PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER versus EMTA COAL LIMITED

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 21-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 772
772
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND
ANOTHER
v.
EMTA COAL LIMITED
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5823-5824 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, B. R. GAVAI AND
B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 – s.11 – In Manohar
Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary and Others reported as [2014] 8
SCR 446, Supreme Court held that the allotment of Coal Blocks
between 1993 and 2011 was arbitrary and illegal – All such Coal
Block allocations were quashed – Respondent-prior contractor if
had the first right of refusal in the matter of lending of Mining
Lease, as held by High Court – On appeal, held: s.11 provides that
a successful bidder or allottee, as the case may be, in respect of
Schedule I coal mines, may elect, to adopt and continue such
contracts which may be existing with any of the prior allottees in
relation to coal mining operations – In the event the successful bidder
or allottee elects not to adopt or continue with the existing contracts,
all such contracts shall cease to be enforceable against the successful
bidder or allottee in relation to Schedule I coal mine and the only
remedy of such contracting parties shall be against the prior allottees
– If it is held that u/s.11, a prior contractor is entitled to continue if
his performance is found to be satisfactory and if there is nothing
against him, then it will be providing something in s.11 which the
Statute has not provided for – High Court erred in observing that
respondent had a legitimate expectation – Merely because the Coal
Mine Block was again allotted to the appellant, the same could not
give any vested right in favour of respondent – High Court erred in
forcing the appellant to continue the contract with respondent,
though it was not willing to do so – Decision of the appellant dtd.
06.04.18 was taken in accordance with s.11 and after following
the principle of natural justice – Impugned judgment set aside –
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
773
Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Interpretation – Doctrine of
Legitimate Expectation – Principle of Natural Justice – Judicial
review.
Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Interpretation – Plain and
literal meaning – Held: When upon a plain and literal interpretation
of the words used in a Statute, the legislative intent could be
gathered, it is not permissible to add words to the Statute – Coal
Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 – s.11.
Administrative Law:
Exercise of power of judicial review – Scope of – Discussed.
Judicial review – Wednesbury Principle – Held: While
applying the Wednesbury principle, the Court will examine as to
whether the decision of an authority is such that no authority
properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably
could have reached it.
Words and Phrases – “may elect” in s.11, 2015 Act – Meaning
of – Discussed – Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 – s.11.
Allowing the appeals, this Court
HELD: 1.1 The Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015
came to be enacted in pursuance of the decision of this Court in
the case of Manohar Lal Sharma-I, wherein this Court held that
the allotment of Coal Blocks between 1993 and 2011 was arbitrary,
illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. A plain
reading of Section 11 of the said Act would reveal that it begins
with a non-obstante clause. It provides that a successful bidder
or allottee, as the case may be, in respect of Schedule I coal
mines, may elect, to adopt and continue such contracts which
may be existing with any of the prior allottees in relation to coal
mining operations and the same shall constitute a novation for
the residual term or residual performance of such contract. The
words “may elect” would clearly show that the legislature has
given complete discretion to a successful bidder or allottee to
elect. The words “may elect” would also mean a discretion not
to elect. Only in the event, a successful bidder or allottee decides
to adopt and continue such contract, which may be existing with
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. EMTA COAL LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
any of the prior allottees in relation to coal mining operations,
the same shall constitute a novation for residual term or residual
performance of such contract. In the event, the successful allottee
does not elect to adopt or continue such contract, there is no
question of novation for residual term or resi

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