2025:JHHC:32219-DB 1 LPA No.66 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.66 of 2023 ------ 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, having its office at 120, 1st floor, F-wing, Shahstri Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-New Delhi, District-New Delhi 2. The Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, having its office at 120, 1st floor F-wing, Shahstri Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Shastri Bhawan, District-New Delhi …. …. Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. JSW Steel Ltd., a Company Incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at JSW Center, Bandra Kurla Complex, P.O. & P.S. Bandra East District Mumbai, and it’s Project Office at B-236, Ground Floor, Road No.3, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi, through its authorized representative and Associate Vice President-Projects, Sri Dhananjay Kumar Sinha, son of Sri Upendra Nath Sinha, aged about 55 years, resident of Flat No.201, Shakti Apartment, Ashokpuram, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi. 2. Dhananjay Kumar Sinha, son of Sri Upendra Nath Sinha, aged about 55 years, resident of Flat No.201, Shakti Apartment, Ashokpuram, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi. .... .... Petitioners/Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG ------ C.A.V. on 13.10.2025 Pronounced on 16/10/2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 2 LPA No.66 of 2023 Prayer 1. The instant appeal, preferred by the Union of India under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.1127 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been disposed of by quashing the show cause notices issued by the Deputy Secretary being the Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India with a liberty to pass order afresh. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1127/2020, required to be enumerated, which read as under: - (i) It is the case of the writ petitioners that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. (ii) The petitioners propose to set up an integrated steel plant in Jharkhand. The State of Jharkhand and the petitioner had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 09.11.2005 in terms of which the Government of Jharkhand had assured to provide all assistance to the petitioner inter alia in acquiring land, getting mining lease etc. (iii) The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 25.08.2014 and 24.09.2014 passed in Manohar Lal Sharma vs. The Principal Secretary & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 516, had 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 3 LPA No.66 of 2023 de-allocated 214 Coal Blocks which were previously allocated by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India including the Moitra Coal Block which allocated to the prior allottee. (iv) Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment, an ordinance was promulgated by his Excellency the President of India, being Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014.Thereafter, the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 was brought into force retrospectively from 21.10.2014 and in terms thereof the Central Government has also framed Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Rules, 2014. (v) After passing of the Act by the Parliament, fresh bidding was conducted for allocation of the different Coal Blocks in which the petitioner had also participated. In the auction, Moitra Coal Block was allocated to the petitioner. (vi) Pursuant thereof, an agreement was executed between His Excellency the President of India, acting through the Central Government represented by the Nominated Authority and the petitioner on 17.03.2015 in terms of Rule- 13(5) of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Rules, 2014 and the said agreement is termed as “Coal Mines and Development and Protection Agreement”. (vii) Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, the petitioner was required to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,715,803,210.00 in terms of Clause 6.1 of the agreement, the 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 4 LPA No.66 of 2023 petitioner accordingly furnished a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,715,803,210.00 dated 26.03.2015. (viii) The Government of India through Office of Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, issued a vesting order no. 104/21/2015/NA dated 22.04.2015 in terms of Section 8(4) of the Act of 2015, read with Rule 7(2)(b) and Rule 13(1) of the Rules of 2014, in favour of the petitioner by virtue of which all rights, title and interest of the prior allottee in and over the land (including land compensatory afforestation) and mine infrastructure of the prior allottee vested in the petitioner free from all encumbrances. (ix) The Moitra Coal Block was earlier allocated to M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. For the purpose of working the coal block, the prior allottee had purportedly acquired 242.55 acres of land within the coal block area comprised within 10 villages in the District of Hazaribagh within the State of Jharkhand. (x) The prior allottee had also acquired a total area of 266.17 acres of land in the district of Dhanbad, Garhwa, Gumla and Palamau for the purpose of Compensatory Afforestation. (xi) The said CMDPA was amended on 06.05.2015 whereby the efficiency parameter was rescheduled. (xii) In terms of the provisions of Section 8(4) of the Act of 2015, once a vesting order is issued in terms of Rule 7(2)(b) 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 5 LPA No.66 of 2023 and Rule 13(1) of the Rules of 2014, all the rights, title and interest of the prior allottee in an over the land and mining infrastructure stand fully and absolutely transferred and vested in the successful bidder, i.e., the petitioner free from all encumbrances. (xiii) Therefore, the land purchased by the prior allottee in connection to Moitra Coal Project stood statutorily transferred by way of legal fiction in favour of the petitioner. (xiv) The respondent no. 1/appellant no.1 herein, vide its letter dated 19.05.2015 had