B.L.A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 184 · Decided: 17-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
B.L.A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 63 of 2015)
AUGUST 17, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, KRISHNA MURARI AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957
– Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Mines (Special Provisions)
Ordinance, 2014 – Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal
Secretary and Others [2014] 8 SCR 446 (the First Judgment) declared
that the entire allocation of coal blocks, as per the recommendations
made by the Screening Committee constituted by respondent no.1-
Union of India (UOI) from 14th July, 1993 onwards and the
allocations made through the Government Dispensation Route after
1993 were arbitrary and illegal – Outcome of the illegal allocations
was subject matter of subsequent judgment delivered in the same
case reported as [2014] 12 SCR 110 (the Second Judgment) wherein
Coal block allotments were divided in two categories on the basis
of the documents furnished by UOI – First category of the allotments
was quashed outright as illegal and arbitrary – Second category
comprised of 46 coal blocks mentioned in Annexure-1 and
Annexure-2 that could possibly be “saved” from cancellation on
imposition of certain terms and conditions, out of which 42 coal
blocks were cancelled with a grace period of six months granted
for the said cancellation to take effect – Coal blocks allocated to
the petitioner were mentioned in Annexure-1 extracted at the end of
the Second Judgment – Petitioner’s name and mining lease area
included by UOI in the Schedules appended to the 2014 Ordinance
even though, the Screening Committee had not allocated any coal
block to it – Held: Allocation of the coal block made in favour of
the petitioner did not run foul of the procedure prescribed in the
MMDR Act and the MC Rules – Petitioner was not allocated the
coal block either through the Screening Committee Route or the
Central Government Dispensation Route, which fact was not pointed
out by the UOI at the appropriate stage, that led to painting the
petitioner with the same brush as the other allottees listed in
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 184
184
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
185
Annexures- 1 and 2 – It was not a beneficiary of the flawed process,
thus the consequences spelt out in the Second Judgment would not
apply to it and thus, it cannot be called upon to pay penalty as
compensatory payment, as demanded by UOI – UOI not entitled to
claim payment of an additional levy for the coal extracted by the
petitioner from the subject mine – Any such demand raised is set
aside – Contempt Petition filed by UOI is also dismissed as meritless
– Costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- be paid by UOI to the Petitioner –
Deprecation.
Allowing the writ petition and dismissing the contempt
petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The issue that requires to be answered in the
instant case is whether the petitioner was allocated coal mines
through the Screening Committee Route and/or the Government
Dispensation Route. Only if the answer to the said question is in
the affirmative, would the respondent No.1–UOI be entitled to
claim compensatory payment from the petitioner in terms of the
Second Judgment and not otherwise. [Para 14][196-B-C]
1.2 Admittedly, the petitioner had submitted a mining lease
application to the Collector (Mining), Narsingpur, Madhya
Pradesh on 8th November, 1994. The said application was
forwarded to the Tehsildar, Gadarwara and the Mining Inspector,
Narsingpur for seeking an inspection report for the area applied
for. Ground work was done by the Tehsildar and the Mining
Inspector who submitted a report of the proposed area which in
turn was confirmed by the Mine Surveyor. The map of the applied
area submitted by the petitioner was also certified by the
Divisional Forest Officer and a consent from Chief Conservator
of Forest was obtained. Additionally, a mineral analysis report
was sought from the petitioner and after all the aforementioned
information was gathered and analyzed, the Collector, Narsingpur
addressed a letter dated 15th May, 1995 to the Principal Secretary,
Mineral Resource Department, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) stating
inter alia that if no Government authorized unit was prepared to
operate in the area and the petitioner is granted the lease, it
would result in development of the area and generation of
employment. Therefore, the Collector (Mining) recommended
B.L.A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA
AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.