1 2025:CGHC:58347-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6235 of 2025 Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered OfÏce At Dalmiapuram District- Tiruchirappalli- 621, Tamil Nadu And Corporate OfÏce At 11th And 12th Floors, Hansalaya Building 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 Through Its Duly Authorized Representative --- Petitioner versus 1 - Directorate Of Mining And Geology Indravati Bhavan Through Its Director, Second Floor, Block D, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur - 492002, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Deputy Director (Mining) Directorate Of Mining And Geology, Indrawati Bhawan, Second Floor, Block D, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur - 492002, Chhattisgarh 3 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Mineral Resources Mahanadi Bhavan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur - 492002, Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Collector Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh -492001 5 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Railways Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road New Delhi - 110001 --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken From Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General and Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02/12/2025 1 Heard Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aman Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondent No. 1 to 4 and Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General and Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 2 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): “10.1 Quash and set aside the Show Cause Notice No. 2714/DGM/MAC/F.No.-09/2020 dated 4th November 2025 issued by the Respondent No. 1 (Director, DGM), as being without jurisdiction, authority of law, arbitrary, irrational, and violative of principles of natural justice. 10.2 Quash and set aside, the Impugned Communications dated 24th November 2025 (Annexure P/31 and Annexure P/32) to the extent they purport to direct the Petitioner to execute the Mine Development and Production Agreement (MDPA) within 3 days without obtaining clarity on the proposed railway line, its final alignment, and confirmation of rerouting proposal being accepted by the Railway Board. 10.3 Direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to take proactive steps to coordinate with the Indian Railways (Respondent 5) for realignment of the proposed "Kharsiya-Naya Raipur-Parmalkasa Railway Line" including furnishing a proposal to the Railway Board for rerouting the railway line to minimize loss of limestone reserves in the Kesla- II Limestone Block. 10.4 Direct Respondent No. to: (a) Immediately furnish to the Petitioner a final, certified land schedule of the Kesla-II Limestone Block explaining the discrepancies between the land schedules 3 appended to or referenced in the communications dated 18.09.2025), 15.10.2025 (showing 77 Khasras within 150-meter buffer), and 24.11.2025 (showing 0.12 hectares within 50-meter corridor); (b) Provide ofÏcial clarification regarding the exact position, alignment, and status of the proposed Kharsiya-Naya Raipur- Parmalkasa Railway Line vis-à-vis the Kesla-II Limestone Block, including confirmation of whether the railway will pass through the block or remain external (c) Confirm in writing that all statutory clearances (Mining Plan approval, Environmental Clearance, and DGMS clearance) remain valid and applicable for the finalized lease area and alignment. to it; 10.5 Grant an extension of time to the Petitioner for execution of the MDPA until such time as clarity is obtained regarding the exact alignment of the proposed railway line, the area of the lease that will be affected by the railway line and safety distance norms, the revised Mining Plan and Environmental Clearances (if any), and the acceptance of any required proposal by Railway Board for possible realignment of the proposed railway route. Such extension shall be in accordance with Clause 12 of the tender (which provides for discretionary extensions). 10.6 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted to the Petitioner.” 3 The facts, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a flagship Cement Company of India and one of the largest manufacturer of cement. The Petitioner has integrated manufacturing units and grinding units across the country. On 21.02.2017, the Mineral Resources Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, published a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the grant of a mining lease over 357.067 hectares of Kesla-II Limestone Block at Tilda, Raipur. The tender prescribed a detailed 9-step bidding and allocation process in consonance with Rule 10 of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015, namely (i) Declaration of the Preferred Bidder; (ii) Payment of first instalment 4 (10%) of Upfront Payment by the Preferred Bidder; (iii) Issuance of Letter of Intent by the State Government; (iv) Submission of (a) Draft Mining Plan, (b) Performance Security along-with (c) second installment of (10%) of Upfront Payment by the Preferred Bidder; (v) Obtaining necessary clearances/ approvals by the Preferred Bidder, including approval of the Mining Plan; (vi) Issuance of Order acknowledging the Preferred Bidder as the Successful Bidder (vii) Execution of the Mine Development Production Agreement; (viii) Payment of third instalment (80%) of Upfront Payment by Successful Bidder; and (ix) Execution of a Mining Lease. The tender specified that the block was reserved for cement/clinker production (end-use constraint), Step 5 required obtaining all statutory clearances before Step 7 (MDPA execution). Clause 12 provided that timelines were "indicative" and could be extended at the State's sole discretion, Clause 14.14 permitted "minor deviations" from procedural requirements, and Clause 6 permitted site visits to verify site conditions and location. 4 Mr. Bhaduri, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner carried out the permitted site visit, and that no existing or probable railway route was shown at or mentioned in relation to the block at that time. On 01/0205.20217 an e-auction was conducted. The petitioner submitted a final price offer of 96.15% (the highest bid), in accordance with Clause 8.1 of the tender. On 09.05.2017, pursuant to Rule 9(4)(b)(ii) of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015, the petitioner was declared as preferred bidder, and directed to deposit Rs. 5,18,33,275 towards the first installment (10%) of Upfront Payment. In strict compliance with the tender conditions, the petitioner submitted demand draft No. 247264 for Rs. 5,18,33,275 on 26.05.2017 and requested issuance of the Letter of Intent (for short, the LoI). On 5 22.06.2017, the State Government issued the LoI No. F3-21/2016/12 in favor of the petitioner for the grant of mining lease over 357.067 hectares of Kesla-II Limestone Block, valid for 3 years till 21.06.2020. Significantly, the LoI provided the cadastral map of the Kesla-II Limestone Block including the DGPS coordinates of the boundary pillars. It is categorically asserted that at this juncture, nothing whatsoever was mentioned or indicated regarding any existing or probable railway route passing through the said block. The LoI prescribed timelines for fulfillment of remaining conditions under Rule 10 of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015, including submission of draft Mining Plan within 180 days, furnishing Performance Security, payment of second installment (10%), and obtaining Mining Plan approval within the LOI validity period. 5 On 16.02.2018, the petitioner duly submitted demand draft No. 257299 for Rs. 5,18,33,275 towards the second installment (10%) of Upfront Payment. At this time, the petitioner sought an extension for submission of approved Mining Plan, as the Mining Plan was still under review with the Indian Bureau of Mines. On 31.07.2018, the State Government clarified that the petitioner was required to submit a "draft" Mining Plan, and directed immediate submission of the draft Mining Plan and Performance Security. Vide letter dated 08.08.2018, the petitioner confirmed that the Draft Mining Plan had already been submitted to the Government on 30.04.2018 and duly acknowledged by the Government on 21.05.018. The petitioner reiterated its commitment to furnish Performance Security after approval of the Draft Mining Plan by the Indian Bureau of Mines. On 29.08.2018, the Indian Bureau of Mines, Regional Controller, Raipur, approved the Mining Plan for the Kesla-II Limestone Block under Section 5 of the Mines and Minerals 6 (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and Rule 16(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016. The approval was for mining operations over the entire area of 357.067 hectares with estimated mineable reserves of 75 million tonnes. On 12.09.2018, the petitioner submitted Performance Security in the form of a Bank Guarantee from YES Bank for Rs. 51,83,32,750. Significantly, as per Rule 12 of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015, Performance Security is to be submitted by the "Successful Bidder," not the "Preferred Bidder." However, despite this not being a requirement at that stage, the petitioner voluntarily submitted the Performance Security to demonstrate its bona fides and commitment to the project. 