categorically directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand for transfer of all licenses of the prior allottee in favour of the successful bidder including mutation of the land without any delay and with no extra liability. (xv) After the issuance of the vesting order, the petitioner made several representations before the concerned respondent authorities through its letters dated 03.06.2015 and 10.07.2015 requesting the respondent authorities to transfer and mutate the land held by the prior allottee both within the mining lease area and land for compensatory afforestation, in favour of the petitioners, otherwise the petitioner will be rendered incapacitated to comply with the efficiency parameter contained in Schedule-E of the CMDPA. (xvi) The State of Jharkhand in order to resolve the issue 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 6 LPA No.66 of 2023 relating to transfer and mutation of the vested land, constituted a committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State, which in a meeting held on 10.08.2015 had proposed to realize stamp duty and registration charges by executing a registered deed of transfer. (xvii) While the decision regarding payment of registration fee and stamp duty was pending, the petitioner vide its letter dated 04.09.2015 had apprised the State of Jharkhand that the vesting order is issued in terms of Rule-7(2)(b) and Rule-13(1) of the Coal Mines (Special Provision) Rules, 2014 as per which the land and mining infrastructure stand fully and absolutely transferred and vested in favour of the successful bidder, i.e., the petitioner. (xviii) The respondent No. 1 once again through its letter being letter No. F. No. 13016/36/2015-CA-III dated 13.10.2015 clarified that the entire land owned by the prior allottee whether the same was previously owned and/or acquired by the government and transferred to the prior allottee or purchased by the prior allottee have directly vested in favour of successful bidder, i.e., the petitioner in the present case as per Section 8(4) read with Section 3(1)(p) of the Act of 2015 and the same is required to be transferred and mutated in favour of the successful allottee without any extra liability. (xix) In the said letter dated 13.10.2015, the respondent 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 7 LPA No.66 of 2023 No. 1 had specifically mentioned that any guideline which stipulates payment of sum to the Government on the basis of assessment of present value of land are not applicable in the case of vesting done under the Coal Mines Special Provision Act. It was also stated that the special act has an overriding effect on any other law which is inconsistent with or in contravention to the provision of the Coal Mines Special Provision Act as such the same will prevail over any rules or guidelines. (xx) The writ petitioner made a representation dated 24.11.2015 before the Ministry of Coal, Government of India that the Government of Jharkhand is intending to take a decision to charge stamp duty and registration fee for the transfer of land from the prior allottee to the petitioner ignoring the fact that the same has already been vested upon the petitioner by legal fiction and an Act of legislature, as such the decision to that effect will be totally inconsistent and contrary to the notification issued by the Ministry of Coal. (xxi) The Govt. of Jharkhand through Department of Land Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms issued notification no.5281 dated 26.11.2015 specifying that the land owned by the prior allottee will be transferred and mutated in favour of the successful bidder, i.e., the petitioner on payment of registration fee and stamp duty over the present valuation of 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 8 LPA No.66 of 2023 the land. (xxii) The writ petitioner again made a representation dated 10.03.2016 requesting the concerned respondent for their intervention and support on expeditious transfer and mutation of the land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically informed that delay in transfer and mutation of the vested land will adversely affect in achieving the milestone. (xxiii) It is the further case of the petitioners that the respondents have not responded to the representations made by the petitioner. In spite of repeated requests and representations made by the petitioner, the Govt. of Jharkhand failed to take any positive step for complying with the clarification issued by the Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India and the petitioner did not receive any favourable response from the State of Jharkhand till 25.05.2016. (xxiv) The State of Jharkhand vide its letter dated 25.05.2016 issued the direction after notification dated 26.11.2015 directing the petitioner to get the vested land transferred by way of a registered transfer deed and on payment of requisite stamp duty. (xxv) In order to avoid any further delay, the petitioner was compelled and constrained to enter into transfer of land vide 10 deeds of transfer executed on payment of the demanded stamp duty and registration charges. Therefore, the 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 9 LPA No.66 of 2023 transfer of vested land within the mining lease area was affected by executing registered transfer deeds on 30.05.2016 on payment of stamp duty and registration fee. (xxvi) Meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh has issued a communication dated 02.01.2016 wherein the petitioner has been informed that prior to mutation of the vested land, a permission under Section 49 of the CNT Act is required to be obtained and a proceeding under Section 49 of the CNT Act will be initiated with respect to the vested land and in this regard, the Circle Officer, Barkagaon, Hazaribagh had issued notice(s) to several persons who were the original owners of the land. (xxvii) The transfer and mutation of land for compensatory afforestation being major pre-requisite for achieving Stage-II Forest Clearances and subsequent execution of mining lease, the petitioner made several representations before the concerned authorities for expediting the matter of transfer and