Holding

The allocation of coal blocks by the Central Government through the Screening Committee and government‑dispensation routes is illegal and unconstitutional as it is not authorized by the 1957 MMDR Act or the 1973 CMN Act and violates Articles 73, 14 and 39(b) of the Constitution.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined public‑interest writ petitions challenging the allocation of coal blocks by the Central Government between 1993 and 2011. The Court held that the allocation process, carried out through the Screening Committee and a government‑dispensation route, was not authorized by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 or the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, and therefore violated Articles 73, 14 and 39(b) of the Constitution. The allocations were arbitrary, lacked transparent criteria, amounted to largesse, and often involved ineligible entities such as consortia or State PSUs. Consequently, the Court declared the allocations illegal and ordered them quashed. The matter of blocks allocated by competitive bidding for Ultra‑Mega Power Projects was left untouched.

Issues considered

The validity of coal‑block allocations made by the Central Government under the Screening Committee and government‑dispensation routes.
Whether the 1957 MMDR Act and the 1973 CMN Act confer power on the Union to allocate coal blocks.
Whether the allocation process complied with constitutional requirements of fairness, non‑arbitrariness and the principle of trusteeship under Art. 39(b).
Whether the allocation amounted to a grant of largesse violating Art. 14.
Whether the procedure for allocating blocks to consortia, joint‑ventures or State PSUs was permissible under the CMN Act.

Legislation cited

Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973s. 1A, s. 3(1), s. 3(3)(a)(iii), s. 3(4), s. 4, s. 5, s. 6, s. 7
Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976s. 1A
Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1993
Constitution of Indias. Art. 14, s. Art. 162, s. Art. 39(b), s. Art. 73, s. Seventh Schedule – List I Entry 54, s. Seventh Schedule – List II Entry 23
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957s. 10, s. 11, s. 11A, s. 2

Subjects

coal block allocationscreening committeenatural resourcesauctionArticle 39(b)Article 73Article 14largessearbitrarinesspublic interest litigationCMN ActMMDR Actmining leaseconstitutional lawallocation of mineral resources

Judgment

[2014] 8 S.C.R. 446

A MANOHAR LAL SHARMA
v.
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Crl.) 120 of 2012)
B AUGUST 25, 2014.

[R.M. LODHA, CJI MADAN, B. LOKUR AND KURIAN
JOSEPH, JJ.]

c CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1~50:

Art. 39 (b) - Material resources of community- Allocation
of coal blocks - Held: It cannot be said that auction is best
D way to select private parties under Art. 39 (b).

Art. 73 - Executive power of Union - Held: Executive
instructions can fill up the gaps not covered by statutory
provisions but the same cannot be in derogation of the
E statutory provisions.

Seventh Schedule - List I, Entry 54 - List II, Entry 23 -
Regulation o~ mines and mineral development - Held:
Requisite declarations made in s.2 of 'Mines and Mineral
F (Development and Regulation) Act and s.1-A of CMN Act,
have the effect of taking out regulation and development of
coal mines from Entry 23 of List II of Seventh Schedule.

G MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND
REGULATION) ACT, 1957:

s. 2 of 1957 ACt rlw s. 1-A of CM Act - Allocation of coal

H 446
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 44 7

blocks - Held: The exercise undertaken by Central A
Government in a/locating coal blocks or selection of
beneficiaries between 1993 and 31.3.2011 is not traceable
either to 1957 Act or CMN Act - Allocation of coal blocks
made on the basis of recommendations of Screening B
Committee as a/so by way of Government dispensation route
(Ministry of Coal) is arbitrary and illegal - The practice and
procedure followed by Central Government is clearly
inconsistent with law already enacted and rules framed -
Executive instructions cannot be in derogation of statutory
c
provisions -- Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 - s. 1-A
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 73 - Public Interest
Litigation.
D
COAL MINES (NATIONALISATION) ACT, 1973:

s. 3 (3) (a) (iii) - 'Company' - Held: The expression 'a
company' occurring in s. 3 (3) (a) (iii) does not cover
"consortium of companies" or "formulation of groups" or E
"common pool" - The procedure followed by Screening
Committee and finally by issuing allocation letters to one
leader company with obligation to share associate's share of
coal to associate company at a price determinable by F
Government is in contravention to s. 3 (3) (A) (iii) -
Recommendation of block~ jointly in favour of 2-3 companies
is a/so in contravention of CMN Act.

s. 3 (3) (a) (iii) - Expression 'engaged in' - Held: Means G
that the company that was applying for coal blocks must have
set up an iron and steel/power/cement plant and be engaged
in the respective production - The prospective engagement
H
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A by a private company in production of steel, power or cement
would not entitle such company to carry out coal mining
operation.

ss. 3 (4), 4, 5, 6 and 7 - Expression 'Government
B company or a corporation owned, managed or controlled by
the Central Government - Held: Means Government of India
Public Undertaking - It does not include State Government
Public Sector Undertaking - Thus, commercial mining cannot
C be carried by State Government or State PSU, which became
entitled only to obtain sub-lease of reserves of coal in isolated
small pockets under clauses (i) and (ii) of proviso to s. 3 (3)
(c).

D INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES:

Interpretation to statute received from contemporary
authority - Held: Is not binding upon courts and may have to
E be disregarded if it is clearly wrong.

In the instant writ petitions filed in public interest, the
allocation of coal blocks for the period 1993 to 2010 made
by the Central Government through the Screening
F Committee route as well as the Government dispensation
route was challenged as illegal and unconstitutional.

Disposing of the writ petitions, the Court

G HELD: 1. It cannot be said that auction is the best
way to select private parties as per Art. 39(b) of the
Constitution. [para 99] [516-G]

Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 449

No. 1 of 2012, 2012(9) SCR 311= (2012) 10 SCC 1; Goa A
Foundation v. Union of India and Others (2014) 6 SCC 590 -
relied on.

Centre for Public Interest l..itigation & Ors. v. Union of B
India &.Ors. 2012 (3) SCR 147 = (2012) 3 SCC 1; R.K. Garg
vs. Union of India & Ors. 1982(1) SCR'947 = (1981) 4 SCC
675; D.K. Trivedi vs. State of Gujarat 1986 SCR 479 = 986
Suppl. SCC 20; Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy & Ors. v. State
of J&K & Anr. (1980) 4 SCC 1; Sachidanand Pandey & Anr. C
v. State of West Bengal & )Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 295; Haji T.M.
Hassan Rawther v. Kera/a Financial Corporation; (1988) 1
SCC 166; M.P. Oil Extraction & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors.;
(1997) 7 SCC 592; Netai Bag & Ors. v. State of West Bengal D
& Ors.; (2000) 8 SCC 262; Villianur /yarkkai Padukappu
Maiyam v. Union of India & Ors. 2009 (9) SCR 225 = (2009)
7 sec 561- referred to.

1.2. By virtue of the two declarations -s.2 of the Mines E
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
('1957 Act') and 1A of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation)
Act, 1973 (CMN Act) -- the States have lost their
jurisdiction to legislate to the extent to which the Union F
had taken over control, regulation and development of
coal mines as manifested by the two enactments. Thus,
the requisite declarations have the effect of taking out
regulation and development of coal mines from Entry 23 · G
of List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
[para 51] [481-A-B, E]

Baijnath Kadio v. State of Bihar 1970 (2) SCR 100 =
H
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 8 S.C.R.

A (1969) 3 SCC 838; Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of
Orissa (1961) 2 SCR 537 =AIR 1961 SC 459; State of Orissa
v. M.A. Tulloch and Co. (1964) 4 SCR 461 =AIR 1964 SC
1284; Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of
B Kamataka 2010 (11) SCR 240 = (2010) 13 SCC 1; State of
Assam v. Om Prakash Mehta (1973) 1 SCC 584; Orissa
Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1991 (2) SCR 105 =1991
Supp. (1) SCC 430; Monnet /spat and Energy Ltd. v. Union
C of India and Ors. 2012 (7) SCR 644 = (2012) 11 SCC 1 -
referred to.

1.3. Power to regulate assumes the continued
existence of that which is to be regulated and it includes
D the authority to do all things which are necessary for the
doing of that which is authorized including whatever is
necessarily incidental to and consequential upon it, but
this incidental power cannot be read to empower the
E Central Government to allocate the coal blocks which is
neither contemplated by the CMN Act nor by the 1957
Act. It is so because where a statute requires to do a
certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in
that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are.
F necessarily forbidden. Allocation letter issued ~y the
Central Government is not the procedure which regulates
the exercise under r.22 of the Mineral Concession Rules,
1960. The source of power of the Central Government in
G allocation of coal blocks is dependant upon whether such
power exists in law or not. But once the letter allocating
a coal block is issued by the Central Government, the
statutory role of the State Government under the 1957
H Act to recommend or not to· recommend to the Central
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 451

Government grant of prospecting licence or mining lease A
for the coal mines, is reduced to completion of
processual formalities only. The allocation of coal block
by the Central Government results in the selection of
beneficiary which entitles the beneficiary to get the 8
prospecting licence and/or mining lease from the State
Government. Obviously, allocation of a coal block
amounts to grant of largesse. [para 58,59, 66 and 70] [485-
B-C, F-H; 486-A-B; 488-C-D; 494-D-E]
c
Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor (1935-36) 63 IA 372 -
referred to.

1.4. This Court is of the opinion that nothing should
be read in the two Acts, namely CMN Act and the 1957 D
Act, which results in- destruction of the policy, purpose-
and scheme of the two Acts. It is not right to suggest that
by virtue of declaration u/s 1A of the CMN Act, the power
of the State u/s 10(3) of the 1957 Act has become E
unavailable. [para 63] [489-D-E]

Tara Prasad Singh and others v. Union of India and
others 1980 (3) SCR 1042 = (1980) 4 sec 179 - relied on.
F
1.5. This Court holds that the exercise undertaken by
the Central Government in allocating the coal blocks or,
in other words, the selection of beneficiaries, is not
traceable either to the 1957 Act or the CMN Act. No such G
legislative policy (allocation of coal blocks by the Central
Government) is discernible from these two enactments.
[para 65] [490-C-D]

H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A 1.6. Insofar as Art. 73 of the Constitution is
concerned, the executive power of the Union extends to
the matters with respect to which Parliament has power
to make laws and the executive instructions can fill up
the gaps not covered by statutory provisions but the
8
executive instructions cannot be in derogation of the
statutory prpvisions. The practice and procedure for
allocation of coal blocks by the Central Government
through administrative route is clearly inconsistent with
C the law already enacted or the rules framed. [para 65]
[490-D-F]

1. 7. An interpretation to the statute received from
0 contemporary authority is not binding upon the courts
and may have to be disregarded if such interpretation by
the contemporary authority is clearly wrong. The process
evolved by the Central. Government for allocation of coal
blocks for captive use has significantly and effectively
E reversed the scheme provided in the 1957 Act inasmuch
as in most of the cases the applications have been made
directly to the Central Government. [para 68] [492-F-G]

Desh Bandhu Gupta and Co. v.Delhi Stock Exchange
F
Association Ltd. 1979 (3) SCR 373 = (1979) 4 SCC 565;
Baleshwar Bagarti v. Bhagirathi Dass ILR 35 Calcutta 701;
Mathura Mohan Saha v. Ram Kumar Saha ILR 43 Calcutta
790 - referred to.
G
2.1. The expression 'a company' occurring in s.3
(3)(a)(iii) of the CMN Act does not cover "consortium of
companies" or "formulation of groups" or "common
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 453

pool" CMN Act places embargo on granting the leases A
for winning or mining coal to persons other than those
mentioned in s.3(3)(a)(iii). The decision of the Screening
Committee to recommend allocation of coal blocks to
consortium of companies or formulation of groups or B
common pool and the procedure followed by it and finally
issuing allocation letters to one leader company is in
contravention of s.3(3)(a)(iii) of the CMN Act. The
recommendation for allocation of blocks jointly in favour C
of two or three companies are in contravention to the
.J
CMN Act. Joint venture arrangement with ineligible firms
is also impermissible. [para 138, 143 and 155] [544-G-H;
545-A-B; 557-A; 580-B]
D
2.2. The expression "engaged in" occurring in
s.3(3)(a)(iii) means that the company that was applying for
the coal block must have set up an iron and steel plant,
power plant or cement plant and be engaged in the
E
production of steel, power or cement. The prospective
engagement by a private company in the production of
steel, power or cement would not entitle such private
company to carry out coal mining operation. Most of the
companies, which have been allocated coal blocks, were F
not engaged in the production of steel, power or cement
at the time of allocation. Thus, the requirement of end-use
project, as per s.3(3) of CMN Act, was not met at the time
of allocation. [para 151] [574-F-H; 575-A] G

2.3. As regards the legality of the allocations made
to the State/State PSUs through the Screening Committee
route as well as Government dispensation route, the
H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A expression "Government company or a corporation
owned, managed or controlled by the Central
Government" occurring in s. 3(3)(a)(i) means Government
of India Public Undertaking. It does not include State
B Government Public Sector Undertaking. This is fortified
by s.3(4), s.4 and ss.5, 6 and 7. Thus, commercial mining
cannot be carried on by the State Government or the
State PSUs; they became entitled only to obtain sub-
C lease of reserves of coal in isolated small pockets under
clauses (i) and (ii) of proviso to s.3(3)(c). The "isolated
small pockets" are those which are away from the main
coalfields and have limited known reserves which are not
·sufficient for scientific and economic development in a
D coordinated and integrated manner and the coal
produced from such areas would mainly be utilized for
local consumption without 'transportation by railways.
Therefore, allocation of coal blocks to the State PSUs
E which ultimately on getting mining leases may enable
them to win or mine coal commercially is clearly in breach
of the provisions of the CMN Act. [para 150, 153 and 153]
[575-D-E; 576-H; 577-A-C, E-F; 579-C-D]
F 2.4. The entire allocation of coal block as per
recommendations made by the Screening Committee
from 14.07.1993 in 36 meetings and the allocation through
the Government dispensation route suffers from the vice
G of arbitrariness and legal flaws. There was no objective
criteria, nay, no criteria for evaluation of comparative
merits. The approach had been ad-hoc and casual. There
was no fair and transparent procedure, all resulting in
H unfair distribution of the national wealth. Common good
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 455

and public interest have, thus, suffered heavily. Therefore, A
the allocation of coal blocks based on the
recommendations made in all the 36 meetings of the
Screening Committee is illegal. [para 154] [579-D-E, F-G]
B
3. It is clarified that no challenge was laid before in
respect of blocks where competitive bidding was held for
the lowest tariff for power for Ultra Mega Power Projects
(UMPPs) and the same was stated to be in accord with
the opinion given in Natural Resources Allocation C
Reference and the benefit of the coal block is said to have
passed on to the public. However, it has been pointed out
that in some cases the Government has allowed
diversion of coal from UMPP to other end uses i.e. for o
commercial exploitation. Having regard to this, it is
directed that the coal blocks allocated for UMPP would
only be used for UMPP and no diversion of coal for
commercial exploitation would be permitted. [para 158]
E
[580-H; 581-A-C]

Case Law Reference:

2012 (7) SCR 644 referred to para 49
F
1970 (2) SCR 100 referred to para 50
(1961) 2 SCR 537 referred to para 50
(1964) 4 SCR 461 referred to para 50
G
2010 (11) SCR 240 referred to para 53
(1973) 1 sec 584 referred to para 54
1991 (2) SCR 105 referred to para 56
(1935-36) 63 IA 372 relied on para 59 H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 8 S.C.R.

A 1980 (3) SCR 1042 relied on para 63

1979 (3) SCR 373 referred to para 67

ILR 35 Calcutta 701 referred to para 67

B ILR 43 Calcutta 790 referred to para 67

2012 (3) SCR 147 referred to para 83

2012 (9) SCR 311 relied on para 83

(1980) 4 sec 1 referred to para ,84
c
(1987) 2 sec 295 referred to para 84

(1988) 1 sec 166 referred to para 86

(1997) 1 sec 592 referred to para 87'"
D
(2000) 8 sec 262 referred to para 88

2009 (9) SCR 225 referred to para 89

1982 (1) SCR 947 referred to para 95
E
1986 SCR 479 referred to para 95
(2014) 6 sec 590 relied on para 99

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition
F (Criminal) No. 120 of 2012.

WITH

W.P. (C) Nos. 463 and 515 of 2012
G
W.P. (C) No. 283 of 2013.

Ranjit Kumar, SG., Maninder Singh ASG., K.H.
Deshpande, Amrendra Sharan, H.N. Salve, Vivek Tankha,
H Suman, Vipin K. Saxena, Prasant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva,
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 457

Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai, Swetab Kumar, Jyoti A
Mendiratta, Arijit Prasad, Satya Siddiqui, Sarfr()j A. Siddiqui,
S.K. Mishra, Anil Katiyar, D.S. Mahra, Amit Anand Tiwari
Sanchit Guru, Mahesh Agarwal, Neena Nagpal, E.C. Agrawala,
Asha Gopalan Nair, Ramesh Babu M.R., Anip Sachthey,
Tapesh K. Singh, Mohd. Waquas, D. Mahesh Babu, Amjid B
Maqbool, Sanjay Kharde, A.P. Mayee,, Prasanto Chander Sen,
Sayuj Kumar Banerjee, C.D. Singh, Kirti Renu Mishra, Anip
Sachthey, ·Shagun Matta, Saakar Sardana, Rishabti Sancheti,
Mishra Saurabh, Vanshaje Shukla, A.N. Singh, Mamta Saxena,
Milind Kumar, Gaurav Jeneja (For Khaitan & Co.), Aparna Bhat, c
Braj Kishore Mishra, Kaimini Jaiswal, Manohar Lal Sharma
Petitioner-In-Person for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was ~elivered by

R,M. LODHA, CJI. 1. Coal is king and paramount Lord D
of industry is an old saying in the industrial world. Industrial
greatness has been built up on coal by many countries. In India,
coal is the most important indigenous energy resol:!rce and
remains the dominant fuel for power g·eneration and many
industrial applications. A number of major industrial sectors E
including iron and steel production depend on coal as a source
of energy. The cement industry is also a major coal user. Coal's
potential as a feedstock for producing liquid transport fuels is
huge in India. Coal can help significant economic growth. India's
energy future and. prosperity are integrally dependant upon F
mining arid using its most abundant, affordable.and dependant
energy supply - which is coal. Coal is extremely important
elemerrt in the industrial life of developing India. In power, iron
and steel, coal is used as an input and in cement, coal is used
.both as fuel and an input. It is no exaggeration that coal is G
regarded by many as the black diamond.

2. Being such a significant, valuable and important natural
resource, the allocation of coal blocks for the period 1993 to
201 O is the subje9t matter of this'group of writ petitions filed in
H
458 SUPREME COURT" REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A the nature of Public Interest Litigation, principally one by
Manohar Lal Sharma and the other by the Cammon Cause. The
allocation of coal blocks made during the above period by the
Central Government, according to petitioners, is illegal and
unconstitutional inter alia on the following grounds:
B
(a) Non-compliance of the mandatory legal procedure
under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957 (for short, '1957 Act').

(b) Breach of Section 3("3)(a)(iii) of the Coal Mines
C (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (for short, 'CMN Act').

(c) Violation of the principle of Trusteeship of natural
resources by gifting away precious resources as largesse.

(d) Arbitrariness, lack of transparency, lack-of objectivity
0 and non-application of mind; and

(e) Allotment .tainted with ma/a fides and corruption and
made in favour of ineligible companies tainted with ma/a fides
and corruption.
E
3. The first of these writ petitions was filed by Manohar Lal
Sharma. When that writ petition was listed for preliminary
hearing on 14.09.2012, the Court issued notice to Union of
India and directed it to file counter affidavit through Secretary,
F Ministry of Coal dealing with the following aspects:

(i) The details of guidelines framed by the Central
Government for allocation of subject coal blocks.

(ii) The process adopted for allocation of subject coal
G blocks.

(iii) Whether the guidelines contain inbuilt mechanism to
ensure that allocation does not lead to distribution of largesse I
unfairly in the hands of few private companies?

H
MANOHARLAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 459
[RM. LODHA, CJI.]
(iv) Whether the guidelines were strictly followed and A
whether by allocation of the subject coal blocks, the objectives
of the policy have been realised?

(v) What were the reasons for not following the policy of
competitive biddin~ adopted by the Government of India way B
back in 2004 for allocation of coal blocks?

(vi) What steps have been taken or are proposed to be
taken against the allottees who have not adhered to the terms
of allotment or breached the terms thereof?
c
4. Another PIL came to be filed by Common Cause after
the above order was passed. PIL by Common Cause came
up for preliminary hearing on 19.11.2012. Since, certain
additional issues were raised and additional reliefs were also
made in the PIL by Common Cause, this Court issued notice D
in that matter as well on 19.11.2012.

5. Principally, two prayers have been made in these
matters, first, for quashing the entire allocation of coal blocks
made to private companies by the Central Government
between 1993 and 2012 and second, a court monitored E
investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and
Enforcement Directorate (ED) or by a Special Investigation
Team (SIT) into the entire allocation of coal blocks by the
Central Government made between the above period covering
all aspects. F

6. The present consideration of the matter is confined to
the first prayer, i.e., for quashing the allocation of coal blocks
to private companies made by the Central Government
between the above period. At the outset, therefore, it is clarified G
that consideration of the present matter shall not be construed,
in any manner, as touching directly or indirectly upon the
investigation being conducted by CBI and ED into the allocation
of coal blocks.
H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A 7. The first counter affidavit was filed by the Central
Government on 22.01.2013 running into eleven volumes and
2607 pages. Thereafter, further/additional counter affidavit was
filed by the Central Government. However, when the matters
were listed on 10.07.2013, learned Attorney GeneraLsubmitted
B that in the counter affidavits filed so far, the Union of India had
focused on the six queries raised by the Court on 14.09.2012
in the writ petition filed by Manohar Lal Sharma. He sought
some time to enable the Central Government to file appropriate
counter affidavit justifying allocation of coal blocks. Thereafter,
c further/additional counter affidavits have also been filed by the
Central Government.

8. On 10.09.2013, the arguments with regard to challenge
to allocation of coal blocks commenced which continued on
11.09.2013, 12.09.2013, 17.09.2013, 18.09.2013, 24.09.2013,
D 25.09.2013 and 26.09.2013. On 26.09.2013, Attorney General
in the course of his arguments submitted that allocation letter
. ...
by the Central Government was only a first step towards
obtaining mining lease and that, by itself, did not confer any
right on the allottee to work mines. He submitted that at1the
E best, letter of allocation was a letter of intent and issuance of
such allocation letter in no way impinges the rights of the State
Governments under the 1957 Act. In light of the submissions
of the learned Attorney General on 26.09.2013, we wanted to
know from the counsel for the petitioners whether concerned
F State Governments should be asked to explain their position
in the matter to which Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, petitioner-in-
person and Mr. Prashant Bhushan agreed and, accordingly, the
Court issued notice to the States of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh,
Odisha, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and
G West Bengal as the subject coal blocks, for which the allocation
is in issue, were located in these States. The Court sought the
views of the above States on the following:

(i) How did the State Government understand the allocation ·
of coal blocks by the Central Government?
H
MANOHAR l:AL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 461
[R.M. LODHA, CJl.]
(ii) What was the" role of the State Government in the A
allocation of coal blocks ?
I

(iii) What was the role of the State Government in the
subseq!Jent steps having regard to the provisions of the 1957
Act? B
(iv) The details of the agreements entered into by the State
Public Sector Undertakings, which were allotted coal blocks,
with private parties for the coal blocks located in the State.

9. In pursuance of the above, 7 States have filed their C
responses.

10. The arguments re-commenced on 05.12.2013. On that
day, arguments of the States of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and
Odisha were concluded and matters were fixed for 08.01.2014.
0
On 08.01.2014, the arguments on behalf of the States of
Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and West
Bengal were concluded and the matters were fixed for
09.01.2014. On that day, arguments of learned Attorney
General were concluded.
E
11. Three Associations, viz., Coal Producers Association,
Sponge Iron Manufacturers Association and Independent
Power Producers Association of India have made applications
for their intervention stating that these associations represented
large number of allottees who have been allocated subject coal F
blocks. Accordingly, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior
counsel was heard for Coal Producers Association and Mr.
Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel was heard on behalf
of the Sponge Iron Manufacturers Association and Independent
Power Producers Association of India. They commenced their G
arguments on 09.01.2014, which continued on 15.01.2014 and
concluded on 16.01.2014. The arguments in rejoinder by Mr.
Manohar Lal Sharma, petitioner-in-person and Mr. Prashant
Bhushal'), learned counsel for Common Cause were also
concluded on that day. The arguments of Mr. Sanjay Parikh,
H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A who had made an application for intervention on behalf of Mr.
Sudeep Shrivastav were also heard and concluded. The
judgment was reserved on that day.

12. It is appropriate that we first notice the statutory
framework relevant for the issues under consideration. The
8
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1948
(for short, '1948 Act') was enacted to provide for the regulation
of mines and oil fields and for the development of the minerals
under entry 36 of the Government of India Act, 1935. It received
the assent of the Governor General on 08.09.1948 and came
C into effect from that date. •

13. 1948 Act was repealed by the 1957 Act. The
introduction of the 1957 Act reads:

D "In the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution in Union List
entry 54 provides for regulation of mines and minerals
development to the extent to which such regulation and
development under the control of the Union is declared by
Parliament by law to, be expedient in the public interest.
On account of this provision it became imperative to have
E
a separate legislation. In order to provide for the regulation
of mines and the development of minerals, the Mines and
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Bill was
introduced in the Parliament."

F 14. 1957 Act has undergone amendments from time to
time. Section 2 of the 1957 Act reads:

"Declaration as to the expediency of Union Control - it is
hereby declared that it is expedient in the· public interest
G that the Union should take under its control the regulation
of mines and the development of minerals to the extent
hereinafter provided."

15. Sections 3(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) define:
"minerals", "mining lease", "mining operations", "minor
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 463
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
minerals", "prescribed", "prospecting licence·, and "prospecting 'A
operations" 1, respectively.

16. Section 4 mandates that prospecting or mining
operations shall be under licence or lease. Sub-section (2)
provides that no reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence
B
or mining lease shall be granted otherwise than in accordance
with the provisions of the Act" and the rules made thereunder.

17. Section 5 is a restrictive provision. The provision
mandates that in respect of any mineral specified in the First
Schedule, no reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or C
mining lease shall be granted except with the previous approyal
. of the Central Government. Coal and Lignite are at item no.1
in Part A under the title "Hydro Carbons/Energy Minerals" in the
First Schedule appended to the 1957 Act.
D
18. Section 6 provides for maximum area for which a
prospecting licence or mining lease may be granted. Section
7 makes provisions for the periods for-which prospecting
licence may be granted or renewed and Section 8 provides for
periods for which mining leases may be granted or renewed.
E
Section 10 provides that application for reconnaissance permit,
prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of any land in

1. (1 "3(a) "minerals" includes all minerals except mineral oils;
(c) "mining lease" means a lease granted for the purpose of undertaking
mining operations, and includes a sub-lease granted for such purpose;
F
(d) "mining operations" means any operations undertaken for the purpose of
winning any mineral;
(e) "minor minerals" means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary
.sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any oiher mineral
which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, G
declare to be a minor mineral;
(f) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(g) "prospecting licence" means a licence granted for the purpose of
undertaking prospecting operations;
(h) "prospecting operations" means any operations undertaken for the purpose
of exploring, locating or proving mineral deposit;" H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 8 S.C.R.

A which the minerals vest in the Government shall be made to the
State Government concerned, inter alia, it empowers the State
Government concerned to grant or refuse to grant permit,
licence or lease having regard to the provisions of the 1957
Act or the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short '1960
s Rules').
19. Section 11· provides for preferential right of certain
persons. Sub-.section (1) of Section 11 makes a provision that
where a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence has
been granted in respect of any land, the permit holder or the
C licensee shall have a preferential right for obtaining a
prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, in
respect of that land over any other person. This is, however,
subject to State Government's satisfaction and certain
conditions as provided therein. Sub-section (2) of Section 11
D says that where the State Government does not notify in the
Official Gazette the area for grant of reconnaissance permit or
prospecting licence or mining lease and two or more persons
have applied for a reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence
or a mining lease in respect of any land in such area, the
E applicant whose application was received earlier, shall have a
preferential right to be considered for such grant over the
applicant whose application was received later. This is,
however, subject to provisions of sub-section (1). The first
proviso appended thereto enacts that where an area is
F available for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting
licence or mining lease and the State Government has invited
applications by notification in the Official Gazette for grant of
such permit, licence or lease, the applications received during
the period specified in such notification and the applications
G which had been received prior to the publication of such
notification in respect of the lands within such area or had not
been disposed of, shall be deemed to have been received on
the same day for the purpose of assigning priority under sub-
section (2). The second proviso indicates that where such
H applications are received on the same day, the State
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 465
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
Government, after taking into consideration the matter specified A
in sub-section (3), may grant the reconnaissance permit,
prospecting licence or mining lease to one of the applicants
as it may deem fit. Sub-section (3) elaborates the matter
referred to in sub-section (2), namely, (a) any special knowledge
of, experience in reconnaissance operations, prospecting B
operations or mining operations, possessed by the applicant;
(b) the financial resources of the applicant; (c) the nature and
quality of the technical staff employed or to be employed by the
applicant; (d) the investment which the applicant proposes to
make in the mines and in the industry based on yie minerals; c
and (e) such other matters as may be prescribed.

2-0. Section 13 empowers the Central Government to make
rules in respect of minerals. By virtue of the power conferred
upon the Central Government under Section 13(2), the 1960
Rules have been framed for regulating the grant of, inter alia, D
mining leases in respect of minerals and for purposes
connected therewith.

21. By virtue of Section 17, the Central Government has
been given special powers to undertake prospecting or mining E
operations in certain lands. Section 17-A authorises the Central
Government to reserve any area not already held under any
prospecting licence or mining lease with a view to conserve any
mineral and after consultation with the State Government by
notification in the Official Gazette. F

22. Section 18 indicates that it shall be the duty of the
Central Government to take all such steps as will be necessary
for the conservation and systematic development of minerals
in India and for the protection of the environment by preventing
or controlling any pollution which may be caused by prospecting ·G
or mining operations and for such purposes the Central
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make
such rules as it thinks necessary.

23. Section 18Pt empowers the Central Government to H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A authorise the Geological Survey of India to carry out necessary
· investigation for the purpose of information with regard to the
availability of any mineral in or under any land in relation to which
any prospecting licence or mining lease has been granted by
a State Government or by any other person. The proviso that
B follows sub-section (1) of Section 18A provides that in cases
of prospecting licences or mining leases granted by a State
Government, no such authorisation shall be made except after
consultation with the State Governm~nt.

24. Section 19 provides that any prospecting licences and
C mining leases granted, renewed or acquired in contravention
of the 1957 Act or any rules or orders made thereunder shall
be void and of no effect.

, 25. The 1960 Rules were framed by the Central
D Government, as noted above, in exercise of the powers
conferred by·Section 13.

26. Chapter IV of 1960 Rules deals with grant of mining
leases in respect of land .in which the minerals vest in the
E Government. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 provides that an
application for the grant of a mining lease in respect of land in
which the minerals vest in the Government shall be made to the
State Government in Form I through such officer or authority as
the State Government may specify in this behalf. Sub-rule (3)
F provides for the documents to be annexed with the application
and so also that such application must be accompanied by a
non-refundable fee as prescribed therein. Sub-rule (4) of Rule
22 provides that on receipt of the application for the grant of
mining lease, the State Government shall take decision to grant
precise area and communicate such decision to the applicant.
G The applicant, on receipt of communication from the State
Government of the precise areas to be granted, is required to
submit a mining plan within a period of six months or such other
period as may be allowed by the State Government to the
Central Government for its approval. The applicant is required
H to submit the mining plan duty approved by the Central
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 467
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
Government or by an officer duly authorized by the Central A
Government to the State Government to grant mining legse over
that area. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 22 provides the details to be
incorporated in the mining plan.

27. Rule 26 empowers the State Government to refuse to 8
grant or renew mining lease over the whole or part of the area
applied for. But that has to be done after giving an opportunity
of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing and
communicated to the applicant.

28. Rule 31 provides for time within which lease is to be C
executed where an order has been made for grant of such
lease on an application. Rule 34 provides for manner of
exercise of preferential rights for mining lease.

29. Rule 35 provides that where two or more persons have o
applied for a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence
or a mining lease in respect of the same land, the State
Government shall, for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section
11, consider besides the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to
(d) of sub-section (3) of Section 11, the end use of the mineral E
by the applicant.

30. In short, the 1957 Act provides for general restrictions
on undertaking prospecting and mining operations, the
procedure for obtaining prospecting licences or mining leases
in respect of lands in which the minerals vest in the government, F
the rule-making power for regulating the grant of prospecting
licences and mining leases, special powers of Central
Government to undertake prospecting or mining operations in
certain cases, and for development of minerals.
G
31. The Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 15
of 1973, (for short, 'Coal Mines Management Act') was passed,

"to provide for the taking over, in the public interest, of the
management of coal mines, pending nationalisation of
H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A such mines, with a view to ensuring rational and
coordinated development of coal production and for
promoting optimum utilisation of the coal resources
consistent with the growing requirements of the country,
and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."
B
32. The Coal Mines Management Act received the assent
of the President on 31.03.1973 but it was made effective from
30.01.1973 except Section 8(2) which came into force at once.
Section 3( 1) provides that on and from the appointed day (that
C is, 31.01.1973) the management of all coal mines shaU vest in
the Central Government. By Section 3(2), the coal mines
specified in the Schedule shall be deemed to be the coal mines
the management of which shall vest in the Central Government
under sub-section (1). Under the proviso to Section 3(2), if, afte~
the appointed day, the existence of any other coal mine comes
D to the knowledge of the Central Government; it shall -by a
notified order make a declaration about the existence of such
mine, upon which the management of such coal mine also vests
in the Central Government and the provisions of the Act
become applicable thereto.
E
33. Immediately after the Coal Mines Management Ad, the
Parliament enacted the CMN Act. CMN Act was passed,

"to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the right, title
and interest of the owners in respect of coal mines
F specified in the Schedule with a view to reorganising and
reconstructing any such coal mines so as to ensure the
rational, coordinated and scientific development and
utilisation of coal resources consistent with the· growing
requirements of the country, in order that the ownership
G and control of such resources are vested in the State and
thereby so distributed as best to subserve the common
good, and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto."

H 34. Section 2(b) of the CMN Act defines a coal mine in
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 469
[RM. LODHA, CJI.]
the same manner as the corresponding provision of the Coal A
Mines Management Act, namely, a mine "in which there exists
one or more seams of coal". Section 3(1) provides that on the
appointed day (i.e., 01.05.1973) the right, title and interest of
the owners in relation to the coal mines specified in the
Schedule shall stand transferred to, and shall vest absolutely B
in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Section
4(1) provides that where the rights of an owner under any mining
lease granted, or deemed to have been granted. in relation to
a coal mine, by a State Government or any other person, vest
in the Central Government under Section 3, the Central c
Government shall, on and from the date of such vesting; be
deemed to have become the lessee of the State Government
or such other person, as the case may be, in relation to such
coal mine as if a mining lease in relation to such coal mine had
been granted to the Central Government. The.period of such 0-
lease is to be the entire period for which the lease could have
been granted by the Cenfral Government or such other person
under the 1960 Rules and thereupon all the rights under the
· mining lease granted to the lessee are to be deemed to have
been transferred to, and vested in, the Central Government.' By E
Section 4(2) on the expiry of the term of any lease referred to
in sub-section '(1 ), the lease, at the option of the C.entral
Government, is liable to be renewed on the same terms and
conditions on which it was held by the lessor for the maximum
period for which it could be renewed under the 1960 Rules.
· Section 5(1) empowers the Central Government under certain F
conditions to direct by· an order in writing ttiat the right, title and
interest of an owner in relation to a coal mine shall, instead of
continuing to vest in the Central Government, vest in the
Government company. Such company, under Section 5(2), is
to be deemed to have become the lessee of the coal mine as G
if the mining lease had been granted to it. By Section 6(1), the
property which vests in the Central Government or in a
government company is freed and discharged from all
obligations and encumbrances affecting it. Section 8 requires
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A that the owner of every coal mine or group of coal mines
specified in the second column of the Schedule shall be given
by the Central Government in cash and in the manner specified
in Chapter VI, for the vesting in it under Section 3 of the right,
title and interest of the owner, an amount equal to the amount
B specified against it in the corresponding entry in the fifth column
of the Schedule. By Section 11(1), the general superintendence,
direction, centre! and management of the affairs and business
of a coal mine, the right. title and interest of an owner in relation
to which have vested in the Central Government under Section
c 3 shall vest in the Government company or in the Custodian,
as the case may be.

35. The CMN Act came to be amended by the Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Amendment Ordinance which was
promulgated on 29.04.1976. The Ordinance was replaced by
D the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976 (for
short, '1976 Nationalisation Amendment Act'). A new section,
Section 1-A was inserted by which it was declared that it was
expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under
its control the regulation and development of coal mines to the
E extent provided in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 3 and
sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the CMN Act. By sub-section
(2) of Section 1-A, the declaration contained in sub-section (1)
was to be in addition to and not in derogation of the declaration
contained in Section 2 of the 1957 Act. By Section 3 of the
F 1976 Nationalisation Amendment Act, a new sub-section (3)
was introduced in Section 3 of the principal Act. Under clause
(a) of the newly introduced sub-section (3) of Section 3, on and
from the commencement of Section 3 of the 1976
Nationalisation Amendment Act, no person other than (i) Central
G Government or a Government company or a corporation owned,
managed or controlled by the Central Government or (ii) a
person to whom a sub-lease, referred to in· the proviso to
clause (c) has been granted.by any such Government, company
or corporation or (iii) a company engaged in the production of
H iron and steel, shf!ll carry on coal mining operation, in India in
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 4 71
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
any form. Under clause (b) of sub-section (3), excepting the A
mining leases granted before the 1976 Nationalisation.
Amendment Act in favour of the Government company or
corporation referred to in clause (a), and any sub-lease granted
by any such Government, Government company or corporation,
all other mining leases and sub-leases in force immediately B
before such commencement shall insofar as they relate to the
winning or mining of coal, stand terminated. Clause (c) of the
newly introduced sub-section (3) of Section 3 provides that no
lease for winning or mining coal shall be granted in favour of
any person other than the Government, Government company c
or corporation referred to in clause (a). Under the proviso to
clause (c), the Government, Government company or the
corporation to whom a lease for winning or mining coal has
been granted may grant a sub-lease to any person in any area
if, (i) the reserves of coal in the area are in isolated small
0
pockets o.r are not sufficient for scientific and economical
devel.opment in a coordinated and integrated manner, and (ii)
the coal produced by the sub-lessee will not be required to be
transported by rail. By sub-section (4) of Section 3, where a
mining lease stands terminated under sub-section (3), it shall E
be lawful for the Central Government or a Government company
or corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government
to obtain a prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of
the whole or part of the land covered by the mining lease which
stands terminated. Section 4 of the 1976 Nationalisation
Amendment Act introduces an additional provision in Section F
\30 of the principal Act by providing that any person who
engages, or causes any other person to be engaged, in winning
or mining coal from the whole or part of any land in respect of
which no valid prospecting licence.or mining lease or sub-lease
is in force, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term G
which may extend to two years and also with fine which may
extend to Rs.10,000/-.

36. By the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment
Act, 1993 (for short, '1993 Nationalisation Amendment Act'), the H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A CMN Act was further amended. The Statement of Objects and·
Reasons of the 1993 Nationalisation Amendment Act reads·
thus:

"Considering the need to augment power generation and
to create additional capacity during the eighth plan, the
8
Government have taken decision to allow private sector
participation in the power sector. Consequently, it has
become necessary to provide fOi coa! linkages to power
generating units coming up in the private sector. Coal India
Limited and Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, the major
c producers of coal and lignite in the public sector, are
experiencing resource constraints. A number of projects
cannot be taken up in a short span of time. As an
alternative, it is proposed to offer new coal and lignite
mines to the proposed power stations in the private sector
D for the purpose of captive end use. The same arrangement
is also considered necessary for other industries who
would be handed over coal mines for captive end use.
Washeries have to be encouraged in the private sector
also to augment the availability of washed coal for supply
E to steel plants, power houses, etc.

Under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, coal
mining is exclusively reserved for the public sector, except
in case of companies engaged in the production of iron
F and steel, and mining in isolated small pockets not
amenable to economical development and not requiring
rail transport. In order to allow private sector participation
in coal mining for captive use for purpose of power
generation as well as for other captive end uses to be
notified from time to time and to allow the private sector
G
to set up coal washeries, it is considered necessary to
amend the Coal and Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act,
1973.

The Coal Mines (Nationalization) Amendment Bill, 1992
H seeks to achieve the aforesaid objectives."
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 4 73
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
37. Section 3 of the CMN Act was amended and thereby A
in clause (a) of sub-section (3) for item (iii), the following was
substituted, namely,

(iii) a company engaged in -

(1) the production of iron and steel, B

(2) generation of power,

(3) washing of. coal obtained from a mine, or

(4) such other end use as the Central Government may, c
by notification, specify.

38. By further Notification dated 15.03.199.6, the Central
Government specified production of cement to be an end-use
for the purposes of the CMN Act. D
39. By another Notification dated 12.07.2007, the Central
Government specified production of syn-gas obtained through
coal gasification (underground and surface) and coal
liquefaction as end uses for the purposes of the CMN Act.
E
40. The background in which Section 3(3) of the CMN Act
was amended to permit private sector entry in coal mining
operation for captive use has been sought to be explained by
the Central Government. It is stated that nationalization of coal
through the CMN Act was done with the objebtive of ensuring F
"rational, coordinated and scientific development and utilization
of coal resources consistent with the growing requirements of
the. country" and as a first step in 1973, 711 coal mines
·specified in the Schedule appended to CMN Act were
nationalized and vested in the Central Government. By 1976 G
Nationalisation Amendment Act, the Central Government alone
was permitted to mine coal with the limited exception of private
compan'ies engaged in the production of iron and steel. In 1991,
the country was facing huge crisis due to
H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 8 S.C.R.

A (a) the situation regarding balance of payments; (b) the.
economy being in doldrums; (c) dismal power situation; (d)
shortage in coal production; and (e) inability of Coal India
Limited (CIL) to produce coal because of lack of necessary
resources to maximize coal production amongst other reasons.
B There was a huge shortage of power in the country. The State
Electricity Boards were unable to meet power requirements.
Post liberalization, in the 8th Five Year Plan (1992-1997) '\
renewed focus was placed on developing energy and
infrastructure in the country. CIL was not in a position to
c generate the resources-required. It was in this background that
in a meeting taken by the Deputy Chairman of the Planning
Commission on 31.10.1991, it was decided that "private
enterprises may be permitted to develop coal and lignite
mines as captive units of power projects". The approval of
Cabinet was consequently sought vide a Cabinet note dated
0
30.01.1992 for "allowing private sector participation in coal
mining operations for captive consumption towards
generation of power and other end use, which may be hotified
' by Government from time to time", The Cabinet in the meeting
held on 19.02.1992 considered the above Cabinet note and it
E was decided that the proposal may be brought up only when
specific projects of private sector participation in coal mining
come to the Government for consideration.
Subsequently.another Cabinet note dated 23.04.1992 was
placed before the Cabinet containing references to certain
F private projects tike the two 250 MW thermal power plants of
RPG Enterprises, which had been recommended by the
Government of West Bengal. The proposal contained in the
Cabinet note dated 23.04.1992 was approved by the Cabinet
on 05.05.1992. On 15.07.1992, the Bill for amendment of
G Section 3(3) of CMN Act was introduced in Rajya Sabha and
the same was passed on 21.07.1992. The Bill was passed in
Lok Sabha on 19.04.1993 and got assent of the President on
09.06.1993 ..

H 41. The Central Government has highlighted that once
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v." PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 4 75
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
Section 3(3) of the CMN Act was amended to permit private A
sector entry in coal mining operations for captive u$e, it
became necessary to select th~ coal blocks that could. be
offered to the private sector for captive use. The coal blocks
to be offered for captive mining were cfuly identified and a
booklet containing particulars of 40 blocks was prepared which B
was revised from time to time.

42. Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General
with ~II persuasive skill and eloquence af his command has
sought to justify the allocation of coal blocks by the Central C
Government. He submits that the Central Government is not
only empowered but is duty bound to take the lead in allocation
of coal blocks and that is what it did, He traces this power to
Sections 1A and 3(3) of the CMN Act. It is argued by the
· learned Attorney General that in addition to the declaration
contained in Section 2 of the 1957 Act, Parliament has mad3 D
a further declaration in terms of Entry 54 of List I (Union List)
of the Seventh Schedule in Section 1A of the CMN Act which
makes specific reference to Section 3(3) of the CMN Act ancf'
both have to be read in conjunction with each other. By virtue
of Parliament having placed the regulation and development of E
coal mines under the control of the Union, Section 1A of the
CMN Act regulates coal mining operations under Sections 3(3)
and 3(4). He argues that coal reserves are primarily
concentrated in seven States, viz., Maharashtra, Madhya
Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh F
and West Bengal and all these seven States have accepted
and acknowledged the source of power of Government of India
with respect to allocation of coal blocks.

43. It is argued by the learned Attorney General that by
virtue of the bar contained in Section 3(3) of the CMN Act G.
between 1976 and 1993, no private company (other than the
company engaged in the production of iron and steel) could
have carried out coal mining operations in India. Therefore, if
no other company could have carried on coal mining
H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A operations, it follows that it could also not have applied to the
State Government for grant of lease for mining of coal. Even if
they did (post 1993) make an application for grant of
prospective licence/mining lease directly to the -State
Government, the State Government could not process the same
B until it received the letter of allocation from the Central
Government.

44. Learned Attorney General argues that the consideration
of proposals by the Central Government for allocation of coal
blocks does· not contravene the provisions of the 1957 Act in
C any manner, firstly, because Section 1A of CMN Act is in
addition to and not in derogation of the 1957 Act; secondly, an
application for allocation of a coal block is not dealt with by the
provisions of the 1957 Act; and thirdly, after allocation, the
allocatee has to make an application for grant of mining lease
D or prospecting licence to the State Government in accordance
with the 1957 Act and the 1960 Rules. It is for these reasons,
he submits, that none of the States nor any private person ever
challenged the grant of allocation by the Central Government
on the ground that the Central Government was not empowered
E to allocate the coal blocks.

45. The above arguments of the learned Attorney General
are vehemently contested by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned
counsel for Common Cause. He submits that under the
F provisions of CMN Act only two kinds of entities (a) Central
Government and undertakings/corporations owned by the
Central Government; and

(b) companies having end-use plants in iron and steel,
power, cement, etc., could work the coal mines. He submits that
G the CMN Act does not, in any way, give the power of calling
applications, selection and allocation of coal blocks to the
Central Government and Section 3 of the CMN Act only
provides eligibility criteria for allocation of coal mines. The
procedure for allocation continues to be governed by the 1957
H Act and it is for this reason that ultimately Section 11A
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 4 77
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
concerning allocation of coal mines was introduced in the 1957 A
Act only.

46. Mr. Harish N. S<:!lve, learned senior counsel, who
appeared for interveners, Sponge Iron Manufacturers
Association and Independent Power Producers Association of
B
India, argues that Section 1A(2) of the CMN Act makes the
declaration in addition to the existing declaration in Section 2
. of the 1957 Act. The additional declaration has done away with
: any vestige of power in the State in the matter of selection of
; beneficiaries of the mineral and if Section· 1A had not been
. inserted vide 1976 Nationalisation Amendment Act, it may have C
: been possible to argue that the State, as the owner of the
' mineral, would nonetheless be required to grant the lease under
Section 10 of the 1957 Act by exercising its discretion under
Section 10(3) albeit subject to further "conditionalities" imposed
by Section 3(2) of the CMN Act. The additional declaration, D
learned senior counsel for the interveners submits, is intended
to denude the State of power under Entry 23 of List II of the
Seventh Schedule and corresponding executive power under
Article 162 of the Constitution of India. According to Mr. Harish
N. Salve, the grant or refusal of the lease by State insofar as E
coal is concerned, is no longer governed by Section 11 of the
1957 Act and that it is governed by Sections 3(3) and 3(4) of
the CMN Act and, thus, it is obvious that there has to be first a
recommendation by the Central Government before the State
can exercise its discretion under Section 10(3) of the 1957 Act F
and that the converse would lead to conferring upon the State,
in Section 10(3) of the 1957 Act, an unguided and un-canalised
power to grant or refuse a lease. He submits that if Section 3(3)
of the CMN Act is read as prescribing qualifications in addition
to those in Section 5(1) of the 1957 Act, such position would G
make the scheme of both the enactments - 1957 Act and CMN
Act - unworkable.

47. Mr. Harish N. Salve argues that the allocation letter
issued by the Central Government is the procedure which
H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A regulates the exercise under Rule 22 of the 1960 Rules (and
Section 10(3) of the 1957 Act) by the State Government and
that procedure is to ensure that a lease is granted to a company
engaged in stipulated permissible activities by making it a two
step process, viz., the issue of letter of allotment conditional
B upon the end-use plant, followed by grant of a lease once end
usage is achieved. He submits that Section 3(3) of the CMN
Act is fully satisfied where a lease is granted to a company
which engages in the permissible activity. Learned senior
counsel for the interveners fully supports the arguments of the
c learned Attorney General that the Central Government has the
power to identify the beneficiary of an allotment and once the
Central Government has identified the beneficiary of allotment,
the State will be obliged to grant a lease if other conditions are
satisfied.
D 48. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing
for Coal Producers Association argues that having regard to
the declaration made under Section 2 of the 1957 Act and the
declaration under Section 1A of the CMN Act and so also
Section 3(3) thereof, it is perfectly legitimate for the Central
E Government to exercise its power.and jurisdiction in the manner
it has done for the purpose of selecting the allottees for coal
blocks. He contends that under Article 73 of the Constitution,
the executive power of the Union extends to matters in regard
to which the Parliament has legislative competence and this
F power it undoubtedly possesses by reason of the declarations
contained in the 1957 Act and the CMN Act enacted
specifically for the regulation and development of coal and coal
mines.

G 49. It shall have been noticed that the thrust of the
arguments of the learned Attorney General and so also Mr.
Harish N. Salve and Mr. K. K. Venugopal hinges around the
premise that Sections 1A and 3(3) of the CMN Act clothe the
C~ntral Government with power to allocate the coal blocks or,
in other words, select the allottees for coal blocks. Is it so? The
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 4 79
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
constit1,1tional philosophy about law making in relation to mines A
and minerals and List I Entry 36 (Federal Legislative List) and
List II Entry 23 (Provincial Legislative List) in Schedule VII of
the Government of India Act, 1935 which correspond to List I
Entry 54 (Union List) and List II Entry 23 (State List), in our
Constitution has been noticed by this Court in M~nnet2 . B
Speaking through one of us (R.M. Lodha, J., as he theh was)
in Monnet2, this Court has noted the statement of the learned
Solicitor General in the House of Commons made in the course
of debate in respect of the above entries in the Government of
India Bill that the rationale bf including only the "regulation of c
mines" and "development of minerals" and that, too, only to the
extent it was considered expedient in the public interest by a
federal law was to ensure that the provinces were not
completely cut out from the law relating to mines and minerals
and if there was inaction at the Centre, then the provinces could 0
make their own laws. Thus, power in relation to the mines and
minerals was accorded to both, the Centre and the States. The
Court in Monnet2 said:

"130 ................ The management o{ the mineral
resources has been left with both the Central Government E
and the State Governments in terms of List I Entry 54 and
List II Entry 23. In the scheme of our Constitution, the State
Legislatures enjoy the power to enact legislation on the
topics of "mines and minerals development". The only fetter
imposed on the State Legislatures under Entry 23 is by F
the latter part of the said entry which says, "subject to the
provisions of List I with respect to regulation and
development under the control of the Union". In other
words, the State Legislature loses its jurisdiction to the
extent to which the Union Government had taken over G
control, the regulation of mines and development of
minerals as manifested by legislation incorporating the
declaration and no more. If Parliament by its law has

2. Monnet !spat and Energy Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.; [(2012) 11 SCC 1) H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.'

A declared that regulation of mines and development of
minerals should in the public interest be under the control
of the Union, which it did by making declaration in Section
2 of the 1957 Act, to the extent of such legislation
incorporating the declaration, the power of the State
B Legislature is excluded. The requisite declaration has the
effect of taking out regulation of mines and development
of minerals from List II Entry 23 to that extent. It needs no
elaboration that to the extent to which the Central
Government had taken under "its control" "the regulation
c of mines and development of minerals" under the 1957
Act, the States had lost their legislative competence. By
the presence of the expression "to the extent hereinafter
provided" in Section 2, the Union has assumed control to
the extent provided .in the 1957 Act. The 1957 Act
prescribes the extent of control and specifies it. We must
D
bear in mind that as the declaration made in Section 2
trenches upon the State legislative power, it has to be
construed strictly. Any legislation by the State after such
declaration, trespassing the field occupied in the
declaration cannot constitutionally stand ....... "
E
. 50.. The declaration made by Parliament in Section 2 of
the 1957 Act states that it is expedient in the public interest that
the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines
and the development of minerals to the extent provided in the
F Act. Legal regime relating to regulation of mines and
development of minerals is, thus, guided by the 1957 Act and
the 1960 Rules. In addition to the above declaration in 1957
Act; a further declaration has been inserted by Section 1A of
the CMN Act, insofar as coal mines are concerned. By this
G provision, it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest
that the Union should take under its control regulation and
development of coal mines to the extent provided in sub-
sections (3) and (4) of Section 3 and sub-section (2) of Section
30 of.the CMN Act.
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 481
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
5·1. The two declarations - Section 2 of the 1957 Act and A
Section 1A of the CMN Act - have to be conjointly read insofar
as the control and regulation of coal mines is concerned. As a
consequence, the States have lost their jurisdiction to legislate
to the extent to which the Union had taken over control,
regulation and development of coal mines as manifested by the B
two enactments. When the Parliament by its law contained in
1957 Act has declared that regulation of mines and
development of minerals should, in the public interest, b~under
the control of the Union and by an additional declaration in the
CMN Act declared that regulation and development of mines c
to the extent provided in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 3
and sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the CMN Act should, in
the public interest, be under the control of the Uniolil, the power
of the State legislature to legislate on the subject covered by
these two enactments is excluded. In other words, the field 0
disclosed in the declarations under the 1957 Act and the CMN
Act is abstracted from the legislative competence of the State
Legislature. The requisite declarations have the effect of taking
out regulation and development of coal mines from List II Entry
23. To that extent, the States have lost their legislative
E
competence.

52. In Baijnath Kadio 3 the Constitution Bench referred to
two earlier decisions of this Court in Hingir-Rampur Coal Co.
Ltd. 4 and M.A. Tulloch and Co. 5 . While dealing with declaration
contained in Section 2 of the 1957 Act, the Court stated in para F
14, page 847 of tAe Report, as follows:

"14. The declaration is contained in Section 2 of Act 67
of 1957 and speaks of the taking undedhe control of the
Central Government the regulation of mines and G

3. 3 Baijnath Kadio v. State of Bihar; ((1969) 3 SCC 838]
4. l'iingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa; [AIR 1961 SC 459: (1961)
2 SCR 537]
5. State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch and Co.; (AIR 1964 SC 1284: (1964) 4 SCR
461] . H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A development of minerals to the extent provided in the Act
itself. We have thus not to look outside Act 67 of 1957 to
determine what is left within the competence of the State
Legislature but have to work it out from the terms of that
Act. ......... "
B
53. In Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. 6 , this Court
held that the declaration made in Section 2 of the 1957 Act had
denuded the State of its legislatille power to make any law with
respect to the regulation of mines and mineral development to
C the extent provided in the 1957 Act. As a sequitur, it is also
held that the State is also denuded of its executive power in
regard to matters covered by the 195'7 Act and the 1960 Rules
and there is no question of the State having any power to frame
a policy de-hors the 1957 Act and the 1960 Rules.

D 54. Om Prakash Mehta 7 highlights 'that the 1957 Act and
the 1960 Rules are a complete code in respect of the grant and
renewal of prospecting licences as well as mining leases in
lands belonging to the Government as well as lands belonging
to private persons.
E
55. In Monnet 2 , the scope and extent of the word
'regulation' occurring in Section 2 has been examined and it
is stated that 'regulation' must receive wide interpretation but
the extent of control by the Union as specified in the 1957 Act
has to be construed strictly. The same meaning must apply to
F the word 'regulation' occurring in Section 1A of the CMN Act.
In other words, the extent of control by the Union as specified
in the CMN Act has to be construed strictly.

