Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040009602025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/154/2025 Bendangtoshi Mining Pvt Ltd having its principal place of business situated at Flat No. A3, House No.74, Elim Apartment, Bank colony, Dimapur, Nagaland 797113, represented by its one of the Directors Mr Atiqur Rahman Borbhuyiya, resident of Hatigaon, Po and PS Hatigaon, Guwahati, Kamrup Metro District, Assam 781028 VERSUS The Union of India and Anr represented by Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Govt of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 2:The Nominated Authority Age: 0 Occupation : Ministry of Coal Govt of India Room No. 120 F Wing 1st Floor Shastri Bhawn New Delhi 11000 Advocate for the Petitioner : Kemo Lollen, Jyoti Prasad More,Amit Goyal Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, DSGI -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE 23.06.2025 Heard Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant/ writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Manish Kr. Jha, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Pandey, Page No.# 2/6 learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent No. 3. 2. By filing this application, the applicant/ writ petitioner has prayed for a direction to restrain the further proceedings including issuance of vesting order/ allocation of works of the tender pursuant to NIT dated 05.12.2024 for auction of coal mines for sale of coal at Namchik West Coal Black, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. The applicant/writ petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of the technical bid has approached this Court by filing writ petition being WP (C) 109 (AP) 2025. This Court by an order dated 17.03.2025 while issuing notice, in the interim, has provided that the above tender process shall not be finalized without the leave of this Court. 4. Being aggrieved, the successful bidder, namely, PRA Nuravi Coal Mining Pvt. Limited/, the newly impleaded respondent No. 3, has approached the Division Bench by way of Writ Appeal being WA 17 (AP) 2025 against the above interim order dated 17.03.2025. A Division Bench having found that the said interim order has been passed without recording its prima facie satisfaction of the entitlement of the petitioner for granting interim relief, has stayed the operation of interim order dated 17.03.2025 and observed that there shall be no bar for the authorities to finalize the tender process without leave of the Court. However, the stay is made conditional by providing that the finalization of the tender process shall be subject to outcome of the writ petition. It further observed that such stay is also on the condition that the applicant/ writ petitioner shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit within a week from the date of the order to abide by whatever direction that may be passed in the connected Writ Appeal as the finalization of the tender process is made Page No.# 3/6 subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 5. The writ appeal (Supra) was disposed on 02.06.2025 by the Division Bench by providing that till the disposal of the writ petition, the interim stay granted vide order dated 02.04.2025 in I.A. (C) 90 (AP) 2025 and the condition therein that the finalization of the tender process shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition shall continue. 6. Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant/writ petitioner submits that despite the clear order of the learned Division Bench to the effect that there shall be no bar for the authorities to finalize the tender process without leave of the Court with the condition that tender process shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition, which has been allowed to be continued till the disposal of the writ petition, the respondent authorities are contemplating to issue vesting order/ allocation of works in violation of the said order by the learned Division Bench. He, therefore, submits that the vesting order/ allocation of works after finalization of tender process may be stayed. 7. Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI submits that although the tender is under process of finalization, as on date, no vesting order/ allocation of works has been issued. However, there is no impediment to finalize the tender including issuance of vesting order/ allocation of works to the successful bidder as the learned Division Bench has already clarified that there shall be no bar to finalize the tender process and it is only subject to the outcome of the connected writ petition. The finalization would include issuance of vesting order/ allocation of works. 8. Mr. Manish Kr. Jha, learned Senior counsel while endorsing the Page No.# 4/6 submission of the learned DSGI submits that the order of the learned Division Bench clearly allowed the finalization of tender which would mean and include issuance of vesting order/ allocation of works as prescribed under Clause 3.8 of the NIT. He submits that although the vesting order/ allocation of works is yet to be issued, other proceedings including submission of performance guarantee and upfront money have already been made. Therefore, the application is liable to be rejected as the applicant/ writ petitioner is not entitled for any releif. 9. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the interim order dated 02.04.2025 as well as the order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Division Bench. 10. The learned Division Bench by order dated 02.06.2025 in WA 17 (AP) 2025 while staying the interim order dated 17.03.2025 passed in WP (C) 109 (AP) 2025 had passed the following orders:- “6. Having noticed that no reasons have been assigned in the order dated 17.03.2025, passed in WP(C)109(AP)2025 as to why the tender process should not be finalized without the leave of the Court and that the Court has not recorded its prima facie satisfaction with the entitlement of the petitioner for granting interim relief, this Court is inclined to stay the operation the interim order, dated 17.03.2025, passed in WP(C)109(AP)2025. Accordingly, there shall be no bar for the authorities to finalize the tender process without the leave of the Court. However, the stay is made conditional by providing that the finalization of the tender process shall be subject to outcome of the writ petition. The stay is also on the condition that the applicant shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit, within a week from the date of this order, before this Court abide by that whatever direction that may pass in the Page No.# 5/6 connected writ appeal, as the finalization of the tender process is made subject to the outcome of the writ petition.” 11. Thereafter, while disposing of the writ appeal, the Division Bench has held that till the disposal of the writ petition, the interim stay granted vide order dated 02.04.2025, passed in I.A. (C) 90 (AP) 2025 and the condition therein that finalization of tender process shall be subject to outcome of the writ petition, shall continue as provided in paragraph No. 6 of the said order. 12. Having considered the submissions and the order passed by the Division Bench, it is clear that the respondent authorities have been allowed to finalize the tender and such finalization of the tender process would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition which would include issuance of vesting order/allocation of works and there is no scope to expand or interpret the above order. The order has been passed having considered that this Court had passed the interim order without recording its prima facie satisfaction with the entitlement of the petitioner for granting interim relief in the connected writ petition. 13. In view of the above, in the considered view of this Court, no different interpretation of the order of the Division Bench as sought to be projected by the learned counsel for the applicant/ writ petitioner is warranted. Thus, this Court is not inclined to stay the issuance of vesting order/ allocation of works in favour of the successful bidder as the finalization of the tender process which has been permitted by the Division Bench would mean and include issuance of vesting order/ allocation of works. However, as has been directed by the Division Bench, the finalization of the tender process would be subject to outcome of the writ Page No.# 6/6 petition. Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application stands rejected and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant