocated in favour of the first respondent was
cancelled.
6. As a consequence, an Ordinance came to be promulgated by the
President of India known as the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Second
Ordinance, 2014 (No. 7 of 2014).
7. Under Section 4 of the said Ordinance, "coal mines" shall be
allocated by way of public auction in accordance with Rules as may be
prescribed. For the purpose of the said Ordinance, coals mines are
divided into three categories under Schedules I, II and III of the
Ordinance. Broadly speaking, Schedule-I coal mines are those mines whose
allocation (made earlier in favour of the various parties like the first
respondent herein) were cancelled by the orders of this Court referred to
earlier.
8. A successful bidder in an auction held pursuant to the Ordinance is
entitled for securing a "vesting order" of the mine under Section 8 of the
Act.
9. Such an order of vesting shall transfer and vest upon the successful
bidder various rights enumerated under Section 8(4).
10. Under Section 16 of the Ordinance, compensation is required to be
paid with reference to "land" and "mine infrastructure" of the Schedule-I
coal mines. The expression "mine infrastructure" is defined under Section
3(j) of the Ordinance.
11. From a cursory reading of the pleadings, it appears that the
respondents have installed certain end user plants in a parcel of land, a
part of which falls within the area of the coal block of which the first
respondent was the prior allottee and the remaining part is outside such
coal block but abutting the said coal block.
12. The case of the first respondent is that the Ordinance provides for
compulsory acquisition of the respondents' end user plant or part of it
which is located within the coal block area without the payment of any
compensation and therefore various articles of the Constitution of India
are violated including Article 300A. Pending adjudication of such a claim,
by way of an interim order, the first respondent sought stay of the auction
of the coal block of which he was the earlier allottee.
13. While declining to stay the auction as sought by the first
respondent, the order impugned in the instant appeal came to be passed.
14. The learned Attorney General appearing for the Union of India
submitted that the Union of India does not propose to acquire the end user
plant of the respondent, as apprehended by the respondent. The
observations such as the one made by the High Court (which is extracted
earlier) would seriously hamper the prospects of any competitive bid as the
prospective bidders would be hesitant to acquire any coal block which would
drag them into litigation in future. He further submitted that since the
basic concern of the respondent is only to ensure that he is not deprived
of his property without adequate compensation, the Union of India gives an
undertaking to earmark that portion of the land occupied by the end user
plant falling within the coal block area and exclude the same from the
process of auction and vesting contemplated under the Ordinance so that the
rights of property of the respondent remain intact.
15. On the other hand, Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel submitted
that the Union of India would be acting contrary to the letter of the
Ordinance in making such a concession and therefore the same should not be
accepted.
16. In view of the fact that the Writ Petition is pending in the High
Court, we do not propose to examine the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respondent, but we are satisfied that the interest of
justice demands that the impugned order be set aside recording the
undertaking of the learned Attorney General mentioned above. We order
accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
17. We leave open all questions of law to be agitated by the parties
before the High Court.
Appeal allowed as indicated above.
....................................J.
(J. Chelameswar)
....................................J.
(Rohinton Fali Nariman)
New Delhi;
January 27, 2015
-----------------------
6
For the Latest Updates
Join Now