LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

MANOHAR LAL SHARMA versus THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 110 · Decided: 24-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA, MADAN B. LOKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 110 
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA 
. v. 
THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 120 of 2012) 
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 
[R.M. LODHA, CJI, MADAN B. LOKUR AND 
KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Coal - Allotment of coal blocks - Cancellation of -
C Allotment of coal blocks made by Screening Committee of 
the Government of India and Government Dispensation route 
held arbitrary and illegal -
Consequences of such 
cancellation - Affidavit by Union of India to the effect that coal 
is actually mined from 40 coal blocks listed in Annexure I to 
D the affidavit and 6 coal blocks listed in Annexure II are ready 
for extraction - Issue whether the allotment of these coal 
blocks to be cancelled or not - Held: Process of allotment 
cannot be reopened collaterally through the appointment of 
a committee, as it would virtually amount to nullifying the 
E judgment - All the parties likely to be adversely affected were 
given a hearing, .thus, principle of natural justice was applied 
-
The first category of allotments are o,ther than those 
mentioned in Annexure 1 and Annexure 2 which are illegal 
and arbitrary, the allottees have not yet entered into any 
Β· F Β·mining lease and they have not yet commenced production, 
thus, all these allotments are quashed - Second category 
being the 46 coal blocks mentioned in Annexure 1 and 
Annexure 2, though have commenced production or are on 
the verge of commencing production - These allocations are 
G illegal and arbitrary, thus, are liable to be cancelled -
However, the allotment of coal blocks Moher and Moher 
Amroli Extension allocated to Sasan Power Ltd. (UMPP), 
Tasia (allotted to Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), and Pakri 
Barwadih coal block (allotted to National Thermal Power 
H 
110 
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPLE 
111 
SECRETARY 
Corporation (NTPC), not liable to be cancelled -
The 
A 
cancellation would take effect from 31st March, 2015- Period 
of six months is being given since the Central Government 
and GIL would need some time to adjust to the changed 
situation and move forward as a/so adequate time is given 
to the coal block allottees to adjust and manage their affairs 
B 
- Allottees of the coal blocks other than those covered by the 
judgment and the four coal blocks covered by this order to 
pay an amount of Rs. 2951- per metric ton of coal extracted 
as an additional levy within the stipulated period - Coal 
extracted hereafter ti/131 st March, 2015 would also attract the c 
additional levy of Rs. 2951- per metric ton - Scrutiny by CBI 
in respect of allotment of 12 coal blocks out of 46 would 
continue. 
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Kamataka I.A. 
No.201 & 219, 223 in I.A. No.204 and I.A. Nos. 224 in I.A. 
D 
No.215 in WP(C) No. 562/2009;; Ashok Hurrah v. Rupa 
Ashok Hurrah 2002 (2 ) SCR 1006 : (2002) 4 SCC 388; 
National Textile Workers' Union v. P. R. Ramakrishna 1983 
(1) SCR 922 : (1983) 1 SCC 228; Sheela Barse v. Union of 
India 1988 ( 2) Suppl. SCR 643: (1988) 4 SCC 226; Onkar E 
Lal Bajaj v. Union of India 2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 605 :(200~) 
2 SCC 673; Chingleput Bottlers v. Majestic Bottling 
Company 1984 (3) SCR 190 : AIR 1984 SC 1030 - referred 
to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2002 (2) SCR 1006 
Referred to 
Para 16 
1983 (1) SCR 922 
Referred to 
Para 18 
1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 643 Referred to 
Para 20 
2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 605 Referred to 
Para 21 
1984 (3) SCR 190 
Referred to 
Para 22 
F 
G 
H 
112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition 
B 
(Criminal) No. 120 of 2012. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
WITH 
W.P. (C) No. 463 and 515 of 2012 
W.P. (C) No. 283 of 2013 
Manohar Lal Sharma (Petitioner -in -person), Summan, 
C 
Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Satyajit Desai, Akshaya 
M. Sudame, Anagha S. Desai, Jyoti Mendiratta for the 
petitioner. 
Mukul Rohatgi, AG., Ranjit Kumar, SG., Maninder Singh, 
D ASG., A. Saran, Anil B.' Divan, K.K. Venugopal, Ra11.ndra 
Srivastava, K.V. Viswanathan, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, 
Harish N. Salve, Dushyant Dave, Krishnan Venugopal, Paras 
Kuhad, Gopal Jain, Rakesh Dwivedi, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Vikas 
Singh, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, T.R. Andhyarujina, Gopal Jian, Arijit 
E 
Prasad, Binu Tamta, Sushma Suri, D.S. Mahra, Amit Anand 
Tiwari, Sanchit Guru, Ashutosh Jha, Avinash Tripathi, Ramesh 
Babu M.R., Anip Sachthey, Mahi! Paul, Shagun Matta, Saakaar 
Sardana, Apoorv Kurup, Prashanto Sen, C.D. Singh, Rathi 
Rohit, V.C. Shukla, Sakshi Kakk

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