56. In Orissa Cement Ltd. 8 a three Judge Bench of this
G Court explained that in the case of a declaration under Entryl

6. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka; [(2010) 13
sec 11
7. State of Assam v. Om Prakash Me_hta; ((1973) 1 SCC -584]
H 8. Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa; [1991 Supp. (1) sec 430]
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 483
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
54, the legislative power of the State Legislature is eroded only A
to the extent control is assumed by the Union pursuant to such
declaration as spelt out by the legislative enactment which
makes the declaration.

57. 1957 Act provides for general restrictions on
B
undertaking prospecting and mining operations, the procedure
for obtaining reconnaissance permits, prospecting licences and
mining leases and the rule making power of regulating the grant
of reconnaissance permit~. prospecting licences and mining
leases. Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the CMN
Act enables persons specified therein only to carry on coal c
mining operation. In clause (c), it is provided that no lease for
winning or mining coal should be granted in favour of any
person other than the Government, Government company or
corporation referred to in clause (a). Under clause (b) of sub-
section (3), excepting the mining leases granted before 1976 D
in favour of the Government, Government company or
corporation referred to in clause (a) and any sub-lease(s)
granted by any such Government, Government company or
corporation, all other mining leases and sub-leases in force
immediately before such commencement insofar as they relate E
to the winning or mining of coal stand terminated. When a sub-
lease stands terminated under sub-section (3), sub-section (4)
of Section 3 provides that it shall be lawful for the Central
Government or the Government.company or corporation owned
or controlled by the Central Government to obtain a prospecting F
licence or a mining lease in respect of whole or part of the land
covered by mining lease which stands so terminated. The
above provisions in the CMN Act, as inserted in 1976, clearly
show that the target of these provisions in the CMN Act is coal
mines, pure and simple. CMN Act effectively places embargo G
on granting the leases for winning or mining of coal to persons
other than those mentioned in· Section 3(3)(a). Does CMN Act
for the purposes of regulation and development of mines to the
extent provided therein alter the legal regime incorporated in
the 1957 Act? We do not think so. What CMN Act does is that H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A in regard to the matters falling under the Act, the legal regime
in the 1957 Act is made subject to the prescription under
Section 3(3)(a) and (c) of the CMN Act.1957 Act continues to
apply in full rigour for effecting prescription of Section 3(3)(a)
and (c) of the CMN Act. For grant of reconnaissance permit,
s prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of coal mines,
the MMDR regime has to be mandatorily followed. 1957 Act
and so also the 1960 Rules do not provide for allocation of coal
blocks nor they provide any mechanism, mode or manner of
such allocation.
c 58. Learned Attorney General submits that an application
for allocation of a coal block is not dealt with by the 1957 Act
and, therefore, consideration of proposals for allocation of coal
blocks does not contravene the provisions of the 1957 Act. The
submission of the learned Attorney General does not merit
D ~cceptance for more than one reason. First, although the
C'entral Government has pre-eminent role under the 1957 Act
inasmuch as no reconnaissance permit, prospecting l[cence or
mining lease of coal mines can be granted by the State
Government without prior approval of the Central Government
E but that pre-eminent role does not clothe the Central
Government with the power to act in a manner in derogation to
or inconsistent with the provisions contained in the 1957 Act.
Second, the CMN Act, as amended from time to time, does
not have any provision, direct or indirect, for allocation of coal
F blocks. Third, there are no rules framed by the Central
Government nor is there any notification issued by it under the
CMN Act providing for allocation of coal blocks by it first and
then consideration of an application of such allottee for grant
of prospecting licence or mining lease by the State
G Government. Fourth, except providing for the persons who
could carry out coal mining operations and total embargo on
all other persons undertaking such activity, no procedure or
mode or manner for winning or mining of coal mines is provided
in the CMN Acfor the 1960 Rules or by way of any notification.
H Fifth, even in regard· to the matters falling under CMN Act, such
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 485
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
as prescriptive direction that· no person other than those A
provided in Sections 3(3) and 3(4) shall carry on mining
operations in the coal mines,,the legal regime under the 1957
Act, subjecf to the prescription under Sections 3(3) and 3(4),
continues to apply in full rigour. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned
senior counsel for the interveners, is not right in his submission B
that allocation letter issued by the Central Government is the
procedure which regulates the exercise under Rule 22 of the
1960 Rules. Had that been so, some provisions to that effect
would have been made in the CMN Act or the 1960 Rules
framed thereunder but there is none. c
59. The submission of the learned Attorney General that
the 7 States - Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,
Odisha, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal - which
have coal deposits, have accepted and acknowledged the
source of power of the Central Government with regard to D
allocation of coal blocks is not fully correct. Odisha has strongly
disputed that position. Odisha's stand is that the system of
allocation of coal blocks by the Central Government is alien to
the legal regime under the CMN Act and the 1957 Act. It is true
that many of these States have taken the position that allocation E
letter confers a right on such allottee to get mining lease and
the only role left with the State Government is to carry out the
formality of processing the application ~nd for execution of
lease deed, but, in our view, the source of power of the Central
Government in allocation of coal blocks is not dependant on F
the understanding of the State Governments but it is dependant
upon whether such power exists in law or not. Indisputably,
power to regulate assumes the continued existence of that
which is to be regulated and it includes the authority to do all
things which are necessary for the doing of that which is G
authorized including whatever is necessarily incidental to a.nd
consequential upon it but the question is, can this incidental
power be read to empower the Central Government to allocate
the coal blocks which is neither contemplated by the CMN Act
nor by the 1957 Act? In our opinion, the answer has to be in H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 8 S.C.R.

A the negative. It is so because where a statute requires to do a
certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that
way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily
forbidden 9 • This is uncontroverted legal principle.

60. It is argued by the learned Attorney General that the
8
allocation letter does not by itself confer the right to work mines
and the identification of thb coal block does not impinge upon
the rights of the State Government under the 1957 Act. Learned
Attorney General argues that allocation of coal block is
C essentially an identification exercise where coal blocks selected
by the CIL for captive mining were identified by the Screening
Committee for development by an allocatee, after considering
the suitability of the coal block (in terms of exercise and quality
of reserve) vis-a-vis the requirements of the end-use plan of the
applicant. It is submitted by the Attorney General that a letter
D of allocation is the first step. It entitles the allocatee to apply to
the State Government for grant of prospecting licence/mining
lease in accordance with the provisions of the 1957 Act. The
right to apply for grant of prospecting licence/mining lease does
not imply that with the issuance of allocation letter the allocatee
E automatically gets the clearances and approval required under
the 1957 Act, the 1960 Rules, the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, etc.
According to the learned Attorney General, after allocation, the
following steps are required to be complied with:
F
a. The allocatee is required to apply to the State
Government for grant of Prospecting Licence in case of an
unexplored block, or a Mining Lease in case of an explored
block.
G b. On receipt of the application for grant of Prospecting
License or Mining Lease, as the case may be, the State
Government, in the case of Prospecting Licence can process

H 9. Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor; [(1935-36) 63 IA 372]
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 487
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
the application for Prospecting Licence in accordance with A
Chapter Ill of the 1960 Rules.

c. In the case of application for Mining lease (in Form I),
the State Government has to take a decision to grant precise
area for the purpose of the lease and c9mmunicate such
B
decision to the applicant.

d. On receipt of the communication from the State
Government of the precise area to be granted, the applicant is
required to submit a mining plan to the Central Government for
its approval. [Rule 22(4)] c
· e. After the mining plan has been duly approved by the
Central Government, the applicant submits the same to the
State Government for grant of mining lease over the area.

f. After receipt of the duly approved mining plan, the State D
Government makes a proposal for grant of prior consent by the
Central Government in terms of the proviso to Section 5(1) of
the 1957 Act.

g. In addition to the approved mining plan, the allocatee E
is required to obtain permission under Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 if the coal block is located in a
scheduled forest. Further, the allocatee is required to submit
to the State Government, prior environmental clearance from
the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India F
for the project. Forest Clearance and EIA clearance operate
separately.

h. Mining Lease is thereafter granted by the State
Government, after verifying that all statutory requirements have G
been duly complied with by the allocatee.

61. There seems to be no doubt to us that allocation letter
is not merely an identification exercise as is sought to be made
out by the learned Attorney General. From the position
H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 8 S.C.R.

A explained by the concerned State Governments, it is clear that
the allocation letter by the Central Government creates and
confers a very valuable right upon the allottee. We are unable
to accept the submission of the learned Attorney General that
allocation letter is not bankable. As a matter of fact, the
B allocation letter by the Central Government leaves practically
or apparently nothing for the State Government to decide save
and except to carry out the formality of processing the
application and for execution of the lease deed with the
beneficiary selected by the Central Government. Though, the
c legal regime under the 1957 Act imposes responsibility and
statutory obligation upon the State Government to recommend
or not to recommend to the Central Government grant of
prospecting licence or mining lease for the coal mines, but once
the letter allocating a coal block is issued by the Central
Government, the statutory role of the State Government is
0
reduced to completion of processual formalities only. As
noticed earlier, the declaration under Section 1A of the CMN
Act does not take away the power of the State under Section
10(3) of the 1957 Act. It is so because the declaration under
Section 1A of the CMN Act is in addition to the declaration
E made under Section 2 of the 1957 Act and not in its derogation.
1957 Act continues to apply with the same rigour in the matter
of grant of prospecting licence or mining lease of coal mines
but the eligibility of persons who can carry out coal mining
operations is restricted to the persons specified in Section
F 3(3)(a) of the CMN Act.

62. In Tara Prasad Singh 10 , a seven Judge Constitution
Bench while dealing with the purposiveness of the CMN Act,
as.amended in 1976, vis-a-vis the 1957 Act, stated that nothing
G in this Act (CMN) could be construed as a derogation of the
principle enunciated in Section 18 of the 1957 Act. The Court
said:

10. Tara Prasad Singh and others v. Union of India and others; [(1980) 4 SCC
H 179].
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 489
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
"Therefore. even in regard to matters falling under the A
Nationalisation Amendment Act which terminates existing
leases and makes it lawful for the Central Government to
obtain fresh leases. the obligation of Section 18 of the Act
of 1957 will continue to apply in its full rigour. As
contended by the learned Solicitor General, I
Section 18 B
contains a statutory behest and projects a purposive
legislative policy. The later Acts on the subject of regulation
of mines and mineral development are linked up with the
policy enunciated in Section 18."

(emphasis supplied by us) C

63. The observations made by this Court in Tara Prasad
Singh 10 about interplay between the CMN Act and the 1957 Act
with reference to the policy enunciated in Section 18, in our
view, apply equally to the entire legal regime articulated in the D
1957 Act. We are of the opinion that nothing should be read in
the two Acts, namely, CMN Act and the 1957 Act, which results '
in destruction of the policy, purpose and scheme of the two
Acts. It is not right to suggest that by virtue of declaration under
Section 1A of the CMN Act, the power of the State under E
Section 10(3) of the 1957 Act has become unavailable. The
submission of Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for
the interveners that additional declaration under Section 1A of
the CMN Act seeks to do away with any vestige of power in
the State in the matter of selection of beneficiaries of the F
mineral is not meritorious. Had that been so, Rule 35 of the
1960 Rules would not have been amended to provide that
where two or more persons have applied for reconnaissance
. permit or prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of
the same land, the State Government shall, inter a/ia, consider G
the end-use of the mineral by the applicant. The declaration
under Section 1A has not denuded the States of any power in
relation to grant of mining leases and determining of those
permitted to carry on coal mining operation.
H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 8 S.C.R.

A 64. The allocation of coal block is not simply identification
of the coal block or the allocatee as contended by the learned
Attorney General but it is in fact selection of beneficiary. As a
matter of fact, Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for
the interveners, has taken a definite position that allocation letter
B may not by itself confer purported rights in the minerals but such
allocation has legal consequences and confers private rights
to the allocatees for obtaining the coal mining leases for their
end-use plants.

C 65. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold, as it must
be, that the exercise undertaken by the Central Government in
allocating the coal blocks or, in other words, the selection of.
beneficiaries, is not traceable either to the 1957 Act or the
CMN Act. No such legislative policy (allocation of coal blocks
by the Central Government) is discernible from these two
D enactments. Insofar as Article 73 of the Constitution is
concerned, there is no doubt that the executive power of the
Union extends to the matters with respect to which the
Parliament has power to make laws and the executive
instructions can fill up the gaps not covered by statutory
E provisions but. it is equally well settled that the executive
instructions cannot be in derogation of the statutory provisions.
The practice and procedure for allocation of coal blocks by the
Central Government through administrative route is clearly
inconsistent with the law already enacted or the rules framed.
F
66. The principle of Contemporanea Expositio was
pressed into service by the learned Attorney General and the
learned senior counsel for interveners. It is argued that the
Ministries of Central Government, the State Governments and
G all concerned have understood the declaration under Section
1A read with Section 3 of the CMN Act recognizing that the
selection of beneficiaries througtJ allocation letter is the task of
the Union. The exposition of the legal position by them must
be accepted as there is nothing to show that the' exposition in
H respect of allocation of coal blocks received by the Central
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 491
[RM. LODHA, CJI.]
Government, State Governments and all concerned was clearly A
wrong. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision
of this Court in Desh Bandhu Gupta 11 •

· 67. In Desh Bandhu Gupta 11 , this Court has dealt with the
principle of Contemporanea Expositio. While doing so, this
B
Court referred to Crawford on Statutory Construction (1940 ed.)
and the two decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Baleshwar
Bagarti12 and Mathura Mohan Saha 13 and culled out the legal
position in para 9 (page 572 of the Report) as under:

"9. It may be stated that it was not disputed before us that C
these two documents which came into existence almost
simultaneously with the issuance of the notification could
be looked at for finding out the true intention of the
Government in issuing the notification in question,
particularly in regard to the manner in which outstanding D
transactions were to be closed or liquidated. The principle
of contemporanea expositio (interpreting a statute or any
other document by reference to the exposition it h·as
received from contemporary authority) can be invoked
though the same will not always be decisive of the question E
of construction (Maxwell 12th ed.p. 268). In Crawford on
Statutory Construction (1940 ed.) in para 219 (at pp. 393-
395) it has been stated that administrative construction (i.e.
contemporaneous construction placed by administrative or
executive officers charged with executing a statute) F
generally should be clearly wrong before it is overturned:
such a construction, commonly referred to as practical
construction. although not controlling. is nevertheless
entitled to considerable weight; it is highly persuasive. In
Ba/eshwar Bagarti v. Bhagirathi Dass [ILR 35 Cal 701 at G

11. Desh Sandhu Gupta and Co. v.Delhi Stock Exchange Association ltd.;
[(19~9) 4 sec 565).
12. Baleshwar Bagarti v. Bhagirathi Dass; [ILR 35 Calcutta 701].
13. Mathura Mohan Saha v. Ram Kumar Saha; [ILR 43 Calcutta 790) H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A 713] the principle, which was reiterated in Mathura Mohan
Saha v. Ram Kumar Saha [ILR 43 Cal 790 : AIR 1916
Cal 136] has been stated by Mookerjee, J., thus:

'It is a well settled principle of interpretation that
courts in construing a statute will give much weight
B
to the interpretation put upon it, at the time of its
enactment and sinee, by those whose duty it has
been to construe, execute and apply it.. ... I do not
suggest for a moment that such interpretation has
by any means a controlling effect upon the courts;
c such interpretation may, if occasion arises, have to
be disregarded for cogent and persuasive reasons,
and in a clear case of error, a court would without
hesitation refuse to follow such construction.

D Of course, even without the aid of these two documents
which contain a contemporaneous exposition of the
Government's infention, we have come to the.conclui:lion
that on a plain construction of the notification the proviso
permitted the closing out or liquidation of all outstanding
E transactions by entering into a forward contract in
accordance with the rules, bye-laws and regulations of the
respondent."

68. The above is consistent view. In our view, an
interpretation to the statute received from contemporary
F authority is not binding upon the courts and may have to be
disregarded if such interpretation by the contemporary authority
is clearly wrong. The process evolved by the Central
Government for allocation of coal blocks for captive use has
significantly and effectively reversed the scheme provided in the
G 1957 Act inasmuch as in most of the cases the applications
have been made directly to the Central Government. West
Bengal has stated that in some cases, they had knowledg~ of
such applications and in some cases the State Government
had no such knowledge. Then once allocation letter has been
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPALSECRE;TMV'. 493
[R.M. LODHA, CJt] ·
issued by the Central Government,' virtuaUym>''pOWer remams A
with the State Government in _objectiv~19·eol'lsiderlng thE!
application for -reconnaissance permit,; prospecting licence or.
mining lease. Maharashtra says; \:.the ro~ ··of _the State
Government is limited in the·casepf coaJ,:mines as the
discretion to reject once the Central (;ove.mment has issued B
an allocation letter is virtually non-existent.. .... -·". Odisha
says, " .... ~.Once the beneficiaty'ha~ been 'idef'Jtifie.d by the
Central Government by making the a/location o(coa/ block,
there was nothing left out fotth~ State 'Government to
decide ........... .". It must be noted wi~out an iota ofhesitation c
that the process for allocation of coat blocks for. captive use has
rendered the role of the State Government only mechanical and
the concept.of 'previous approval' in Section·5'ofthe ~957 Act
meaningless after recommendation has been m~de by the
State Government. It is not without any reason that confronted .. 0
with this difficulty, the 1957 Act has been amended and Section
11A inserted in 2010 providing for allocation of coal blocks and
also the mode and manner of such allocation.

69. Assuming that the Central Government has
competence to make allocation of coal blocks, the next question E
is, whether such allocation confers any valuable right amounting
to grant of largesse? Learned Attorney General argues that
· allocation of coal blocks does not amount to grant of largesse
since it is only the first statutory step. According to him, the
question whether the allocation amounts to grant ct.largesse F
must be appreciated not .from the perspective·whether
allocation confers any rights upon the allocatee bu~ whether
allocation amounts to conferment of largesse upon the
allocatee. An allocatee; learned Attorney General submits, does
not get rigl:lt to win or mine the coal on allocation and, therefore, G
an allocation letter does not· result in windfall gain for the
allocatee. He submits that div~rse steps, .as provided in Rules
22A, 220, and 22(5) of the.1960 Rules and ·the other statutory
requirements, have to be followed and ultimately the grant of
prospecting licence In relation to unexplored coal blocks or H
494 SUPREME .COURT· REPORTS [2014) 8 S.C.R.

A grant of mining lease with regard to explored blocks entitles the
allocatee/licensee/lessee to win or mine the coal.

70. We are unable to accept tl'le submissi.on of the learned
Attorney General that allocation.of coal block does not amount
to grant of largesse. It is true that allocation letter by itself does
8
not authorize the allottee to win or mine the coal but nevertheless
the allocation letter does confer a very important right upon the
allottee to apply for grant of prospeqting licence or mining
lease. As a matter of.fact, it is admitted by the interveners that
allocation letter issued by the Central Government provides
C rights toJhe·allottees for obtaining the coal mines leases for
their end-use plants. The !ranks, financial institutions, land
acquisition authorities, -revenue authorities and various other
entitles and so also the State Governments, who ultimately grant
prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, act
D on the basis of the letter of allQ.cation issued by the Central
Government. As noticed earlier, the allocation of coal block by
the Central Government results in the selection of beneficiary
which entitles the beneficiary to get the prospecting licence and/
or mining lease from the State Government. Obviously,
E allocation of a co~I block amounts to grant of largesse.

