1 CGHC010299062022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4271 of 2022 Vandana Global Limited Having Its Registered Office At Flat No. 602, Poonam's Apartment, N.S. Road, No. 11, Plot No. 23, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai - 400049, Maharastra Having Its Principle Place Of Business At Siltara, Industrial Area, Phase - Ii, Siltara, Raipur - 493111, Chhattisgar Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Coal, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 2 - Coal India Limited A Maharatna Company (Govt. Of India Undertaking), Through Its General Manager (Marketing And Sales), Coal Bhawan, Marketing Directorate, Primeses No. 04 Mar, Plot - Af - Iii, Action Area - 1a, New Town, Kolkata - 700156. 3 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited (A Subsidiary Of Coal India Limited/ A Mini Ratna Psu), Through Its General Manager (Marketing And Sales), Regd. Office - Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495006. 4 - South Eastern Central Railways Through Its Senior Divisional Operation Manager, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.20 10:52:35 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 4 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI For Respondents No. 2 & 3/SECL : Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ramakant Mishra and Ms. Astha Shukla, learned counsel for the respective respondents. 2. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the alleged inaction of respondent No.3–South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) in not restoring/reviving 24 cancelled rakes of Grade-6 coal under Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) No. A-222 dated 02.05.2017, despite repeated representations made by the petitioner. The petitioner has further sought a direction to the respondents to issue a communication/policy similar to the letter dated 08.11.2019 issued by Coal India Limited in relation to Dipka and Junadih sidings, so as to enable restoration of the aforesaid cancelled rakes from Kumda Siding or any other suitable siding in accordance with the terms of the said Fuel Supply Agreement. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: 3 "The petitioner humbly prays before this Hon'ble Court that it may kindly be pleased: 10.1 to kindly direct the Respondent no. 3 to restore/revive 24 rakes of coal of an appropriate grade – 6 of coal from Kumda sidingor any other sidingas per the FSA – 222 dated May 02, 2017. 10.2 to kindly direct the Respondents to issue a letter for restoration of rakes from Kumda siding similar to the letter dated November 8, 2019 made for the restoration of rakes at Dipka and Junadih siding. 10.3 to grant any other relief which it deems fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing steel and generation of power at Siltara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. For its Sponge Iron Plant and 24 MW Thermal Power Plant, the petitioner requires supply of coal. Pursuant to the Scheme Document dated 12.01.2017 issued for auction of coal linkages to the Non-Regulated Sector, the petitioner was declared a successful bidder and was issued a Letter of Intent dated 06.02.2017. Thereafter, Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) No. A-222 dated 02.05.2017 came to be executed between the petitioner and respondent No.3-SECL for supply of Grade-6 coal from the identified source. According to the petitioner, during the period from 2017-2018 to 2020-2021, a total of 24 rakes of Grade-6 coal were allotted under the 4 said FSA. However, on account of non-availability of coal at Kumda Siding, the said rakes came to be cancelled on the advice of SECL. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though SECL subsequently offered coal from alternate sources, namely, Bhatgaon and thereafter Govinda Siding, the coal offered was of inferior grades, namely Grade- 7, Grade-8 and Grade-11, contrary to the contractual stipulation of Grade-6 coal under the FSA. The petitioner asserts that while it accepted the offer of lifting coal from Bhatgaon by furnishing the requisite affidavit and rail programme, no supply was ultimately made, and it was constrained to decline the offer from Govinda Siding as the quality of coal offered was unsuitable for operation of its plant. 5. It is further pleaded that despite repeated representations seeking restoration of the cancelled 24 rakes and supply of coal of the agreed grade in terms of the FSA, no action was taken by respondent No.3. The petitioner has alleged that Coal India Limited had, by communication dated 08.11.2019, extended the benefit of restoration of cancelled rakes in respect of Dipka and Junadih Sidings in the case of another consumer, and that denial of similar treatment to the petitioner is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On the aforesaid premises, the present writ petition has been filed seeking, inter alia, a direction to respondent No.3 to restore/revive the cancelled 24 rakes of Grade-6 coal under FSA No. A-222 dated 02.05.2017 from Kumda Siding or any other appropriate siding, and to issue a communication analogous to the letter dated 08.11.2019 for extending similar benefits to the petitioner. 5 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory manner in failing to restore the 24 cancelled rakes of coal under Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) No. A-222 dated 02.05.2017, despite the admitted fact that the cancellation was occasioned solely on account of non- availability of coal at Kumda Siding, for which the petitioner was in no manner responsible. It is contended that the petitioner had scrupulously complied with all the obligations cast upon it under the FSA by timely submitting rail programmes and, when called upon by SECL, had also accepted the offer to lift coal from the alternate source, namely, Bhatgaon Siding, by furnishing the requisite affidavit-cum-indemnity bond through the FOIS portal. However, according to the learned counsel, despite such acceptance, respondent No.3 failed to supply coal even from the alternate source. It is further submitted that the subsequent offer of Grade-11 coal from Govinda Siding was wholly contrary to the contractual stipulations, as the FSA contemplated supply of Grade-6 coal and the inferior quality of coal offered was admittedly unsuitable for operation of the petitioner's sponge iron plant and thermal power plant. Therefore, refusal of the petitioner to accept such inferior grade coal cannot be construed as a default disentitling it from seeking restoration of the cancelled rakes. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that respondent No.3 has adopted a discriminatory approach by extending the benefit of restoration of cancelled rakes to consumers operating from Dipka and Junadih Sidings pursuant to the communication dated 08.11.2019 issued by Coal India Limited, while denying similar 6 treatment to the petitioner without any rational basis. It is argued that although the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3287 of 2022 was disposed of on the ground that the communication dated 08.11.2019 was not applicable to Kumda Siding, the present writ petition proceeds on an altogether different footing, namely, that the respondents ought to have issued a similar communication for Kumda Siding in view of the identical factual circumstances. It is, therefore, submitted that the continued inaction of the respondents in not restoring the 24 cancelled rakes, despite repeated representations, is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, contrary to the terms of the Fuel Supply Agreement and the doctrine of legitimate expectation, and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 4 would submit that no specific relief has been claimed against the said respondents and the controversy involved in the present writ petition essentially arises out of the implementation of the Fuel Supply Agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent No.3– South Eastern Coalfields Limited. It is contended that respondents No.1 and 4 have neither passed any order prejudicial to the petitioner nor are they concerned with the allotment, cancellation or restoration of the coal rakes forming the subject matter of the present petition. It is, therefore, submitted that no cause of action survives against respondents No.1 and 4 and the writ petition, insofar as it seeks any direction against them, deserves to be dismissed. 7 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, on the other hand, would support the action of the respondents and submit that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the operations at Kumda Siding had to be discontinued due to circumstances beyond the control of SECL and, therefore, in terms of the Fuel Supply Agreement, alternative sources of supply, namely, Bhatgaon and thereafter Govinda Siding, were duly offered to all similarly situated consumers, including the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondents acted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the FSA and there has been no arbitrariness or breach of contractual obligations on their part. Learned counsel would further contend that the Circular/communication dated 08.11.2019 issued by Coal India Limited was confined exclusively to Dipka and Junadih Sidings in the peculiar facts of that case and cannot be extended to Kumda Siding as a matter of right. It is further argued that an identical contention raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3287 of 2022 was not accepted by this Court, wherein it was observed that the communication dated 08.11.2019 was inapplicable to the petitioner's case. According to the respondents, the petitioner cannot seek issuance of a fresh policy or communication in exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly when alternative arrangements had already been offered under the FSA. It is, therefore, submitted that the writ petition, being devoid of any merit and involving no infringement of any enforceable legal or fundamental right, deserves to be dismissed 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 8 11. The main grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 has failed to restore 24 cancelled rakes of Grade-6 coal under Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) No. A-222 dated 02.05.2017 and has also failed to issue a communication similar to the communication dated 08.11.2019 issued by Coal India Limited in respect of Dipka and Junadih Sidings. The respondents, on the other hand, have taken a categorical stand that the communication dated 08.11.2019 was confined to Dipka and Junadih Sidings alone and that, owing to discontinuation of operations at Kumda Siding for reasons beyond the control of SECL, alternate sources were offered to the petitioner strictly in terms of the Fuel Supply Agreement. The respondents have further contended that the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, seek issuance of a policy decision or a communication similar to the one issued in another case. 12. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that the controversy need not detain this Court for long. The material placed on record would reveal that the claim of the petitioner relates to allotments made during the period 2017-2018 to 2020-2021, cancellation of the concerned rakes having taken place between April, 2020 and January, 2021. The present writ petition came to be instituted in the year 2022 seeking restoration of those cancelled rakes. During the pendency of the writ petition, considerable time has elapsed and the relief sought by the petitioner is essentially for restoration of specific rakes allotted under the Fuel Supply Agreement several years ago. In the considered opinion of this Court, at this distance of time, no effective or workable direction can be issued for restoration of those specific rakes, particularly when the allotments pertain to a past period and the 9 contractual arrangement has already worked itself out. The relief claimed has, therefore, become stale by efflux of time. 13. The dispute regarding allotment and cancellation of the coal rakes admittedly pertains to the period 2017-2018. Although the writ petition came to be instituted in the year 2022, the matter has remained pending till the year 2026. The principal relief sought by the petitioner is for restoration/revival of 24 specific coal rakes which were allegedly cancelled several years ago under the contractual arrangement existing at that point of time. By passage of time, the contractual period has long expired and the concerned allocations relate to a past operational cycle. At this distant point of time, it is neither practicable nor legally feasible to issue a writ directing restoration of those very coal rakes. The relief sought has, therefore, become incapable of effective implementation merely by efflux of time. 14. It is equally well settled that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is intended to grant effective and enforceable relief and not to issue directions which have become incapable of implementation owing to subsequent events or lapse of time. Any direction at this stage for restoration of coal rakes allotted during the period 2017-2018 would, in the considered opinion of this Court, be purely academic and incapable of practical execution. Likewise, no mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to frame or issue a policy or communication similar to the communication dated 08.11.2019 so as to revive a contractual claim which has already become stale by passage of time. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered 10 opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in exercise of the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The claim sought to be enforced has become stale and incapable of effective implementation by reason of efflux of time. Consequently, no interference is called for. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ved Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved