Summary
B.L.A. Industries had applied for a coal mining lease to the Madhya Pradesh Government in 1994. The State recommended it after inspection, and the Centre granted prior approval under Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act on that recommendation. The Union nonetheless listed its blocks in Annexure-1 in the Manohar Lal Sharma coal allocation case, so it became liable to the additional levy of Rs 295 per tonne. On an Article 32 petition, the Court found the lease came through the State's independent statutory process, not the Screening Committee or Government Dispensation route. Participation in Screening Committee meetings and a misaddressed allocation letter did not change that. As the petitioner was not a beneficiary of the flawed process, the levy did not apply and the demand was quashed. The Union's contempt petition was dismissed, with costs against the Union for its careless conduct.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner's coal mining lease was allocated through the Screening Committee Route or the Government Dispensation Route held illegal in Manohar Lal Sharma.
- Whether the petitioner was liable to the additional levy of Rs 295 per metric tonne directed in the Second Judgment in that case.
Provisions considered
- Section 5(1), Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957The State Government processed the petitioner's application under the MMDR Act and Mineral Concession Rules and recommended the lease. The Centre granted prior approval on that recommendation, so the grant followed the lawful statutory route. (¶¶ 16, 17, 21)
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe Court entertained the petition and quashed the Union's demand for the additional levy, since the petitioner had been wrongly listed among allottees under the flawed process without a chance to point out the error. (¶¶ 20, 22)
Held
- The Union's liability claim depended on whether the petitioner was allotted the coal block through the Screening Committee or Government Dispensation route held illegal in Manohar Lal Sharma. Only beneficiaries of that flawed process were liable to the compensatory levy. (¶¶ 14, 15, 21)
- The record showed the petitioner applied to the State, which inspected the area, recommended the lease and sought Central approval. The Centre's approval was on the State's recommendation. Participating in Screening Committee meetings, or a Central allocation letter never sent to the State, did not make it a Screening Committee allotment. The State's affidavits confirmed its case was the one exception to that route. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Since the petitioner was not a beneficiary of the flawed process, the consequences of the Second Judgment did not apply. Its inclusion in Annexure-1 was the Union's error, and the petitioner had no chance to correct it because that judgment did not examine individual cases. The levy demand was quashed and the contempt petition dismissed. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- The Union had itself failed to follow the law and then listed a compliant private party among errant allottees without due diligence. For this careless and callous conduct it was ordered to pay litigation costs. (¶¶ 23, 24)
Result
Writ petition allowed and the additional levy demand quashed; contempt petition dismissed. The Union to pay Rs 1,00,000 costs to the petitioner within four weeks.