mutation. However, the petitioner failed to fetch any favourable response from the concerned respondents. (xxviii) The petitioners had also represented before the concerned respondent for their intervention and support in achieving the Efficiency Parameter No.9, i.e., Forest Clerance and subsequent achievement of Efficiency Parameter No.12, i.e., Grant of Mining Lease well before eleven months from the 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 10 LPA No.66 of 2023 schedule date of completion, i.e., on 24.03.2016. However, the concerned respondents never replied to the same. (xxix) The mining lease thereafter granted to the petitioner on 31.10.2019 but the same has not been executed. However, the respondents in their endeavour to shift the entire blame upon the petitioner started issuing show cause notices to the petitioner for not meeting the time schedule as provided under the efficiency parameter. (xxx) In this regard, the respondent nos.1 and 2 before the writ court, issued the show cause notice dated 21.03.2017 for not meeting the timeline with respect to Forest Clerance. The said show cause notice was replied by the petitioner. (xxxi) Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1127 of 2020 has been filed and the same has been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. Submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellants- U.O.I. 3. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the appellants-U.O.I. has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned judgment: - (i) Learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the fact that the terms and conditions as referred under Clause 6.2 of the 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 11 LPA No.66 of 2023 Coal Mine Development and Production Agreement (in short ‘CMPDA’) for Moitra Coal Mine has not properly been appreciated, reason being that, due show cause notice has been issued as required to be issued under Clause 6.3 of the Agreement and as such, there was no need to have an opportunity at the stage of determination, as referred under Clause 6.2 of the Agreement. (ii) It has been contended that the writ petitioners have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Nominated Authority, in pursuance to the show cause notice issued in the light of Clause 6.3 of the Agreement without raising the issue of non- compliance of the issue of determination, as referred under Clause 6.2 of the Agreement. (iii) The ground has been taken that once the respondents-writ petitioners have submitted to the jurisdiction of the concerned authority, it is not available for the respondents-writ petitioners to take the ground that merely because the determination is not there, as required to be there under Clause 6.2 of the Agreement, the decision so taken by the 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 12 LPA No.66 of 2023 authority, suffers from infirmity. (iv) The ground has been taken that the authority while considering the response furnished on behalf of the writ petitioners in pursuance to the show cause notice issued in terms of Clause 6.3 of the Agreement, has taken into consideration the issue of waiver or appropriation depending upon the factual aspect, as also, depending upon the said response. Therefore, the issue is still left open by the authority and after getting the report from the State, the issue either of waiver or appropriation is to be considered and in case, the State will not forward its report, then, the Nominated authority will decide the issue of waiver or appropriation of amount, therefore, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the writ petitioner. (v) Lastly, it has been submitted that the similar matter is lying pending for consideration in L.P.A. Nos.67 and 61 of 2023 which was reserved on 23rd September, 2025. Submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondents-writ petitioners 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 13 LPA No.66 of 2023 4. Per contra, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners has submitted that it is a case where the terms and conditions of the bilateral contract in pursuance to the Coal Mine Development and Production Agreement has not been complied with, which aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge and based upon the same, the order impugned passed by the authority, has been interfered with. 5. The contention which has been raised of no prejudice having been caused to the writ petitioners, cannot be said to be acceptable and it is not acceptable at all, reason being that, when the terms and conditions of the contract is available, then, it is the bounden duty of the parties to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract, there cannot be any go-by to the terms and conditions of the agreement. 6. It has been contended that in the agreement, it has been taken care of, the opportunity is to be provided to the respondents- writ petitioners before taking the decision of the appropriation of the performance security at two stages, i.e., at the stage of condition stipulated under Clause 6.2 and 6.3 of the Agreement. Clause 6.2 provides the issue of determination of the laches committed on the part of the respondents-writ petitioners and on the basis of such determination, the penal action is required to be taken in view of the terms and 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 14 LPA No.66 of 2023 conditions stipulated under Clause 6.3 of the Agreement. 7. The argument therefore has been advanced that directly taking action in view of the provision of Clause 6.3 after issuance of show cause notice to the writ petitioners, the vital right of the issue of determination as required to be there in view of Clause 6.2 of the Agreement, has been taken away and thereby, the petitioners have been deprived to have one opportunity to put their defence. 8. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that if the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration these issues, has interfered with the impugned judgment by passing the judgment dated 06.12.2022 (impugned in the instant memo of appeal), the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment as also the judgment passed by this Court, vide order dated 13.10.2025 in L.P.A. Nos.67 and 61 of 2023. 10. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the judgment passed by this Court in L.P.A. Nos.67 and 61 of 2023 on 13.10.2025. 11. We, after going through the pleadings made in the instant memo of appeal, as also, the judgment dated 13.10.2025 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 15 LPA No.66 of 2023 passed in L.P.A. Nos.67 and 61 of 2023, have found that the issue, which is the subject matter of the present appeal, has been decided by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment being L.P.A. Nos.67 and 61 of 2023, are being referred as under:- “29. It requires to refer herein that even if there is no statutory provision requiring an opportunity to be given, in order to follow the cardinal principle of natural justice, an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the party concerned who is going to be adversely affected, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vrs. Union of India and Anr., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248, wherein, the proposition has been laid down that even if there is no statutory provision requiring an opportunity to be given, in order to follow the cardinal principle of natural justice, an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the party concerned who is going to be adversely affected. 31. This Court, therefore, is of the view that merely because there is no reference to provide an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners under Clause 6.2, the vital right of putting their defence at the stage of determination of liability cannot be taken away, otherwise, the same will violate the principle of natural justice. 32. Clause 6.3 is the consequence of the issue of determination which is to be done as per the condition stipulated under Clause 6.2 of the 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 16 LPA No.66 of 2023 Agreement. 33. Initiation which is to be taken under Clause 6.2 of the Agreement is to be based upon the determination of the liability of appropriation of the performance security and for which also, depending upon the outcome of the issue of determination as per Clause 6.2 of the Agreement, a fresh show cause notice is to be given to the party concerned. 34. However herein, show cause notice has been given in terms of Clause 6.3 of the Agreement which has been responded by the respondents-writ petitioners and for that reason, the ground has been taken that the writ petitioners have submitted to the jurisdiction of the authority concerned and hence, the writ petitioners are seized to agitate the issue of non- compliance of the condition stipulated under Clause 6.2 of the Agreement. 35. This Court, is of the view that merely because the petitioners have responded to the response given in view of Clause 6.3, they will not seize in agitating the issue of laches committed on the part of the appellants in depriving the petitioners in providing the opportunity of being heard by issuance of show cause notice at the stage of determination. 36. The issue of natural justice has been held to be instinct and if not followed, then the same will be said to be in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in that view of the matter, even if the writ petitioners have submitted to the jurisdiction by submitting response to show cause notice in terms of Clause 6.3, the issue of having no opportunity of hearing at the stage of determination is being in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 17 LPA No.66 of 2023 hence, the contention which has been raised that merely because the writ petitioners have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Nominated Authority in terms of show cause notice issued under Clause 6.3, will seize to agitate the non-determination of the issue as required to be determined in view of Clause 6.2 of the Agreement, is having no foundation. Hence, such argument is hereby, rejected. 37. Hence, such argument is hereby, rejected. 37. Further, if the stage of Clause 6.2 and Clause 6.3, the proceeding is at two stages and if the petitioners will be deprived from their right to have opportunity at the stage of Clause 6.2 of the Agreement, then, petitioners will lose one opportunity and straightaway, the party concerned will have to jump to the stage of condition stipulated under Clause 6.3 of the Agreement. 38. The law is well settled that if the terms and conditions of the agreement has been provided, the same are to be adhered to in strict sense and there cannot be any deviation and if the deviation will be permitted, then, the same will amount to re-writing the terms of the Contract, which is not permissible. Otherwise also, deviating from the terms and conditions will amount to relaxation in the terms and conditions, which is also not permissible once the agreement has been entered in between the parties. 39. Accordingly, both the issues are being answered. 40. This Court, adverting to the impugned judgment, has found that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration before the recourse of Clause 6.3, it was mandatory requirement to follow the condition required under Clause 6.2 with regard to the performance security, the said consideration has 2025:JHHC:32219-DB 18 LPA No.66 of 2023 been given in terms of the condition stipulated in the Agreement.” 12. This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the factual aspect is identical and the issue has already been dealt with by this Court in L.P.A. Nos.67 and 61 of 2023 on 13.10.2025, hence, there is no reason to take distinct view. 13. Since, this Court has taken the similar view in L.P.A. Nos.67 and 61 of 2023 on 13.10.2025 by declining to pass positive direction in favour of the appellants-U.O.I., hence, the instant appeal also deserves to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed, in terms of the judgment dated 13.10.2025 passed in L.P.A. Nos.67 and 61 of 2023. 15. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I Agree (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 16/10/2025 Rohit/-A.F.R. Uploaded on 17.10.2025