6 Mr. Bhaduri next submits that in view of the impact of procedural delays and other factors beyond the petitioner's control, the petitioner wrote to the Director of Mines on 12.05.2020 seeking a 2-year extension of the LoI validity, which was then set to expire on 21.06.2020. The petitioner furnished a detailed account of all steps undertaken in compliance with the LoI and tender requirements. The State Government, having considered that delays had occurred for reasons beyond the petitioner's control, granted a 2-year extension by letter dated 03.03.2021, extending the LoI validity till 21.06.2022. During 2020-2021, the petitioner undertook all steps to obtain necessary clearances and approvals, obtaining Environmental Clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change on 01.10.2021, obtaining No- Objection Certificate from the Gram Panchayat on 04.10.2021, and receiving an order from the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, on 14.10.2021 granting a deemed 6-month extension in light of COVID-19, extending the deadline for ML execution till 21.12.2022. By letter dated 09.09.2022, after having complied with all conditions of the LoI including 7 obtaining Mining Plan approval and all necessary clearances, the petitioner requested the Director of Mines to declare the petitioner as the "Successful Bidder" in accordance with Rule 10(3) of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 and Clause 10.2 of the tender. The petitioner expressed its readiness to execute the MDPA and pay the third installment upon such declaration. Despite the request, no response was received from the authorities. The petitioner sent reminders on 07.11.2022, 08.12.2022 (when the extended LoI validity was about to expire on 21.12.2022), 08.02.2023, 17.03.2023 (simultaneously obtaining Environmental Clearance for the captive cement plant on 16.03.2023), 22.06.2023, and 17.01.2024. This 28-month delay from September 2022 to January 2025 was wholly attributable to Government inaction and not any default or delay on the Petitioner's part. 7 On 16.10.2024, the petitioner wrote to the District Collector requesting fixation of annual surface compensation for 177.07 hectares of the mining area, demonstrating continued commitment to the project and its execution. After almost 28 months of waiting, on 02.01.2025, the State Government declared the petitioner as the "Successful Bidder" under Rule 10(3) of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015. However, this letter erroneously mentioned the area as 355.322 hectares instead of the original tendered area of 357.067 hectares. On 07.01.2025, the petitioner wrote to the State Government pointing out the error in the area and requesting correction. The Petitioner also requested authenticated cadastral plans and updated land schedules reflecting the correct area of 357.067 hectares. The Petitioner further wrote to the District Collector on 10th January 2025 to pursue the matter of area verification and correction with the Revenue Department. The matter was pursued through the Revenue and District administration. The 8 District Collector, by letters dated 17th March 2025 and 13th May 2025, directed the Tehsildar, Kharora, to verify the land schedule of the Kesla- II Limestone Block against the cadastral map provided at the time of auction. Vide letter dated 30.06.2025, the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), Tilda, verified the land schedule and map and confirmed that the extent of the Kesla-II Limestone Block was 357.067 hectares, as originally tendered. On 08.07.2025, the petitioner wrote to the Secretary, Mineral Resources Department, requesting that the State Government issue a corrected letter declaring the petitioner as successful bidder for the correct area of 357.067 hectares, along with an updated land schedule and cadastral map. 8 Mr. Bhaduri submits that on 18.09.2025, the State Government issued a revised letter declaring the petitioner as the "successful bidder" for the correct area of 357.067 hectares. However, this letter, for the first time and without any prior intimation, disclosed a "Probable Rail Route" (Kharsiya-Naya Raipur-Parmalkasa Railway Line) passing through the villages of Nahardih (99.484 hectares) and Kharora (232.902 hectares), thereby affecting and deeply impacting the mining lease area falling under the said villages. This disclosure came after a gap of 8 years and 9 months from the date of the auction (01.05.2017) and was not mentioned in the NIT, the LoI or the cadastral maps provided at the time of auction or during any intervening period. This proposed railway line was not in the contemplation of the Petitioner when formulating its bid of 96.15%, nor in the contemplation of the parties when entering into the LoI. The letter dated 18.09.2025 directed the petitioner to execute the MDPA on or before 28.09.2025 (a deadline of 10 days) and to pay the third and final installment of Rs. 41,46,66,200 (80% of Upfront Payment). On 26.09.2025, having received the letter disclosing the 9 Railway line, the petitioner immediately wrote to the Collector expressing the following critical concerns: "Passing of rail route through mining lease area is a critical issue and there is a high probability that the lease area from where the rail route will pass will have to be excluded as per the statutory norms of DGMS. The Mining Plan for Kesla II has already been approved by IBM, and hence on account of the proposed rail route may require modification of mining plan and other approvals. Further this is change of circumstances from the original NIT and hence it becomes important to understand the impact on the mining lease area before proceeding further." The Petitioner requested details of the land schedule and alignment of the rail route and extension of time for executing the MDPA. On 14.10.2025, the petitioner wrote to the Deputy Director (Mining) reiterating the critical impact of the proposed railway line. The petitioner stated: "Kesla-II limestone block is having only 75 M.T of mineable reserves as per approved mining plan and any railway line proposed through the said block will adversely affect and reduce the reserves, which will make the Project economically unviable." The petitioner requested details of railway alignment to assess the loss of reserves due to this changed scenario. On 15.10.2025, the District Collector, Raipur, based on information received from the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Civil) and Tehsildar Kharora, confirmed by letter that: "Out of the villages falling under the proposed area of 357.067 hectares, for the convergence of the proposed 'Kharsiya-Naya Raipur- Parmalkasa Railway Line' in village Kesla and Nahardih, 27 Khasras of Village Kharora and 50 Khasras of Village Nahardih, i.e., total 77 Khasras of the lease in question, are currently situated within the proposed Railway Line and 150 M from it." The Collector further noted that a restraint order has been issued whereby registration of lands within 150 meters of the 10 railway line has been suspended, affecting the Petitioner's efforts to purchase land for the project. The District Collector forwarded the Petitioner's request dated 14th October 2025 to the Director, Geology and Mining, requesting that the issue be taken up with the Railways to explore the possibility of changing or amending the proposed rail project to enable conservation of limestone reserves. 9 According to Mr. Bhaduri, on 27.10.2025, a high-level meeting was held at Raipur under the Chairmanship of Shri Peeyush Goyal, Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Government of India. The meeting was attended by PS (MRD), Government of Chhattisgarh, the Director (DGM), Chhattisgarh, and other concerned ofÏcials. During this meeting, the following was formally noted and acknowledged (as reflected in records available with the Respondent): The Chairman (Secretary, Ministry of Mines) acknowledged that the proposed railway line passing through the block is a "critical issue" considering the importance of mineral conservation and development and the potential loss of limestone deposit; The Chairman appreciated that the proposed railway line has been announced after the auction of the block, which will impact the feasibility of the block; The Chairman advised the Director (DGM) and PS (MRD) to take up the matter with the Railways to explore realignment options to minimize the loss of limestone reserves; The Chairman directed that upon conclusion of discussions with the Railways, clarity be provided regarding the impact on blocks/mines so that respective block holders can assess their project viability; The Chairman also assured that he will personally take up the matter with the Railway Board for speedy resolution; Most importantly, it was assured that block holders would not be penalized and that Mining Lease execution could proceed only once the ambiguity regarding the railway route is resolved. These 11 assurances, recorded in the ofÏcial minutes of the meeting, constitute formal acknowledgments by the highest level Government ofÏcial that the railway issue is genuine and material, it affects project viability, it requires resolution before ML execution, and block holders would not be penalized for this delay. As per the Mining Plan approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines on 29.08.2018, the Kesla-II Limestone Block has mineable reserves of approximately 75 million tonnes. This was based on the full lease area of 357.067 hectares without any railway encumbrance. The disclosure of the railway line passing through the above mentioned Khasras will lead to a potential loss of approximately 40 million tonnes of limestone (representing about 20% of the total geological resources of 200 million tonnes as declared in the tender documents). This massive loss would render the project economically unviable. The petitioner has planned an investment of approximately Rs.2,500 crores in setting up the end-use cement plant infrastructure at the Kharora location. This plant is designed with a capacity of 3.25 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of clinker production, requiring approximately 250 million tonnes of limestone for a 50-year mine life. With the loss of 40 million tonnes due to the railway route, the remaining mineable reserves would be insufÏcient to sustain the planned cement plant operations for its intended 50-year economic life. Any reduction in mineable reserves below the planned requirements would render the project economically unviable, violate the investment thesis on which the project was sanctioned, and render production obligations under the MDPA impossible to fulfill (leading to severe penalties under Schedule D of MDPA). Additionally, under DGMS safety norms (Regulation 164 of Metalliferous Mines Regulations 1961 (MMR 1961)), mining operations cannot be carried out within prescribed safety distances (typically 50- 12 100 meters) from Railway lines, with additional buffer zones of up to 150 meters affecting land acquisition and operations. The District Collector's restraint order suspending land registration within 150 meters of the proposed railway line has already impacted the petitioner's ability to purchase land for the project, as portions of the planned plant and mine infrastructure are caught within this buffer zone. Furthermore, under Section 24-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the State Government is statutorily obliged to grant surface rights over the entire lease area to the mining leaseholder. However, if the Railway line passes through substantial portions of the lease area, the State cannot grant surface rights over those portions, as the Railway authority has superior and precedent rights to the land. This creates a situation where the petitioner cannot execute an MDPA for the full 357.067 hectares when only a fraction will have surface rights available, the State cannot fulfill its statutory obligation under Section 24-A, and mining operations, if attempted, would violate the rights of the Railway authority. This legal impossibility of the State to grant surface rights for the full lease area forms an additional ground on which MDPA execution cannot be mandated. 10 Mr. Bhaduri further submits that despite the ongoing discussions with the Railways (as assured by the Secretary, Ministry of Mines), and despite the petitioner being ready and willing to execute the MDPA pending clarity on the railway issue, the Directorate of Mining & Geology issued the impugned Show Cause Notice No. 2714/DGM/MAC/F.No.- 09/2020 dated 04.11.2025. The said notice alleges that the petitioner is in "clear violation" of Rule 10(4) of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 for not executing the MDPA within 10 days of being declared as successful bidder on 18.09.2025. The notice makes no mention whatsoever of the 13 proposed railway line, the petitioner's request for Railway alignment details, the District Collector's confirmation of 77 Khasras falling within the Railway line, the high-level meeting held on 27.10.2025, the assurance by the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, that block holders would not be penalized, the direction that ML execution could proceed only after ambiguity is resolved, or the Petitioner's willingness to execute the MDPA pending clarity on the railway issue. This glaring omission of material facts demonstrates that the Show Cause Notice was issued in complete arbitrariness and without proper consideration of the material circumstances affecting the petitioner's performance. The impugned notice was received by the petitioner on 06.11.2025, giving a 7-day deadline to respond. The impugned On 13.11.2025, the petitioner filed a comprehensive reply to the said notice, detailing the entire factual background of the case over 8 years, the disclosure of the Railway line and its impact, the requests for Railway alignment details, the high-level meeting and assurances by the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, the petitioner's readiness to execute the MDPA pending resolution of the railway issue, and the legal grounds why the notice was without jurisdiction. On 24.11.2025, the Directorate of Geology & Mining issued a letter to the District Collector, Raipur, which was simultaneously copied to Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited. In this letter, for the first time since the disclosure of the railway route on 18.09.2025, the Directorate provided certain information on the proposed Kharsiya-Naya Raipur- Parmalkasa Railway Line in relation to the Kesla-II Limestone Block. The letter dated 24.11.2025 states that the proposed Railway line is located to the west of the mineral block and maintains a distance of approximately 50 meters from the western boundary of the Kesla-II block for the majority of its extent. This factual detail so provided is material 14 and fundamentally different from the land schedule appended to the letter dated 18.09.2025, which disclosed that the Railway route passes through villages Nahardih and Kharora. The communication dated 24.11.2025 is also diametrically opposite to the information contained in the letter dated 15.10.2025 wherein, the District Collector wrote to Respondent No. 1 that, relying upon a letter dated 15the October 2025 from Tehsildar and SDO, 77 khasras in total, 27 in in Village Kharera and 50 in Village Nahardih come within the ambit of 150M of Railway line. The letter dated 24.11.2025 does not explain or reconcile this stark discrepancy between the two land schedules. It specifies that only 0.24 hectares of the north-western area of the Kesla-II block falls within 50 meters of the proposed railway line. Upon further accounting for the statutory 7.5-meter mining-prohibited boundary zone as per applicable norms, the letter states that approximately 0.12 hectares is actually within 50 meters of the Railway corridor. The letter states that this 0.12- hectare area is earmarked for Garland Drain construction in the approved Mining Plan and is not designated for actual mining operations. The letter dated 24.11.2025 further cites Rule 12(1)(d) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, which provides that mining operations can be carried out within 50 meters of a railway line subject to obtaining prior written permission from the Railway administration. The fact that Rule 12(1)(d) exists demonstrates that the presence of a Railway line at or near a mining lease area will require clarity and confirmation of the exact alignment and necessary operational protocols before the MDPA is executed and it further supports the petitioner's consistent position. 11 Mr. Bhaduri next submits that the letter dated 24.11.2025 also references a high-level meeting held subsequent to the 27.10.2025 meeting with the Secretary, Ministry of Mines. The letter indicates that at 15 this subsequent meeting, it was observed that the proposed railway line is at the survey stage and has not been finalized. Most significantly, the letter states that a proposal will be moved to re-route the railway line before the Railway Board to attempt to resolve the situation. The inconsistency between the land schedule dated 18.09.2025, the letter of the District Collector dated 15.10.2025 and the unclear details dated 24.11.2025 is a critical factual issue that undermines the execution of MDPA at this stage. The communication dated 04.11.2025, made no mention of the Railway line and proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner was in default for not executing the MDPA. Yet the petitioner's entire justification for not executing the MDPA was premised on the Railway route disclosure of 18.11.2025. Now, the Respondent No. 1’s communication dated 24.11.2025 acknowledges that the MDPA execution was attributable to the Railway line and thus admits to the position showing that the petitioner indeed has a legitimate grievance which is delaying the MDPA execution and seeks to get complete clarification before an MDPA is executed. On 24.11.2025 itself, the District Collector, Raipur, issued a letter No. 1793//08/2022 to Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited, with copies to the Secretary, Mineral Resources Department and the Director, Geology & Mining. This letter is essentially a pass-through communication forwarding the substantive positions articulated by the Directorate of Geology & Mining on 24.11.2025. The letter dated 24.11.2025 from the District Collector reiterates the ofÏcial Government clarifications that the railway line is located west of the block, maintains 50-meter distance for most of its extent, affects only 0.12 hectares (for Garland Drain, not mining), is at survey stage only and has not been finalized, and does not pass through the mining lease area. The letter further restates the commitment that if 16 any railway line comes within restricted distance of mineral blocks, a proposal will be made to the Railway Board for re-routing. The letter emphasizes that there is "no legal impediment" to execution of the MDPA. However, the both letters dated 24.11.2025 contain serious factual inaccuracies and unfounded allegations. Both letters allege that the petitioner has "deliberately" not executed the MDPA, thereby causing obstruction to block development and State revenue. This allegation is factually incorrect and is contradicted by the entire record spanning 8 years, which demonstrates that the petitioner has at all times been ready and willing to execute the MDPA. The petitioner's sole reason for not executing the MDPA within the 10-day deadline of 28.09.2025 was the shocking and material disclosure on 18.09.2025 that a Railway line passing through the lease area was now disclosed in the Government's own land schedule. Any reasonable party, upon receiving such a disclosure affecting the lease area, would rightfully seek clarity and extension before committing itself to long-term production obligations. 12 Mr. Bhaduri further submits that the allegation of "deliberate" delay is manifestly unjust, given that the petitioner had been seeking clarification and Railway alignment details from 26.09.2025 onwards; had submitted a comprehensive Reply to the communication dated 13.11.2025 clearly articulating its position and readiness to execute MDPA pending Railway clarity; and had engaged with the Government at all levels to work towards resolution. The allegation of deliberate delay is therefore an attempt by the Directorate to justify any coercive action. The letter dated 24.11.2025 also impose an entirely unreasonable three day’s ultimatum for execution of the MDPA. It is arbitrary to impose or enforce a 3-day deadline to execute a significant commercial and mining agreement when the executing party is actively engaging with the State to gain 17 more clarity and resolve the ambiguity with respect to the Railway line. The ultimatum in the letters dated 24.11.2025 is therefore arbitrary, unreasonable, and cannot form the basis for any coercive action (such as forfeiture, cancellation, or invocation of penalties under the MDPA). 13 Mr. Bhaduri lastly submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to execute the MDPA at any time, but only after a final, reconciled, and ofÏcially confirmed land schedule is provided, explaining the discrepancy between the 18.09.2025, 15.10.2025 and 24.11.2025 versions; (b) confirmation is obtained that all statutory clearances (Mining Plan, Environmental Clearance, DGMS approval) remain valid for the corrected area and alignment; and (c) the Government provides written confirmation that the Petitioner will not face penalties or coercive action for the time taken to resolve these foundational issues, consistent with the assurance given by the Secretary, Ministry of Mines on 27.11.2025 (d) a proposal to reroute is accepted by the Railway Board upon the survey of the proposed railway line. Hence, the impugned show cause notice dated 24.11.2025 issued by the respondent No. 1 and communication dated 24.11.2025 issued by the respondent No. 5- District Collector, Raipur, are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 14 On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that though the petitioner was declared the preferred bidder by the respondent/State, however, the conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that either it does not have the capacity to execute the mining work or it is not at all interested executing the MDPA. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after a period of eight years, it has been informed that there is a probable Railway route on the site allotted to the 18 petitioner which would cause loss to the petitioner as he would not be able to excavate lime from a very large portion of the land, which infact is an incorrect submission to be made. The NIT was floated in the year 2017 and the petitioner was declared the successful bidder in the year 2018 pursuant to which the petitioner also made payments as stated above by the petitioner. The petitioner is now required to enter into a mining agreement for which he has to pay a sum of Rs. 41 Crores. Though it is correct to say that Railway line has been proposed on the land in question, however, a perusal of the communication dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure P/31) would demonstrate that the total area of the lime stone block is 357.067 hectares. Regarding the proposed Kharsia-Naya Raipur-Paramalkasa railway line, which runs adjacent to the allotted mineral block, the actual situation is that the railway line is proposed to the west of the mineral block, located 50 meters from the majority of the western boundary of the mineral block. However, only 0.24 hectares of the northwest area is located within 50 meters. Of this, after including the 7.5-meter mining restricted area from the proposed mining lease, as per the provisions of the Mineral Act, only approximately 0.12 hectares remains within 50 meters. The Indian Bureau of Mines has approved the construction of a garland drain in the area as per the approved mining plan for the said mining lease. This clearly indicates that no mining activity is proposed in the approved mining plan for the said area. It is noteworthy that the Ministry of Mines, Government of India and other central authorities are continuously reviewing the commencement of mining operations in the mineral blocks and instructions have been given to take all necessary action expeditiously. In the meeting convened on 27.10.2025 by the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi regarding 19 operationalization of mineral blocks, it has been clarified that if any railway line is proposed within the restricted distance of the mineral block areas then for re-routing that too, a proposal has been sent to the Railway Board and a solution has been agreed upon. In this regard, in the meeting held under the chairmanship of Secretary, Mineral Resources Department in the presence of representatives of the proposed Railway project, Revenue and Industry Department, it has become clear that at present the proposed Kharsia Naya Raipur- Paramalkasa railway line is under process only at the survey stage which has not been given its final shape till now and it has also become clear that the said proposed Railway line is not passing through the subject mining lease. 15 Despite being declared the successful bidder by the State Government vide order dated 02.01.2025, the petitioner has deliberately not executed the MDPA and other related proceedings, thereby hindering the development of the subject mineral block and the revenue accruing to the State Government. As such, the petitioner has been issued the two communications (Annexure P/31 and P/32) and the petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be rejected. Only 0.12 hectare of the land of the petitioner is affected, and that too, the said land according to the mining plan, is a drain and it does not affect the core mining area of the petitioner at all. He lastly submits that according to the instructions received, the project which the petitioners have taken into their hand, is beyond their capacity and in order to shift the burden, a false and frivolous ground is being taken by the petitioners that since the railway line is passing through the land allotted, the petitioner is incapacitated to execute the MDPA and start the mining work. 20 16 Mr. Das further submits that the impugned communication dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) is not a show cause notice but a mere communication to clear the stand of the petitioner and it is not punitive in nature. There is no compulsion for the petitioner to sign and execute the MDPA. 17 Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the State/respondent submits that the contesting party in this petition is the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 and the said respondents can have a say in this matter. 18 In response to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner is not interested/having the capacity to execute the mining work, is false and baseless. The petitioner has already deposited Rs. 51 Crores with the Government and the entire project is of Rs. 2500 Crores. Unless the picture becomes clear, the petitioner would not be in a position to execute the MDPA and start the mining work. The State/respondent for the very first time has stated before this Court that the proposed Railway line merely touches a very small piece of the land in question and that too, which is a drain. This contention was never made by the State on any earlier occasions neither any such map has been provided to the petitioner. 19 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended with the petition. 20 There is no dispute with respect to the fact that pursuant to the NIT floated by the respondent/State on 21.02.2017, the petitioner has been declared preferred bidder on 09.05.2017 and thereafter, payment of Rs. 5,18,33,275/- was made on 26.05.2017 and thereafter, LoI was also issued to the petitioner on 22.06.2017. Second installment of payment 21 was made on 16.02.2018. The Indian Bureau of Mines approved the mining plan on 29.08.2018 and performance security was deposited by the petitioner on 12.09.2018. The petitioner made requests for extension of LoI on 12.05.2020 which was granted on 03.03.2021 and the petitioner was also granted Environmental Clearances on 01.10.2021. The petitioner fulfilled the conditions of the LoI and as such, was declared successful bidder on 09.09.2022. According to the petitioner, the petitioner made various requests to the respondent authorities for correction of the area. As per the petitioner, after a period of eight years, it was informed that there was a proposal for laying of a railway route passing through the lease area. On the contrary, as per the learned State counsel, the probable rail route (Kharsiya-Naya Raipur Parmalkas Railway Line) would not be passing through the land of the petitioner and very small portion of the land i.e. 0.12 hectares would be affected and that too, is a drain. 21 From the above, it is evident that the present petition involves disputed questions of fact and it is well settled that writ petitions are not maintainable where serious factual disputes exist, especially in contract matters, and parties must resort to civil suits. Even otherwise, vide the communication dated 04.11.2025 (Annexuer P/1), the petitioner has merely been asked to clarify its stand as unnecessary delay is being caused because of non execution of the MDPA which in turn is causing loss to the State exchequer. The relief prayed for by the petitioner in this petition cannot be granted by this Court as it is a contractual dispute. The proper course at this stage would be that the petitioner reconciles its dispute with the respondent authorities by approaching the respondent/ State and the Railways. At present, there is no order/notice which would cause any prejudice to the petitioner or which is punitive in nature. This 22 Court cannot adjudicate upon the issue as to whether any proposed railway line is crossing through the land allotted to the petitioner for mining of the lime stone. This petition is premature, the petitioner has the remedy to approach before the competent authority considering its reply to the show cause notice, further, no legal right exists to demand postponement of the MDPA execution. 22 The petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.12.03 19:10:14 +0530