71. Learned Attorney General accepted the position that
in the absence of allocation letter, even the eligible person
under Section 3(3) of the CMN Act cannot apply to the State
F Government for grant ·Of prospecting licence or mining lease.
The right to o.btain prospecting licence or mining lease of the
coal mine admi~edly is dependant upOf'! the allocation letter.
The allocation letter, ,tnerefore, confers a valuable right in favour
of the allottee. Obviously,, therefore, such allocation has to meet
G the twin constitutional' tests, one,. the distribution of natural
resources that vest in the State is to sub-serve. the common
good and, two, the allocation Is not violative of Article 14.

·72: The PILpetitioners have~seriouslycriticized the entire
allocation process by the Central Government. They submit that
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 495
[RM. LODHA, CJI.]
allocations made on the recommendations of the Screening A
Committee and through the government dispensation route after
1993 are in violation of statutory provisions contained in the
1957 Act. Moreover, the Central Government while making the
allocations failed to even follow the basic statutory eligibility for
·grant of captive coal blocks. The power for grant of captive coal B
block is governed by Section 3(3)(a) of the CMN Act. According
to which, only two kinds of entities, viz., (a) Central Government,
or undertakings/corporations owned by the Central Government
or (b) a company having end-use plants in iron, steel, power,
washing of coal or cement, can carry out coal mining c
operations. The State Government undertakings are not
included in the above provision and any allocation to them can
only be made if they are engaged in any of the end-uses
specified under that provision. Commercial mining by the State
Public Sector Undertakings/companies is not eermitted, yet as
0
many as 38 coal blocks were allocated to State Public Sector
Undertakings for commercial mining though these undertakings
were .not engaged in any specified end-use activity. They submit
.that allocation of coal blocks made by the Central Government,
whether by way of Screening Com,mittee route or dispensation
route, is ipso f~cto illegal and it is in total violation of the CMN E
'Act Moreover, it is submitted that almost all these State PSUs
·then· signed agreements with private companies wherein the
right to mine coal was given to them which later Sold the coal
to the State PSUs either at the .market price or at CIL price.
F
, 73. According to Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel
for the petitioner-Common Cause and Mr. Manohar Lal
Sharma, petitioner-in-person, the expression "engaged in" in
Section 3(3)(a)(iii) means that the company that was applying
·for the coal block must have set up an iron and steel plant, G
power plant or cement plant and be engaged in the production
of steel, power or cement. Most companies were silent in their
applications as to whether or not the power, steel or cement
plant was operational. They only stated that they proposed to
H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A set up such plants. Moreover, from 2006 even the requirement
of end-use project was done away with and the Central
Government allowed companies to apply and obtain coal
blocks, and it was stated that the coal mined from these biocks
would be transferred to an end-user company. Thus, the basic
B minimum statutory requirements were not adhered to and
followed in making allocation of coal blocks.

74. It is submitted on behalf of the PIL petitioners that the
allocation of those blocks which had reserves far in excess of
requirement for the end-use project was made which
C demonstrates the total non-application of mind and
arbitrariness in the decision making process. Mr. Prashant
Bhushan, learned counsel for Common Cause and Mr. Manohar
Lal Sharma, petitioner-in-person submit that the allocation of
coal blocks constitutes a largesse as it confers very valuable
D benefit on the applicant to get mining lease. It is argued that
the arbitrary and non-transparent allocation process has
resulted in windfall gain to the allottees and the State has been
deprived of the full value of its resources. Besides that the
process of allocation was arbitrary and non-transparent, it is
E submitted by the PIL petitioners that the process also suffers
from ma/a tides inasmuch as though a comprehensive note on
competitive bidding on allocation of coal blocks was placed by
the then Coal Secretary on 16.07.2004, the allocation process
through the Screening Committee continued leading to windfall-
F gain to the private companies and thereby corresponding loss
to the public exchequer. In this regard, Mr. Prashant Bhushan,
learned counsel for Common Cause and Mr. Manohar Lal
Sharma, petitioner-in-person referred to Parliamentary
Standing Committee Report submitted on 24.03.2013, Central
G Empowered Committee Report made in I.A. f\lo.2167 to the
Forest Bench regarding the loss from the allocation of coal
mines in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the additional affidavit
of the Government of Maharashtra filed on 09.01.2014 and the
CAG Report.
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 497
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
75. It is argued on behalf o~ the PIL petitioners that the A
Screening Committee did not follow any objective criteria in
determining ~s to whci" is to be selected or who is to be
rejected. The ~minutes of the Screening Committee meetings
dq not show that selection was made.after proper assessment.
There is no evaluation of merit and no inter se comparison of B
the applicants. No chart of evaluatton was prepared. The
determination of t.he Screening Committee is apparently
subjective. It is no co~incidence that a large number of allottees
are ei.ttier powerful corporate groups :Or shady companies
linked with politicians and ministers orihose who came with c
high profile recommendations. Most of these allottees were in
fact ineligible for allocation; they had misrepresented the facts
and were not more meritorious than others whose claims have
been rejected, but by serious manipulations and abuse, they
were able to get the coal blocks. D

76. With regard to Government dispensation route whereby
public sector corporations and undertakings were alloeated coal.
blocks, it is submitted by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned
counsel for the Common Cause and Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma,
petitioner:in-person that such allocations were violative of E
Section 3 of the CMN Act. The State Government undertakings
are not included in Section 3 and in any case allocation to them
could have been made only if they were engaged in any of the
end-uses specified under Section 3{3)(a)(iii) of the CMN Act.
The State PSUs have signed agreements with private F
compariies under which substantial benefits or interest from the
coal blocks had accrued to the private companies thereby
causing ·huge loss to the public exchequer and windfall gain to
the private companies. The PIL petitioners, therefore,
vehemently argued that the allocation of coal blocks deserves G
to be quashed being non-transparent, arbitrary, illegal and
unconstitutional.

77. According to Central Government, the need for a
Screening Committee was felt because development of coal
H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A mines for captive end-uses required consideration of inputs
from a variety of stakeholders such as the Ministry of Coal,
Ministry of Railways, the concerned State Government (owner
of the coal block), the concerned Administrative Ministry like
Ministry of Power (for inputs pertaining to the end use plant)
B and Coal India Limited (to protect CIL's interest in coal blocks
being developed by its subsidiaries). Initially, by Office
Memorandum dated 14.07.1992 14 , the Screening Committee
was constituted by the Ministry of Coal for scrutinizing
applications/proposals received from private power generating
c companies requesting for ownership and operation of captive
coal mines. The Screening Committee was reconstituted on

14. N0.13011/3/92-CA
Government of India
D Ministry of Coal
New Delhi, the 14th July, 1992.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Constitution of a Screening Committee for screening proposals
received for captive mining by private power generation companies.
In the context of participation of private power generating companies in
E power generation, proposals are also being received in the Ministry of Coal
from such companies requesting for ownership and operation of captive
coal mines. For screening of such applications/ proposals it has been
decided to constitute a Screening Committee comprising of the following
members:-
1. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Coal Chairman
F
2. Adviser (Projects), Ministry of Coal Member-Convenor
3. Joint Secretary & Financial Adviser,
Ministry of Coal. Member
4. Representative of Ministry of Railways Member
5. Representative of Ministry of Power Member
G 6. Representative of concerned
State Govt. (Revenue Deptt.) Member
The Committee will meet once in a month and examine the proposals
received from various parties.
(S. KRISHNAN)
H UNDER SECY. TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 499
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
more than one occasion by Office Memorandum dated A
05.08.1993 15 , Office Memorandum. dated 10.01.200016, Office

15. N0.1301113192-CA
Government of India
Ministry of Coal
B
New Delhi, the 5th August, 93.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Constitution of a Screening Committee for screening proposals
received for captive mining by private power generation companies-
Matter regarding.
In continuation of this Ministry's Office Memorandum of even number C
dated 14.7.1992 constituting a Screening Committee for screening
proposals received for captive mining by private sector power generation
companies, it has been decided to revise partially the composition of the
said Screening Committee as under:-
1. Additional Secretary, Chairman
Ministry of Coal, New Delhi. D
2. Adviser (Project) Member-convenor
Ministry of Coal, New Delhi.
3. JS & FA. Member
Ministry of Coal, New Delhi.
4. Representative of Ministry Member
of Railways, New Delhi. E
5. Representative of Ministry Member
of Power, New Delhi.
6. Representative of concerned Member
State Govt. (Revenue Dept!.)
7. Director (Technical) CIL, Member F
Calcutta.
8. ChairmanlManaging Director - - Member
CMPDIL, Ranchi.
9. CMDI of concerned subsidiary - Member.
Companies of CIL.
(J.L. MEENA) G
DEPUlY SECY. TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
16. No.47011115195-CPAM
Government of India
Ministry of Mines and Minerals
Department of Coal
New Delhi, the 10th January, 2000 H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A Memorandum dated 17.04.200317 and Office Memorandum
Office Memorandum
Subject: Constitution of a Screening Committee for screening proposals
received for captive mining by companies engaged in the generation of
power and manufacture of iron, steel and cement.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Ministry of O.M. No.13011/3/
B 92-CA dated 14.7.1992 and 5.8.1993 and No.47011/15/95-CPAM dated 26/
28.10.1999 and to say that instead of Joint Secretary & Financial Adviser,
Deptt. Of Coal, Joint Secretary (Coal), Deptt. Of Coal will be member of the
Screening Committee. Accordingly, Screening Committee for screening
proposals for alloeation of coal/ lignite blocks for manufacture of iron/ steel
captive production of power and production of cement in the public I private
c sector is reconstituted as under:- ·
1. Additional Secretary, Chairman
Department of Coal
2. Adviser (Projects) Member - Convenor
Department of Coal
3. Joint Secretary (Coal) Member
D Department of Coal
4. Joint Secretary (LA) Member
Department of Coal
5. Representative of Ministry Member
of Railways, New Delhi,
6. Representative of Ministry Member
E of Power, New Delhi.
7. Representative of concerned Member
State Govt. (Revenue Deptt.)
8. Director (Technical), CIL, Calcutta Member
9. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Member
F CMPDIL, Ranchi
10. CMD of concerned subsidiary Member
company Of CIUNLC
(T.K. Ghosh)
Director
17. No.13011/5/2003-CA
G Government of India
Ministry of Coal
New Delhi, dated 17.4.2003
Office Memorandum
Subject:- Reconstitution of a Screening Committee for screening proposals
received for captive mining by companies engaged in the generation of
H power and manufacture of iron, steel and cement.
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 501
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
dated 26.09.200518 A

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Ministry's O.M. No.13011/3/92-
CA dated 14.7.1992 and 5.8.1993 and No. 47011/15/95-CPAM dated
10.1.2000 and to state that from the date of issuance of this O.M. the
Screening Committee shall be headed by Secretary, Ministry of Coal and
Joint Secretary (Coal), Minlstry of Coal shall be the member convenor. B
Accordingly, Screening Committ~e for screening proposals for allocation
of coal I lignite blocks for generation of power and manufacture of iron,
steel and cement in the public/ private sector is reconstituted as under:-
1. Secretary Chairman
Ministry of Coal
2. Joint Secretary (Coal) Member - c
Ministrv of Coal Convenop
3. Adviser (Projects) Member
Ministry of Coal •
4. Joint Secretary (LA) Member
Ministry of Coal
5. Representative of Ministry Member
D
of Railways, New Delhi.
6. Representative of Ministry of Power, Member
New Delhi
7. Representative of concerned State Govt. Member
8. Director (Technical), CIL, Calcutta Member E
9. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Member
CMPDIL, Ranchi
10. CMD of concerned subsidiary company Member
of CIUNLC
(S. Gulati) F
Director
18. No.13016/35/2005-CA-I
Government of India
Ministry of Coal
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2005
OFFICE MEMORANDUM G
Subject: Reconstitution of Screening Committee for screening proposals
received from companies engaged in the generation of power and
manufacture of iron, steel and cement for allocation of coal blocks.
The undersigned is director to refer to this Ministry's O.M. No.13011/5/
2003-CA dated 17.4.2003 and corrigendum No.1301115/2003-CA issued
on 7.5~·~003 and th~ 0.M. of even no. dated 2.9.2003 on the subject H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A 78. Learned Attorney General argues that the Screening
Committee provided opportunity to stakeholders to express
their views about permitting a particular company to develop a
particular coal block for its end-use plant. The State
Governments as the owners of coal blocks within their territories
B participated in the Screening Committee meetings. At no
stage, anybody objected to the allocation of coal blocks by the
Central Government through the Screening Committee route.
Learned Attorney General in this regard referred to the
affidavits filed on behalf of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh,
c Odisha, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Jharkhand and Andhra
Pradesh. The process of allocation was participatory. The coal
blocks were allocated to private companies only from the
approved list of blocks to be offered for captive mining and the
interests of CIL, being paramount, were duly protected and
0 preserved. Only in such cases of subsisting lease, where CIL
had no plans to work these blocks in near future and consented
to these blocks being offered for captive mining, few of such
blocks were allocated but CIL's interest was kept into
consideration. He, thus, submitted that allocation of coal blocks
E during the subject period was transparent and it does not suffer
from any constitutional vice or legal infirmity.

79. Moreover, it is the submission of the learned Attorney
General that allocation of coal blocks by the Central Government
has brought significant benefits and investment to the States
F in which these coal blocks and the associated end-use plants
are located. Due to substantial investment and employment
opportunities generated in various States, the State
Governments have accepted, participated and made
recommendations in the meetings of the Screening Committee.
G
mentioned above and to state that from the date of issuance of this O.M., the
following shall be the member of the Screening Committee in addition to the
existing members of the Committee:-
Secretary, or his representative, of Ministry of Environment & Forests.
(S.Gulati)
H Director.
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 503
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
A number of blocks have been allocated in accordance with A
the recommendations of the State Governments. Besides the
benefits and investment to the State in which coal blocks and
the associated end-use plants are located, learned Attorney
General also submits that there are number of States where
coal' blocks are not located, which have got benefits due to the 8
substantial investment in associated end use plants. For
instance, it is submitted that blocks in Maharashtra, namely,
Baranj - I to IV, Kiloni and Manoradeep were allocated to
Karnataka Power Corporation for captive use in its power
generation plants. The end-use is the supply of coal to Bellary C
Thermal Power Station (in Karnataka) which is supplying 1000
MW power to the State grid.

80. Learned Attorney General for the sake of convenience
divided the allocations recommended by the Screening
Committee for the period between 14.07.1993 and 03.07.2908 D
in 36 meetings into four periods: first period between
14.07.1993 to 19.08.2003 (1st meeting till the 21st meeting);
second period from 04.11.2003 to 18.10.2005 (22nd meeting
to 30th meeting); third period from 29/30.06.2006 to 071
08.09.2006 (32nd meeting till the 34th meeting) and the fourth E
period from 20.06.2007 to 03.07.2008 (35th and 36th
meeting). Learned Attorney General argues that in the first
period, 21 coal blocks were recommended for allocation after
full consideration of each case. During the second period, 26
blocks were recommended. These recommendations were F
also made by the Screening Committee after consideration of
each applicant. The third period relates to recommendations
made pursuant to the advertisement issued by Ministry of Coal
in September, 2005. The decision to advertise was taken as
there was growing demand for coal blocks which had G
substantially matured in the economy by this time. In the third
.period, the Screening committee recommended 20 blocks for
allocation. In the fourth period, recommendations were made
by the Screening Committee pursuant to the advertisement
issued in 2006 whereby 38 coal. blocks were advertised for H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 8 S.C.R.

A allocation, out of which 15 blocks were reserved for the power
1
sector. Learned Attorney General clarified that a coal block that
was approved as one block in the advertisement has been
subsequently considered as two blocks in the 36th meeting of
the Screening Committe~. Learned Attorney General has fairly
8 admitted that the minutes of the Screening Committee
meetings in the third and fourth periods do not contain the
particulars showing consideration of each application. He,
however, justifies the manner in which the exercise was
undertaken by the Screening Committee in the third and fourth
C periods as, according to him, the huge number of applications
had been received by the Ministry of Coal in response to its
advertisement and recording of particulars of each application
in the minutes was ~ot possible. Moreover, he submits that
each application wa~ duly considered and evaluated with
reference to other applications by the Administrative Ministry
D concerned and the recommendations of the Screening
Committee were primarily based on the exercise conducted by
the concerned Administrative Ministry. Thus, learned Attorney
General submits that the entire exercise by the Screening
Committee was done properly and in a non-arbitrary manner.
E
81. Learned Attorney General vehemently contends that
allocation of coal blocks without auction is not unlawful. He
submits that lack of public auction does not render the
allocation process arbitrary. Moreover, according to him, when
F coal mining sectors were first opened up to private participants,
the idea of the Central Government was to encourage the
private sector so that they could come forward and invest.
Allocation of coal blocks by public auction in such a scenario
would have been impractical and unrealistic. As a matter of
G fact, he would submit that when the proposal for introduction of
competitive bidding was first mooted in June, 2004, the State
Governments expressed their reservations and concerns. In this
regard, learned Attorney General referred to the letters sent by
the Governments of Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Rajasthan anrl
H Odisha. Learned Attorney General submits that the conce:
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 505
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
of the State Governments could not have been ~rusned aside A
by introducing competitive bidding by an administrative fiat.
Moreover, according to the learned Attorney General,
competitive bidding could have resulted in increase in the input
price which would have a cascading effect.
B
82. From the above submissions; the following questions
fall for determination:

(i) Whether the allocation of coal blocks ought to have been
done only by public auction?
c
(ii) Whether the allocation of coal blocks made on the
basis of recommendations of the Screening Committee
suffer from any constitutional vice and legal infirmity?

(iii) Whether the allocation of coal blocks made by way of
0
Government dispens!ition route (Ministry of Coal) is
consistent with the constitutional principles and the
fundamentals of the equality clause enshrine.cl in the
Constitution?

83. Two recent.decisions viz., (1) Centre for Public Interest E
Litigation (2G case) 19 and (2) Natural Resources A/location
Reference 20 directly deal with the question of auction as mode
for the disposal or allocation of natural resources. But before
we consider these two decisions, reference to some of the
decisions of this Court, which ·had an occasion to deal with F
disposal of natural resources, may be of some help in
appreciating this aspect in correct perspective.

84. P.N. Bhagwati, J. in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy21 had
.said that wher~ the State was allocating resources such as G
19. Centre for Public Interest.Litigation & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.; ((2012)
3 sec 11.
20. Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No.1 of2012; [(2012)
10 sec 11.
21. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy & Ors. v. State of J&K & Anr.; ((1980) 4 SCC 1]. H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A water, power, raw materials, etc., for the purpose of
encouraging setting up of industries within the State, the State
was not bound to advertise and tell the people that it wanted a
particular industry to be set up within the State and invite those
interested to come up with proposals for the purpose. It was
B !]lso observed that if any private party comes before the State
and offers to set up an industry, the State would not be
committing breach of any constitutional or legal obligation if it
negotiates with such party and agrees to provide resources and
other facilities for the purpose.
c 85. In Sachidanand Pandey22 this Court had observed that
ordinary rule for disposal of St<:1te-owned or public-owned
property, was by way of pu~lic auction or by inviting tenders but
there could be situations where departure from the said rule
may be necessitated but then the reasons for the departure must
D ·be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination and
that nothing should be done which gives an appearance of
bias, jobbery or nepotism.

86. The statement of law in Sachidanand Pandey22 was
E echoed again in Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther23 , wherein this
Court reiterated that the public property owned by the State or
by an instrumentality of State should be generally sold by public
auction or by inviting tenders. It was emphasized that this rule
has been insisted upon not only to get the highest price for the
F property but also to ensure fairness in the activities of the State
and public autho~ities a·nd to obviate the factors like bias,
favoritism or nepotism. Clarifying that this is·not an invariable
rule, the Court reiterate_d that departure from the rule of auction
could be made but then it must be justified. ·

G 87. The above principle is again stated by this Court in

22. Sachidanand Pandey & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.; ((1987) 2 SCC
295].
23 Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corporation; [(1988) 1 SCC
H 1661.
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 507
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
M.P. Oil E;xtraction 24 , in which this Court said that distribution. A
of largesse by inviting open tenders or by public auction is
desirable but it cannot be held that in no case distribution of
such largesse by negotiation is permissible.

88. In Netai 8ag25 this Court said that when any State land
B
is intended to be transferred or the State largesse is decided
to be conferred, resort should be had to public auction or
transfer by way of inviting tenders from the people as that would
be a sure method of guaranteeing compliance with mandate
of Article 14 of Constitution but non-floating of tenders or not C
holding public auction would not in all cases be deemed to be
the result of the exercise of the executive power in an arbitrary
manner.

89. In Villianur /yarkkai Padukappu Maiyam 26 the matter
before this Court related to the selection of contractor for D
development of the port of Pondicherry without floating a tender
or holding public auction. The Court said that where the State
was allocating resources such as water, power, raw materials,
etc., for the purpose of encouraging development of the port,
the State was not bound to advertise and tell the people that it E
wanted development of the port in a particular manner and invite
those interested to come up with proposals for the purpose.

90. There are numerous decisions of this Court dealing
with the mode and manner of disposal of natural resources but
F
we think it is not necessary to refer to all of them. Having
indicated the view taken by this Court in some of the cases,
now we may turn to 2G case 19 • In that case, the two-Judge
Bench of this Court stated that a duly publicised auction
conducted fairly and impartially was perhaps the best method
for alienation of natural resources lest there was likelihood of G

24. M.P. Oil Extraction & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors.; ((1997) 7 SCC 592] .
. 25 .. Netai Bag & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.; ((2000) 8 SCC 262].
26. Viilianur lyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India & Ors.; [(2009) 7 SCC
561] H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A misuse by unscrupulous people who were only interested in
garnering maximum financial benefit and have no respect for
the constitutional ethos and values. Court laid emphasis that
while transferring or alienating the natural resources, the State
is duty bound to adopt the method of auction by giving wide
B publicity so that all eligible persons can participate in the
process.

91. The above view in 2G case 19 necessitated the
reference by the President of India to this Court under Article
143(1) of the Constitution. The first two questions - Question
C 1 and Question 2 - referred to this Court for consideration and
report read as under:

"Question 1 -Whether the only permissible method for
disposal of all natural resources across all sectors
D and in all circumstances is by the conduct of
auctions?

Question 2 -Whether a broad proposition of law that
only the route of auctions can be resorted 'o
for
disposal of natural resources does not run contrary
E
to several judgments of the Supreme Court
including those of the larger Benches?"

92. The Constitution Bench which dealt with the above
reference observed that the answer to the following three
F questions would provide comprehensive answer to the parent
question, viz., Question 1:

(i) Are some methods ultra vires and others intra vires the
Constitution of India, especially Article 14?
G (ii) Can disposal through the method of auction be
elevated to a constitutional principle?

(iii) Is this Court entitled to direct the executive to adopt a
certain method because it is the "best" method? If not, to
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 509
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
what extent can the executive deviate from such "best" A
method?

93. The Constitution Bench clarified that the statement of
law in'2G case19 that while transferring 9r alienating the natural
resources, the State is duty bound to adopt the method of B
auction was confined to the specific case of spectrum and not
for dispensation of all natural resources. The Constitution Bench
said that findings of this Court in 2G case19 were limited to
the case of spectrum and not beyond that and that it did not
deal with the modes of allocation for natural resources other C
than spectrum.

94. The Constitution Bench while dealing with the aspect
of disposal of natural resources other than auction, divided the
consideration of this aspect under two heads, viz., "Legitimate
deviations from auction" and "Potential of abuse". Under the D
head "Legitimate deviations from auction" the Court considered
the earlier decisions of this Court in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi
Reddy 21 , Sachidanand Pandey 22 , Haji T. M. Hassan
Rawther23 , M.P. Oil Extraction 24 , Netai Bag 25 and Villianur
/yarkkai Padukappu Maiyam26, which we have briefly noted E
above, and it was held that there is no constitutional mandate
in favour of auction under Article

14. In the main judgment (paras 129 to 131, pg. 92), the
Constitution Bench stated as under:
F
"129. Hence, it is manifest that there is_ no constitutional
mandate in favour of auction under Article 14. The
Government has repeatedly deviated from the course of
auction and this Court has repeatedly upheld such actions.
The judiciary tests such deviations on the limited scope of G
arbitrariness and fairness under Article 14 and its role is
limited to that extent. Essentially whenever the object of
policy is anything but revenue maximization, the Executive
is seen to adopt methods other than auction.
H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A 130. A fortiori, besides legal logic, mandatory auction may
be contrary to economic logic as well. Different resources
may require different treatment. Very often, exploration and
exploitation contracts are bundled together due to the
requirement of heavy capital in the discovery of natural
B resources. A concern would risk undertaking such
exploration and incur heavy costs only if it was assured
utilization of the resource discovered; a prudent business
venture, would not like to incur the high costs involved in
exploration activities and then compete for that resource
c in an open auction. The logic is similar to that applied in
patents. Firms are given incentives to invest in research
and development with the promise of exclusive access to
the market for the sale of that invention. Such an approach
is economically and legally sound and sometimes
necessary to spur research and development. Similarly,
D
bundling exploration and exploitation contracts may be
necessary to spur growth in a specific industry.

131. Similar deviation from auction cannot be ruled out
when the object of a State policy is to promote domestic
E development of an industry, like in Kasturi Lat's case,
discussed above. However, these examples are purely
illustrative in order to demonstrate that auction cannot be
the sole criteria for alienation of all natural resources."

F 95. While dealing with the argument that even if the method
of auction was not a mandate under Article 14, it must be the
only permissible method due to the susceptibility of other
methods to abuse, the Court under the head "Potential of
abuse" held that a potential for abuse cannot be the basis for
G striking down the method as ultra vires the Constitution. The
Court noted two decisions of this Court in R.K. Garg27 and D.K.
Trivedi28 and held that neither auction nor any other method of.
disposal can be held ultra vires the Constitution merely

27. R.K. Garg v. Union of India & Ors.; [(1981) 4 SCC 675].
H 28. D.K. Trivedi & Sons & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.; [1986 Supp SCC 20).
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 511
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
because of a potential abuse. The Constitution Bench (para A
135, pgs. 93-94) stated as under:

"135. Therefore, a potential for abuse cannot be the basis
for striking down a method as ultra vires·the Constitution.
It is the actual abuse itself that must be brought before the
B
Court for being tested on the anvil of constitutional
provisions. In fact, it may be said that even auction has a
potential of abuse, like any other method of allocation, but
that cannot be the basis of declaring it as an
unconstitutional methodology either. These drawbacks
include cartelization, "winners curse" (the phenomenon by C
which a bidder bids a higher, unrealistic and unexecutable
price just to surpass the competition; or where a bidder,
in case of multiple auctions, bids for all the resources and
ends up winning licenses for exploitation of more
resources than· he can pragmatically execute), etc. D
However, all the same, auction cannot be called ultra vires
for the said reasons and continues to be an attractive and
preferred means of disposal of natural resources especially
when revenue maximization is a priority. Therefore, neither
auction, nor any other method of disposal can be held ultra E
vires the Constitution, merely because of a potential
abuse."

96. In Natural Resources Allocation Reference 20 the
Constitution Bench, in the main judgment, thus, concluded that F
auction despite being a more preferable method of alienation
allotment of natural resources cannot be held to be
constitutional requirement or limitation for alienation of all natural
resources and, therefore, every method other than auction
cannot be struck down as ultra vires the constitutional mandate. G
·The Court also opined that auction as a mode·canilot be
conferred the status of a constitutional principle. While holding
so, the Court held that alienation of natural resources is a policy
decisio,n and the means adopted for the same are, thus,
executive prerogatives. The Court summarized the legal
position as under: H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A "146. To summarise in the context of the present Reference,
it needs to be emphasised that this Court cannot conduct
a comparative study of the various methods of distribution
of natural resources and suggest the most efficacious
mode, if there is one universal efficacious method in the
B first place. It respects the mandate and wisdom of ti .d
executive for such matters. The methodology pertaining to
disposar of natural resources is clearly an economic policy.
It entails intricate economic choices and the Court l~cks
the necessary expertise to make them. As has been
c repeatedly said, it cannot, and shall not, be the endeavour
of this Court to evaluate)he efficacy of auction vis-a-vis
other methods of disposal of natural resources. The Court
cannot mandate one method to be followed in all facts and
circumstances. Therefore, auction, an economic choice of
disposal of natural resources, is not a constitutional
D
mandate. We may, however, hasten to add that the Court
can test the legality and constitutionality of these methods.
When questioned, the courts are entitled to analyse the
legal validity of different means of distribution and give a
constitutional answer as to which methods are ultra vires
E and intra vires the provisions of the Constitution.
Nevertheless, it cannot and will not compare which policy
is fairer than the othe~. but, if a policy or law is patently
unfair to the extent thatit falls foul of the fairness
requirement .of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court
F would not hesitate in striking it down.

147. Finally, marketprice, in economics, is an index of the
value that a market prescribes to a good. However, this
valuatidn is a function of several dynamic variables: it is a
G science and not a law. Auction is ju~t one of the several
price discovery mechanisms. Since multiple variables are
. involved in such valuations, auction or any other form of
competitive bidding, cannot constitute even an econol')'lic
mandate, much less a constitutional mandate.
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 513
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
148. In our opinion, auction despite being a more IA
preferable method of alienation/allotment of natural
resources, cannot be held to be a constitutional
requirement or limitation for alienation of all natural
resources and therefore, every method other than auction
cannot be struck down as ultra vires the constitutional B
mandate.

149. Regard being had to the aforesaid precepts, we have
opined that auction as a mode cannot be conferreci the
status of a constitutional principle. Afienation of na_tural
resources is a policy decision, and the means adoptoo for
c
the same· are thus, executive prerogatives. However, When
such a policy decision is not backed by a social or welfare
purpose, and precious and scarce natural resource:s are
alienated for commercial pursuits of profit maxinriising
private entrepreneurs, adoption of means other than ·those D
that are competitive and maximise revenue may be
arbitrary and face the wrath of Article 14 of the Consfltution.
Hence, rather than prescribing or proscribing a method,
we believe, a judicial scrutiny of methods of disposal of
natural resources should depend on the facts and E
circumstances of each case, in consonance with the
principles which we have culled out above. Failing which,
the Court, in exercise of power of judicial review, S'hall term
the executive action as arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and
capricious due to its antimony with Article 14 of the F
Constitution."

97. J.S. Khehar, J., while concurring with the main opinion
has stated that auction is certainly not a constitutional mandate
in the manner expressed, but it can be applied in some G
situations to maximise revenue returns, to satisfy legal and
constitutional requirements. In his view, if the State arrives at a
conclusion, in a given situation, that maximum revenue would
be earned by auction of the particular natural resource, then that
<::t,..,,1e would be the process which it would have to adopt. In
H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 8 S.C.R.

A the penultimate para of his opinion, J.S. Khehar, J., observed,
" ......... there can be no doubt about the conclusion recorded
in the "main opinion" that auction which is just one of the
several price recovery mechanisms, cannot be held to be the
only constitutionally recognised method for alienation of
B natural resources. That should not be understood to mean,
that it can never be a valid method for disposal of natural
resources .............. ".

98. In Natural Resources Allocation Reference 20 , the
C Constitution Bench said that reading auction as a constitutional
mandate would be impermissible because such an approach
may distort another constitutional principle embodied in Article
39(b). In the main judgment, with reference to Article 39(b), the
Court stated as follows:

D "113 ... The disposal of natural resources is a facet of thE.
use and distribution of such resources. Article 39(b)
mandates that the ownership and control of natural
resources should be so distributed so as to best subserve ·
the common good. Article 37 provides that the provisions
E of Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court, but the
principles laid down therein are nevertheless fundamental
in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of
the State to apply these principles in making laws.
Therefore, this ArtiCle, in a sense, is a restriction on
F "distribution" built into the Constitution. But the restriction
is imposed on the object and not the means. The
overarching and underlying principle governing
"distribution" is furtherance of com111on good. But for the
achievement of that objective, the Constitution uses the
generic word "distribution". Distribution has broad contours
G
and cannot be limited to meaning only one method i.e.
auction. It envisages all such methods available for
distribution/allocation of natural resources which ultimately
subserve the "common good".

H *** *** ***
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRJZ:TARY 515
[RM. LODHA, CJI.]
115. It can thus, be seen from the :aforequoted paragraphs A
that the term "distribute" undoubtedly, has wide amplitude
and encompasses all man?ers and methods of
distribution, which would include classes, industries,
regions, private and public sections, etc. Having regard to
the basic nature of Article 39(b), a narrower concept of B
equality under' Articfe 14 than that discussed above, may
frustrate the broader concept of distribution, as conceived
in Article 39(b). There cannot, therefore, be a cavil that
"common good" and "larger public interests" have to be
regarded as constitutional reality deserving actualisation. c
116. The learned counsel for CPIL argued that revenue
maximisation during the sale or alienation of a natural
resource for commercial exploitation is the only way of
ach'ieving public good since the revenue collected can be
channelised to welfare policies and controlling the D
burgeoning deficit. According to the learned counsel, since
the best way to maximise revenue is through the route of
auction, it becomes a constitutional principle even under
Article 39(b). However, we are not persuaded to hold so.
Auctions may be the best way of maximising revenue but E
revenue maximisation may not always be the best way to
subserve public good. "Common good" is the sole guiding
factor under Article 39(b) for distribution of natural
resources. It is the touchstone of testing whether any policy
subserves the "common good" and if it does, irrespective F
of the means adopted, it is clearly in accordance with the
principle enshrined in Article 39(b).

*** *** ***

119. The norm of "common good" has to be understood G
and appreciated in a holistic manner. It is obvious that the
manner in which the common good is best subserved is
not a matter that can be measured by any constitutional
yardstick-it would depend on the economic and political
H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A philosophy of the Government. Revenue maximisation is
not the only way in which the common good can be
subserved. Where revenue maximisation is the object of
a policy, being considered qua that resource at that point
of time to be the best way to subserve the common good,
B auction would be one of the preferable methods, though
not the only method. Where revenue maximisation is not
the object of a policy of distribution, the question of auction
would not arise. Revenue considerations may assume
secondary consideration to developmental considerations.
c 120. Therefore, in conclusion, the submission that the
mandate of Article 14 is that any disposal of a natural
resource for commercial use must be for revenue
maximisation, and thus by auction, is based neither on law
nor on logic. There is no constitutional imperative in the
D matter of economic policies-Article 14 does not predefine
any economic policy as a constitutional mandate. Even the
mandate of Article 39(b) imposes no restrictions on the
means adopted to subserve the public good and uses the
broad term "distribution", suggesting that the methodology
E of distribution is not fixed. Economic logic establishes that
alienation/allocation of natural resources to the highest
bidder may not necessarily be the only way to subserve
the common good, and at times, may run counter to public
good. Hence, it needs little emphasis that disposal of all
F natural resources through auctions is clearly ncit a
constitutional mandate."

99. In light of the above legal position, the argument that
auctiQn is a best way to select private parties as per Article
39(b) does not merit acceptance. The emphasis on the word
G "best" in Article 39(b) by the learned senior counsel for the
intervener does not deserve further discussion in light of the
leg~! position exposited by the Constitution Bench in Natural
Re.sources Allocation Reference20 with reference to Article
39(b). We are fortified in our view by a recent decision of this
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 517
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.)
Court (3-Judge Bench) in GoaFoundation 29 wherein following A
Natural Resources A/location Reference 20 , it is stated, " ... it is
for the State Government to decide as a matter of policy in
what manner the leases of these mineral resources would, be
granted, but this decision has to be taken in accordance with
the provisions of the MMDR Act and ths Rules made B
thereunder and in consonance,with the constitutional
provisions ... ".

100. The explanation by the Central Government for not
adopting the competitive bidding is that coal is a natural C
resource used as a raw material in several basic industries like
power generation, iron and steel and cement. The end products
of these basic industries are, in turn, used as inputs in almost
all manufacturing· and infrastructure development industries.
Therefpre, the price of coal occupies a fundamental place in
· the growth of the economy and any increase in the input price D
would have a cascading effect. The auction of coal blocks
could not have been possible when the power generation and,
consequently, coal mining sectors were first opened up to
private participants as the private sector needed to be
encouraged at that time to come forward and invest. Allocation E
of coal blocks through competitive bidding in such a scenario
would have been impractical and unrealistic. When the proposal
for introduction of competitive bidding was first mooted in June,
2004, the State Governments expressed their reservations
based on diverse concerns. The Government of Chhattisgarh F
inter alia pointed out that (a) competitive bidding would result
in substantial increase in the cost of coal for ironlsteel
undertakings, (b) there were large number of projects under
implementation whose viabilitY. is based on availability of coal
as per the then existing policy, (c) competitive bidding would G
raise the price of domestic coal, which would result in end-use
projects in inland States like Chhattisgarh becoming unviable
due to additional costs by transporting coal by rail/road, and

. 29. Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others; [(2014) 6 SCC 590) H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A (d) competitive bidding would result in only the bigger players
getting the coal blocks. The Government of West Bengal
opposed the introduction of competitive bidding because (a)
the then existing system could accommodate both subjective
and objective aspects of the projects whereas competitive
s bidding would only lead to coal blocks going to the highest
'bidder, (b) competitive bidding would not allow priority being
accorded to the power sector, (c) competitive bidding would
result in views of the State Governments becoming redundant,
and (d) competitive bidding would lead to concentratign of
c industries in a particular State. The Government of Orissa
opposed competitive bidding because (a) the State
Government had signed MOUs for investment in end-use plants
based on existing policy and those MOUs would suffer, (b) State
Government's authority to recommend cases for allocation
based on investment in the State would not be available, and
0
(c) competitive bidding would prevent the State from leveraging
its coal reserves to accelerate its industrial development.

101. It was for the above reasons that the Central
Government says that competitive bidding was not introduced
E from 2004.

102. As a matter of fact, the Central Government has
explained the circumstances because of which since 1992-
1993 competitive bidding for allocation of coal blocks was not
F followed. The explanation is that in 1992-1993, the power
generation and coal mining sectors were first opened up to
private participants and, at that time, the private sector had to
be encouraged to come forward and invest. Allocation of coal
blocks through auction in such a scenario would have been
G impractical and unrealistic because during that time existing
demand for coal was not being fully met by CIL and SCCL.
There was supply-demand mismatch and there was also a huge
shortage of power in the country. The State Electricity Boards
had been unable to meet power requirements.

H 103. The material placed on record reveals that the then
MANOHAR LAL SHARMAv. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 519
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
Coal Secretary in his note dated 16.07.2004 and. subsequent A
note dated 30.7.20.04 mooted introduction of bidding system
to achieve transparency and objectivity in the allocation
process and also to tap part of the windfall gain to the allottee
;tor captive mining. These notes were considered at the level
· of Minister (Coal and Mines) and the PMO and certain B
disadvantages of allocation of coal blocks through competitive
bidding were noted. Ultimately, it appears that in the month of
October, 2004 fhe proposal for competitive bidding was not
pursued further as it was felt that this would result in delay in
the allocation of c;oal blocks. The Coal Secretaryin October, c
2004 after discussion also felt that since a number of applicants
had requested for allotment of blocks based on the current
policy, it would not be appropriate to change the allotment policy
through competitive bidding in respect of applications received
on the basis of existing policy. He suggested that the policy of
0
allotment through competitive bidding could be made
prospective and pending applications might be decided on the
basis of existing policy.

· 104. Then, there appears to be exchange of notes· and
discussion at various levels on the question whether CMN Act E
needed to be amended before the proposed competitive
bidding becomes operational or 1957 Act so that the system
of competitive bidding could be made applicable to all minerals
covered under the said Act. The opinion of Department of
Legal Affairs was also sought. In 2006, it appears that Ministry F
of Coal communicated to the PMO and Cabinet Secretariat that
Ministry of Law and Justice has advised Ministry of Coal to
initiate suitable measures for amendment in the 1957 Act for
addressing the issue of competitive bidding. A Bill to amend
the 1957 Act was introduced in the Parliament by the Ministry G
of Mines. The Amendment Bill was then referred to Standing
Committee on Coal and Steel for examination and for its
report. On receipt of the report from the Standing Committee
in 2009, the MMDR Amendment Bill, 2008 was passed by both
the Houses of Parliament in 2010 and ultimately Section 11A H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A was inserted in the 1957 Act providing for competitive bidding
for allocation of coal blocks by the Central Government. Then,
on 02.02.2012, rules for auctions by competitive bidding of coal
mines were notified.

B 105. The above facts show that it took almost 8 years in
putting in place allocation of captive coal blocks through
competitive bidding. During this period, many coal blocks were
allocated giving rise to present controversy, which was
avoidable because competitive bidding would have brought in
C transparency, objectivity and very importantly given a level
playing fie1d to all applicants of coal and lowered the difference
between the market price of coal and the cost of coal for the
allottee by way of premium which would have accrued to the
Government. Be that as it may, once it is laid down by the
Constitution. Bench of this Court in Natural Resources
D Allocation Reference 20 that the Court cannot conduct a
comparative study of various methods of distribution of natural
resources and cannot mandate one method to be followed in
all facts and circumstances, then if the grave situation of
shortage of power prevailing at that time necessitated private
E participation and the Government felt that it would have been
impractical and unrealistic to allocate coal blocks through
auction and later on in 2004 or so there was serious opposition
by many State Governments to bidding system, and the
Government did not pursue competitive bidding/public auction
F route, then in our view, the administrative decision of the
Government not to pursue competitive bidding cannot be said
to be so arbitrary or unreasonable warranting judicial
interference. It is not the domain of the Court to evaluate the
advantages of competitive bidding vis-a-vis other methods of
G distribution I disposal of natural resources. However, if the
allocation of subject coal blocks is inconsistent with Article 14
of the Constitution and the procedure that has been followed
in such allocation is found to be unfair, unreasonable,
discriminatory, non-transparent, capricious or suffers from
H favoritism or nepotism and violative of the mandate of Article
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 521
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
14 of the Constitution, the consequences of such A
unconstitutional or illegal allocation must follow.

106. The Central· Government in its first counter' affidavit
filed on 22.01.2013 has stated that for the period from 1993
to 31.03.2011, 216 allocations have been made. In the course 8
of arguments, learned Attorney General submitted that in
addition to 216, 2 coal blocks for Coal to Liquid (CTL) projects
were also allocated. According. to said. affidavit, out of 216
allocations, 105 allocations were made to private companies,
99 allocations were made to Government companies and 12 C
allocations were made to Ultra Mega Power Projects (UMPPs)
and that after adjusting 24 de-allocations and 2 re-allocations,
a total number of 194 allocations, including allocations to
private parties, form the subject matter of the writ petitions. In
the course of arguments, however, learned Attorney General
submitted that total 41 de-allocations have already been D
ordered.

107. In the first counter affidavit filed on 22.01.2013, the
Central Government has also given the details of the procedure
adopted for allocation of the above coal blocks, in which it is E
stated that the allocations to the private companies were made
through the Screening Committee route. As regards allocations
made to Government companies, before 2001, allocations
were made only through the Screening Committee route but on
and from 2001, allocations were made through the Screening F
Committee route as well as directly by the Ministry of Coal. The
allocations which were made by the Ministry of Coal to the
Government companies are referred to by the Central
Government as the Government dispensation route. Insofar as
UMPPs are concerned, it is the stand of the Central G
Government that captive blocks were pre-identified for the
projects, that bidders for the projects were selected as per the
competitive bidding guidelines of the Ministry of Power (tariff
based bidding) and, thus, the 12 allocations to UMPPs were
done by a competitive method. It is further stated in the affidavit H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A that the two blocks allotted for Coal to Liquid (CTL) projects
were after inviting applications through advertisement in 2008
and that the applications received were considered by an inter-
Ministerial Group (IMG) under the Chairmanship of Member
(Energy), Planning Commission and Secretaries of Department
B of Expenditure, Ministry of Coal, Department of Industrial Policy
and Promotion, Department of Science and Technology,
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and Principal Advisor
(Energy), Planning Commission as members.

108. We shall first deal with the coal allocations made to
C the private companies as well as Government companies for
captive purpose through Screening Committee route.

109. On 14.09.2012, while issuing notice to the Union of
India, the Court framed six questions on which answer was
D sought in the counter affidavit. One of such questions was about
the details of guidelines framed by the Central Government for
allocation of subject coal blocks. In the first counter affidavit filed
on 22.01.2013, it is stated that from 1993 until 31st meeting
held on 23.06.2006, the Screening Committee framed its own
E guidelines for allocation of coal blocks. Insofar as guidelines
for 31st to 36th meetings of the Screening Committee are
concerned, it is stated that the Ministry of Coal framed the
guidelines and these guidelines were brought to the attention
of the members of the Screening Committee.
F 110. The minutes of the 1st meeting held on 14.07 .1993
indicate that the guidelines were framed in that meeting by the
Screening Committee for the primary purpose to identify
suitable blocks for captive development by power generating
companies. The guidelines framed by the Screening
G Committee on 14.07.1993 read as under:

"(i) Preferably blocks in green field areas where basic
infrastructure like road, rail links, etc. is yet to be
developed should be given to the private sector.
H The areas where CIL has already invested in
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 523
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
creating such infrastructure for opening new mines A
should not be handed over to the private sector,
except on reimbursement of costs.

(ii) The blocks offered to private sector should be at
reasonable distance from existing mines and
8
proj.ects of CIL in order to avoid operational
problems.

(iii) Blocks already identified for development by CIL,
where adequate funding is on hand or in sight
should not be offered to the private sector. C

(iv) Private sector should be asked to bear full cost of
exploration in these blocks which may be offered.

(v) While discussing proposals of power generating
companies and identifying blocks the requirement D
of coal for 30 years would bt:i considered."

111. In its 2nd meeting held on 13.08.1993, the Screening
Committee accepted that any addition to generation of power,
whether captive or utility, amounted to value addition and, E
therefore, no distinction would be made between the two.

112. In the 3rd meeting held on 27.09.1993, the Screening
Committee discussed whether the guidelines for identification
of coal blocks for the power sector were suitable for adoption
F
in respect of the iron and steel sector particularly in view of the
· position explained by the representative of Ministry of Steel that
requirement of coal for iron and steel plants would be much less
than the coal required by the power plants. The Screening
Committee, accordingly, decided to permit sub-blocking of
blocks identified by Central Mine Planning and Design Institute G
Ltd. (CMPDIL).

. 113. In the 4th meeting dated 12.01.1994, proposals
.relating to Mis. RPG Industries Ltd./Calcutta Electric Supply
H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 8 S.C.R.

A Corporation, Mis. Kalinga Power Corporation, Mis. Indian
Aluminium Company, Mis. lndian Charge Chrome Ltd., Andhra
Pradesh State Electricity Board, Mis. Development Consultants
Ltd., Mis. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd., Mis. Associated
Cement Company Ltd., Mis. Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabagm
B P.C. were considered in continuation of earlier meetings.
Certain blocks were identified for allocation to some of these
companies.

114. In its 5th meeting held on 26.05.1994, the Screening
Committee while considering whether any further changes were
·c required in the procedures being adopted for considering
proposals for captive mining recorded that in the earlier
meetings, the Ministry of Coal had been liberal in considering
proposals with a view to make the scheme a success. In the
said meeting, the Committee reviewed the progress made by
D Mis. RPG Industries Ltd., Mis. Kalinga Power Corporation Ltd.,
Mis. Nippon Denro lspat Nigam Ltd., Nagpur, Mis. Andhra
Pradesh State Electricity Board, Mis. Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board, Mis. Indian Aluminium Company Ltd., Mis. Development
Consultants Ltd., Mis. Associated Cement Company Ltd., Ml
E s. Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabagm P.C. and Mis.Gujarat
Power Corporation Ltd.

115. In the 6th meeting held on 20.01.1995, the Committee
decided to earmark Sarisatolli block and western part of Tara
F block for captive mining by Mis. RPG Industries Ltd. for
proposed Budge-Budge TPS and Balagarh TPS. The proposal
of Mis. Jindal Strips Ltd. for a captive block for expansion of
their Sponge Iron Planf from 2 lakh tonnes per annum to 6 lakh
tonnes per annum was also discussed in the meeting and it
was decided that CMPDIL would carry out the exercise of sub-
G blocking so that a suitable block can be allocated to Mis. Jindal
Strips Ltd.

116. In the 7th meeting held on 06.06.1995, the Chairman
felt the need for fixing certain time limit and layin~ down
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 525
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
corresponding milestones otherwise there would be a tendency A
on the part of developer of the mining block to proceed in a
casual manner with the result that the coal production would not
be realized within the required time frame. It was decided that
once the blocks are identified, the party concerned should
complete necessary formalities and should be able to apply for B
lease within 6 months. In continuation of earlier meetings, the
.Screening Committee further considered the proposal of M/s.
RPG Industries ltd. for identification of coal mining blocks for
supply of coal to the proposed Budge-Bddge TPS, Balagarh
TPS and Dholpur TPS. In the said meeting, the proposals of c
M/s. West Bengal State Electricity Board and M/s. Videocon
Power ltd. were also considered.

117. In the 8th meeting held on 04.10.1995, the proposal
of M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited for captive blocks in
Jharia coalfields was discussed. The Committee decided to D
identify ~arbatpur, Mahal, Seetanala and Tasra blocks located
in Jharia Coalfields for captive development by SAIL.

118. In the 9th meeting held on 20.12.1995, the proposal
of M/s. Nippon Denro !spat ltd. for identification of additional E
coal mining blocks for supply of coal to the 2nd stage of the
Bhadravati TPS was discuss.ed. Apart from the above-
mentioned proposal, the other proposals were from
Maharashtra State Electricity Board, National Thermal Power
Corporation and Lloyds Metals (Sponge Iron Plant) and Larsen F
& Tourbo captive power plant, Chandrapur. Since there were
conflicting requirements of various projects, the Committee
decided that the long-term coal requirements of various
projects of M/s. Nippon Denro lspat ltd., Maharashtra State
Electricity Board, National Thermal Power Corporation, Lloyds G
Metals and Larsen & Tourbo should be examined in a
comprehensive exercise so that the available resources are
optimally utilized. Review of the proposals of M/s. Jindal Strips
-Sponge Iron Plant and M/s. Monnet lspat- Sponge Iron Plant
was also undertaken.
H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A 119. In the 10th meeting held on 03.04.1996, the
Committee noted with concern 'that out of the blocks already
offered, only four parties have taken action for development of
blocks. The Committee decided that all the identified parties
should be issued a notice to pay the exploration cost by
B 30.06.1996 and take action for development of the block failing
which the offer would be cancelled.

120. In the 11th meeting held. on 26/27.09.1997, the
Screening Committee carried out a review of the progress
C made so far. It was noted that M/s. RPG Industries for Budge-
Budge TPS, Mis. Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. for new
captive power plants in Orissa, M/s. Associated Cement Co.
Ltd. for new captive power plant at Wadi, Karnataka, M/s. West
Bengal State Electricity Board for higher generation for Bendel
TPS and Santaldih TPS, Mis. West Bengal Power
D Development Corpn. Ltd. for Bakreshwar TPS, Mis. BLA
Industries for 24 MW capacity power plant in Distt. Narsinghpur,
Madhya Pradesh; M/s. Jindal Strips Ltd. for Sponge Iron Plant
in Madhya Pradesh and M/s. Nippon Denko lspat Ltd. for
Bhadravati TPS, Stage- I, had paid exploration charges to CIL
E and submitted mining plans which had been approved by the
Standing Committee of Ministry of Coal. In that meeting, the
representative of Mis. Nippon Denko lspatltd. submitted that
Sunder block \NaS far away from the pOWerplant as well as from
the othertWo mining blocks allotted to thernand requested that
F a block neareflb the other two bloc~s,· i.e., Baranj and Lohara
West may be considered for alfotrytefl't bf ttie Committee.
Accordingly; the Committee ·decidedfo allocate~Monora Deep
Block, which is .adjacent to Baranj and Lohara EXtn. (which is
adjacent t6 Lohara West) to M/s. Nippon Denko lspat Ltd. Th•:
G Committee also discussed the proposals which were
considered earlier but no final decision could be taken. The.
Committee decided that Utl<al 'C' block in Talcher coalfiefd'
having ~feologicaf reserves of a'bout 190 m.t may be
consider~d for allotment to Mis. Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. for
H two additional captive power plants at Choudhwar, Orissa. It
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 527
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
is pertinent to mention that the Committee found that the total A
requirement for all the three units would be about 2.36 m.t. and
for a life of 30 years, it would work out to be 71 m.t. The
Committee, .however, proposed allocation of Utkal 'C' block
having geological reserves of about 190 m.t. In that meeting,
Takli-Jena-Bellora block was allotted to M/s. Lloyds Metals and B
Engineers Ltd. and the company was directed to obtain mining
.lease within six months of issue of these minutes. As regards
the proposal of M/s. Associated Cement Company Ltd. for
'expansion at Wadi Cement Works in Karnataka, the
Committee decided to allot Bisrar block in addition to-Lohara c
(East) allocated earlier as the total requirement was of the order
of 3.7 m.t. In the said meeting, M/s. J.K.Corp. Ltd. was
allocated Gare IV/8 block with gross geological reserves of 91
m.t. for their Cement Plant at Sirohi and Khemli in Rajasthan
for which their total coal requirement was 1.23 m. t.p.a.
D
121. In the 12th meeting held on 03.04.1998, the
. Committee allocated Gare-Palma IV/2 and IV/3 blocks having
Geological reserves of 100 ar'ld 110 m.t. to Mis. Jindal Power
Ltd. for Raigarh TPS Stage - II (500 MW). In the said meeting,
M/s. Central Collieries Co. requested the Screening E
Committee for a portion of the Takli-Jena-Bellora block which
had already been allotted to M/s. Lloyds. Metals & Engineers
Ltd. In the course qf discussions, it transpired that the total
reserves in the block are higher than the requirement of Mis.
L.loyds Metals. lhe Committee was of the view that it was F
B()SSible to allot some of the reserves to a party other than M/
~· Lloyd Metals. The.Committee noted the clarification made
_by DGM (MS) that. it was possible to cut out an independent
sub-block of 40 m.t. coal reser:ves within the Takli-Jena Bellora
block. Accordingly, the. same was allotted to M/s. Central G
·collieries Co.,: .

122. In the 13th meeting held on 24.08.1998, as regards
the proposal of Mis. Nippon Denro lspat Ltd. - Bhandravati TPS
I, th7 Committee was informed that the Apex Committee of CIL H
52~ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 8 S.C.R.

A on captive mining blocks had objected to allocation of Kilhoni
block to Nippon on the ground that the company had been
changing its preference from one block to another block and
allotment of Kilhoni block would not be sufficient to satisfy the
company's coal requirement for 30 years. Therefore, it was
B suggested that the company should either work the Lohara
West block or enter into an agreement with WCL for supply of
their balance coal requirement. The Ministry of Power, on the
other hand, indicated that they had no objection ifthe same was
acceptable to the Government of Maharashtra. It was also
C3 indicated that in the absence of firm figures of availability of
coal and its likely price on cost plus basis, only an in-principle
agreement could be arrived at for linkage in lieu of the Kilhoni
block. It was also stated that the Kilhoni block being adjacent
to Baranj block would be more practicable for them to mine the
reserves whereas WCL would have to develop the block as an
0
isolated project. The Government of Maharashtra strongly
support~d the allocation of Kilhoni block to the company. The
Director- (Technical), CIL and CMD, WCL indicated that the
Kilhoni block was likely to be taken up in the 11th plan period
and pointed out some unique geogfaphical and man-made
E features of the block which, according to them, would make the
project both cost and time intensive, resulting in very high cost
for WCL. The Committee felt that Nippon would be better
placed to tackle these problems. It was finally decided that M/
s. Nippon Denro lspat Ltd will work Baranj I-IV, Manora Deep
F and Kilhoni B_Jocks for mining coal for Bhadravati TPS, Lohara
West and Lohara West Extension blocks will be. withdrawn from
the party and· no further request for change or modification of
blocks made by the party will be considered.

G 123. The Committee had decided in the 12th meeting to
allocate southern portion of Takli-Jena-Bellora block to M/s.
Central Collieri~s .co. Ltd. In the 13th meeting, the
representative of M/s. Central Collieries Go. Ltd. requested that
a decision pn allocation of a small portion of Kilhoni block
H should be taken. It was informed to the Committee that the area
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 529
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
identified at Kilhoni by the company was actually a different A
location, and that 1.ocation did not form part of the identified
blocks for captive mining.

124. In its 14th meeting held on 18/19.06.1999, the
Screening Committee decided as follows: 8
"(i) The Administrative Ministries will assess the
soundness of the proposals in consultation with the
State Govt. before sending their comments/
recommendations to the Screening Committee for
consideration of allotment of a captive mining block; C
and

(ii) The Administrative Ministries should consult State
Governments as well as use their own agencies for
assessing the progress of the implementation of o
end use plants for which blocks have already been
allotted by the Screening Committee and send a
report to the Screening Committee for further
action."

124.1. In the said meeting, Adviser (Projects), Ministry of E
Coal informed that a policy has been framed that captive mining
block producing less than 1 m.t. of coal per annum from an
opencast block and less than 0.25 m.t. of coal per annum from
an underground block will not be considered for allotment. The
Committee agreed to adopt the above policy. In that meeting, F
the Committee decided to withdraw the Gare-Palma IV/4 block
allotted to M/s. Phoenix Cement Ltd. The block Gare-Palma IV/
8 allotted to M/s. J.K. Corp. Ltd. was also withdrawn due to non-
seriousness of the party in the matter.
G
124.2. In the 14th meeting, the proposal of M/s. Monnet
lspat Ltd. for a new Sponge Iron plant in Keonjhar area of
Orissa of 1.2 million tonnes of capacity for which the
requirement of 2.2 m.t. of raw coal has been indicated, was
::!:scussed. This plant will have a CPP of 40 MW in the 1st H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A phase. The party requested for Utkal-82 block in Talcher
coalfield having 106 m.t. of reserves. The party informed that
the existing plant capacity of 1 lakh tonnes is being expanded
to 3 lakh tonnes by March, 2000 and to 5 lakh tonnes beyond
that. During discussion, CMD MCL was of the view that
B Chendipada block is likely to have better grade of coal and
suggested to the party in preference of Utkal B-2 block.
However, the party insisted for Utkal B-2 block and the same
was allotted subject to th~ condition that the party must achieve
financial closure within one year of allotment of the block, failing
c which the allotment will be withdrawn.

124.3. As regards the proposal of M/s. Jayaswal Neco Ltd.
for their Sponge Iron Plant, the party had earlier requested for
Gare-Palma IV/6 and IV/7 blocks for meeting their Sponge Iron
Plant and. a captive power plant. Now, they requested for
D allocation of IV/4 and IV/8 blocks as the same have been
withdrawn from other firms. Accordingly, the same were allotted
to M/s. Jayaswal Neco Ltd.

124.4. The Brahmadiha block was allotted to M/s. Castron
E Technology in the 14th meeting. The Committee noted that the
mine did not fit in the criteria of captive block as per its latest,
guidelines, but decided to make the allocation in view of the'
fact that the reserves could either be permitted to be exploited:
by a private party or lost forever.
F 125. In the 15th meeting held on 06.03.2000, M/s. Jindal
Strips Ltd. had submitted a request for a block in Talcher
coalfield to meet the requirement of sponge iron plant of 2 m.t.
capacity. In January, 2000, .the party made an application for
allocation of Utkal D block in MCL having geological reserves:
G of 190 m.t. for their proposed sponge iron plant of 1. m.t.
capacity requir.ing clean coal of 1.2 mtpa. The party also
proposed to set up a washery of. 3 m.t. input capacity. The
requirement of the block was proposed by the party for working
the sponge iron plant and the CPP for a period of 50 years. In
H the cours-e of discussion, it was pointed out that allocation of
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 531
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
block for captive mining is generally made on the basis of 30 A
years' requirement whereas the party had requested for
allocation of block on the basis of 50 years requirement for their
sponge iron plant. It was also indicated that the total
requirement of coal for 30 years life period of the project
worked out to be 90 m.t. for which a geological reserve of about B
120 m.t. should be adequate. The estimated reserve of Utkal
D block was about 190 n;i.t. and was, therefore, higher than the
probable requirement. The representative of Ministry of Steel
indicated that coal block having geological reserve of about 125
m.t. would be adequate. Yet, the Committee decided to allot c
Utkal D block in principle to M/s. Jindal Strips Ltd. but this was
cancelled in the 16th meeting.

125.1. The proposal of M/s. Prakash Industries was
rejected in the 14th meeting in view of the company's reference
i to BIFR and the party enjoying coal linkage of G:76 m.t. for their D
' existing plant. In November and December, 1999, they informed
that they had a linkage of 0.5 mtpa only and that they proposed
to develop an underground mine for the balance 0.5 mtpa. The
Committee in the 15th meeting decided to allocate Choita
block, having geological reserves of about 60.00 m.t. to M/s. E?G
Prakash Industries.

125.2. In the said meeting, M/s. Raipur Alloys & Steel Ltd.
had requested for allocation of Choita block for their sponge
iron plant at Siltara, Raipur, the capacity of which was proposed F
to be expanded from the existing 60,000 tpa to 3 lakh tonnes
per annum and for a captive power plant of 18 MW. That block
was not in the identified list of captive mining. Accordingly, they
revised their request for allocation of Gare Palma IV/7 or any
one of the three blocks in Gare Palma, i.e., IV/7, IV/6 and IV/8 G
in order of preference. The Committee decided to allocate
Gare Palma IV/7 to Mis. Raipur Alloys & Steel Ltd. with coal
reserves of 156 m.t. which is on the much higher side than the
requirement of the company.

H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A 126. In the 16th meeting held on 31.05.2001, Mis. Orissa
Mining Corporation Ltd. WqS allotted Utkal .D block for
generation of power through Orissa Power Generation
Corporation.

127. ·1n the 17th meeting held on 28.11.2001, the request
8
of Mis. GVK Power Gowindal Sahib Ltd. for allotment of
Tokusud coal block for their proposed 2 x 250 MW power plant
was considered and Tokusud North block was allotted to them.

128. In the 18th meeting held on 05.05.2003, the
C Screening Committee, for the first time, considered the issue
of.determining inter se merit of applicants for the same block
asA:Vell as certain other issues to bring in transparency and felt
that guidelines for determining interse priority among claims
for blocks between public secto~ and private sector for captive -
D use and between public sector for non-captive use and private
sector for captive use need to be evolved. The Chairman of the
Committee put the· following few general guidelines for
consideration:

(i) The blocks i!l captive list should be allocated to an
E
applicant only after the same have been put in the
pubic domain for a reasonable time and not
immediately upon their inclusion in the list of block
identified for captive mining, so as to give an
opportunity to interested parties to apply for the
F ·same,and make the process more transparent. T.he
.- need,for giving very cogeri\ and detailed reasons
before withdrawal of a bloc~ from captive list by CIL .
wa~ also empha~ized~.

G (ii) The Administtative Mtriistries were requested to
appraise the projects from the point of view of the
genuineness of the applicant, techno-economic
viability of the project and the state of
preparednes~/progress in the project while
H indic<;iting the quantity and. quality of coal
.MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPfo.f SECRETARY 533
·[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
requirement of the project and reco·mmending A
allocation of captive block to the applicant. In case
there were more than one applicant for the same
block the Administratiye Ministry should rank them
based on the project appraisal and the pasUtrack
record of the applicant without necessarily naming B
the block to be allotted. This would facilitate the
Screening Committee in allotting a suitable block
to the applicant more objectively.

(iii) Only those power projects would be considered for C
allocation which are included in the Xth Plan Period.

128.1. The above guidelines met with general approval.
The Screening Committee also' decided that while
recommendations of the State Governments would continue to
be taken into consideration, the same would not be taken as D
pre-condition for entertaining the application by it. In that
meeting, the two blocks-Bandhak (East) and Bandhak (West)
were also included in the list of captive blocks.

129. In the 19th meeti119 held on 26.05.2003, various E
projects were reviewed.

129.1. In that meeting, the Committee allocated Bandhak
(West) to Mis. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd.
Similarly, Mis. Fieldmining & lspat Limited was allocated
Warora (West) and Chinora blocks. F

130. In the 20th me~ting held on 06.06.2003, the
.Committee discussed the matter of allocation' of captive mining
blocks to small Greenfield projects or to applicant companies
·who ,,did not have well known track records in the sectors G
approved for allocation of captive blocks for mining of coal. It
adopted a policy that for such small projects the Committee
instead of straight away allocating the block, the Committee
would reserve the block and offer a temporary tapering linkage
through CIL for achieving financial closure and development of H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A the end-use project first. The allocation of the block would be
made subject to the applicant company achieving the project
milestones submitted by them to the Committee, and after
financial closure is achieved.

130.1. In that meeting, Mis. Jindal Steel and Power Limited
8
requested for allocation of Utkal 8-1 block for their sponge iron
production, 200 MW of captive power generation, steel plant
and ferro alloy plants to be set up in two phases. The Screening
Committee decided to allocate Utkal 8 - 1 block to that
company for exclusive and captive use of the entire coal
C produced from the block in their own project in the end-use
plants.

130.2. M/s. Usha Beltron Ltd. requested for allocation of
a block for their sponge iron and power plant. GIL had
D recommended allocation of Kathautia UG block for their
expansion project. Accordingly, the Committee allocated the
same subject to the existing linkages of coal from CIL
continuing.

E 130.3. The Committee also discussed th~ proposals of M/
s. Shyam ORI Power Ltd. for allocation of Radhikapur block and
M/s. Neepaz Metalics Pvt. Ltd. for allocation of Patrapara block.
In both the cases, it was found that the size of the block is larger
in comparison to the need. However, the applicants stated that
while geological reserve in the block may be large, the
F recoverable reserve would be very much less. Accordingly, the
blocks were allocated provisionally to them for detailed
exploration/prospecting purposes.

130.4. In that meeting, M/s. Ambuja Cement requested for
G allocation of Baranj Ill and IV block for their new as well as
expansion of existing cement plants. Though the Government
of Maharashtra supported the proposal, the representative from
Ministry of Power stated that there are two contenders for the
Baranj blocks and the Ministry of Power is considering and
H evaluating the case. He stated that decision on allocation of
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 535
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
Baranj I to IV could be deferred by one month by which time A
the Ministry of Power would be in a position to give their views.
How.ever, the Screening Committee decided to allocate Baranj
Ill and IV blocks to Ambuja Cement Ltd. subject to any order of
the High Col_Jrt in the matter.
B
131. In the 21st meeting held on 19.08.2003, the issue of
competitive bidding was raised. On this, the Screening
Committee felt that further guidellnes need to be evolved for
allocation of blocks and competitive bidding should also be
looked at. In that meeting it was also felt by the Committee that C
coal being only one of the inputs of end-use projects, other
matching inputs should also be considered before allocation
of a coal block.

132. Significantly, the guidelines framed and applied by
the Screening Committee for the period from 14.07 .1993 (1st D
meeting) to 19.8.2003 (21st meeting) are conspicuously silent
about inter se priority. between the applicants for the same
block. In the 18th meeting, the Screening Committee
considered the issue of determining inter se merit of applicants
for the same block as well as certain other issues for bringing E
in transparency. The Screening Committee felt that guidelines
for determining inter se priority among claims for block between
public sector and private sector for captive use and between
public sector for non-captive use and private sector for captive
use need to be evolved. However, no guidelines for determining F
inter se priority of applicants for the same block was evolved.
The guidelines also do not contain any objective criterion for
determining the merits of applicants and lack in healthy
· competition and equitable treatment. In the first counter affidavit
fl.led by the Central Government, it is admitted that from the 1st G
meeting (held on 14.07.1993) to the 21st Meeting (held on
19.08.2003), the guidelines did not deal with the subject of
determining inter se priority between applicants.

133. As regards 26 coal blocks allocated to private
H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A companies pursuant to the recommendations of the Screening
Committee for the period from 04.11.2003 (22nd meeting) and
18.10.2005 (30th meeting), the Attorney General submits that
the Screening Committee had devised guidelines to determine
inter se priority.amongst applicants for the same block. It is also
B submitted that the recommendations were made by th.e
Screening Committee after consideration of each application
and assessment of each applicant's merits in terms of the
criterion laid down in the guidelines.

134. The counter affidavitfiled by the Central Government
C on 22.06.2013 at pages 102:-159 deals with this period. The
compilation (Volume 3-8) contains materials relating to
. recommendations made by the Screening Committee for
allocation of coal blo.cks to private companies pursuant to its
22nd meeting to 30th meeting held between 04.11.2003 and
D 18.10.2005. It transpires from the materials placed on record
that there was boom in the iron and steel sector at that time.
The Screening Committee was usually required to consider 3-
4 applicants for each block. Though the guidelines required that
a captive block cannot be allocated as replacement for a
E linkage and that coal blocks can only be allocated for specific
projects and not as back up in general and additional guidelines
also provided that Centr~I PSU was to be accorded priority over
State Government PSU if all other factors (like suitability of coal
grade, techno-economic viability/feasibility of the project, state
F of preparedness of the project, etc.) were equal but a careful
look at these guidelines show that they do not lay down any
criterion for evaluating the comparative merits of the applicants.
As a matter of fact, the guidelines applied by the Screening
Committee are totally cryptic and hardly meet the requirement
G of constitutional norms to ensure fairness, transparency and
,non-discrimination.

135. In the 23rd meeting held on 29.11.2004 for Belgaon
coal block; three applicants, namely, (i) Mis. Chandrapur ispat
H Ltd., (ii) M/s. Gupta Metallics and Power Ltd. and (iii) Mis.
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 537
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
Sunflag Iron and Steel Ltd. had applied. The particulars of A
these three applicants have been noted by the Screening
Committee but besides that there is nothing to indicate as to
Why Mis. Sunflag Iron and Steel Ltd. was found more meritorious
·than the other two applicants. It is pertinent to note that Ministry
of Steel had supported the proposal of both Gupta Metallics B
and Power Ltd. and Sunflag Iron and Steel Ltd . The
consideration of inter se merit appears to be ad-hoc. There is
no comparative assessment of the merits ~f the applicants.
There is so Q1Uch of ad-hocism in consjderation of the
applications that in every meeting, the guidelines were altered. c
136. In the.24th meeting held on 09.12. 2004, the
Screening Committee altered the norms by shifting insistence
on achieving financial closure of the end-use projects to some
appropriate stage after the mining plan approval. In that
meeting, tAe Screening Committee was informed that the D
proposal to allow disposal of coal produced during
development phase of the mine has been approved by the
Government. In that meeting, the Committee considered
allocation of Brinda, Sisai, Dumri, Meral, Lohari, Moitra, Kotre-
Basantpur and Pachmo ·blocks. Applications were received \. E
from M/s. Abhijeet Iron Processors Pvt. Ltd for allocation of
Brinda, Sisai, Dumri, Meral and Lohari blocks, Mis. Neelachal
Iron and Power Ltd. for allocation of Brinda, Sisai and Dumri
blocks, M/s. Bajrang lspat Pvt. Ltd. for allocation of Dumri,
·Brinda and Sisai blocks and Mis. Pawanjay Steel and Power F
Ltd. for allocation of Dumri and Brinda blocks. The Screening
Committee noticed that among applicants competing for Brinda
and Sisai, Mis. Abhijeet Iron Processors Pvt. Ltd., applied way
ahead of others, its requirement was large and it has a good
track record and Ministry of Steel had recommended its case. G
The other applicants, viz., Mis. Bajrang lspat and M/s. Pawanjay
Steel were later .applicants. The requirement of M/s. Bajrang
was small and sub-blocking was not desirable while Mis.
Pawanjay had not yet given the required details to Ministry of
Steel. For Meral, M/s. Abhijeet was the only applicant. The H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 8 S.C.R.

A Screening Committee decided to allocate Brinda, Sisai and
Meral blocks to Mis. Abhijeet Infrastructure Private Ltd.

136.1. In the same meeting, Mis. Jayaswal Neco Ltd. was
allocated _Moitra block in place of Jogeshwar and Choritand-
B Tilaya, already allocated to them. Lohari block was allocated.
to M/s. Usha Martin Limited subject to the views of Ministry of,
Steel. It is important to mention that Lohari coal block was
acquired under the Coal Bearing Acquisition Act. The
Committee noted that the transfer modalities were yet to be
worked out in details.
c
136.2. The Screening Committee in 24th meeting noted
the particulars of each applicant but how each applicant met
such parameters is neither mentioned nor are they discernible.

0 137. In its 25th meeting* held on 10.01.2005, the
* ........The sizes of blocks in terms of reserves are large and the individual
requirements of the sponge iron/steel producers were comparatively
smaller. All the meritorious applicants deserve to be given captive coal.
In order to accommodate all the meritorious and deserving cases, these
blocks would need to be sub-divided which would result in enormous loss
E of coal between barriers because of statutory and practical mining
conditions. Therefore, to sub-block the larger blocks as an alternative for
accommodating all the deserving cases had to be ruled out. The second
alternative was of grouping the deserving cases, so that they can form a
joint venture company, an SPV for mining of coal and carry out the coal
mining jointly in the allocated block. This alternative was also presented to
the applicant companies, but most of them had expressed reservations
F on grounds like cultural and administrative differences among the
constituents of the joint venture company, inherently because they weM
competitors, the joint venture company would be off balance-sheet and ma_y .
not attract sufficient lending, there could be intersee slippage$ Jn·
development of the end-use projects and injection of equity by the:
constituents which could jeopardize the mining project and would not j"d ·
to production at an early stage. A number of other similar objections IQ Jtte
G
formation of joint venture company or mining through SPV were put fo('flard
by a number of applicants. This alternative also, therefore, had to be tefl
alone. It was then discussed that for each natural block, one apl)li<;ant
company who had the highest stake and which was likely to take up proper
mining at the earliest, could be designated the Leader company and
allocated a captive block and a group of .other meritorious companies could
H be nominated as associated companies for supply of coal by the leader
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 539
.[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
Screening Committee considered allocation of five coal blocks A
in the MCL area. Thirty applicants made presentations before
company to these designated associates. The amount of coal to be
supplied by the l~ader company to the associate company would have a
ceiling determined by the assessed requirement of the associate company,
after deducting the linked quantum of coal given by CIL/its subsidiaries.
B
The leader company would commit to supply the ceiling amount of coal to
the associate company depending upon its requirements i.e. as and when
the plant of the associate company comes up, its requirements would be
met upto the level of ceiling quantum by the leader company. The yearly
percentage of satisfaction through this supply would be in the same
proportion as the rated production capacity of the mine, to be approved
during the mining plan, to the total of the assessed requirements of the c
leader (after fully protecting earlier allocation, if any) and the associated
companies attached to a coal block. In the alternative, this supply of coal
from the leader comp<inY to the associated companies could be done
through MCL also where depending on the actual requirement of the
associate company, subject to the ceiling, MCL would add service charge,
gather coal from the leader company and supply the same to the associate
company. In either of these cases, coal would be transferred from the D
leader company to the associate company at administratively determined
transfer price and not at any free market price or notified priC:e of CIL, as
this arrangement is in lieu of giving coal blocks to the associate companies
and their taking up captive mining themselves. This administrative transfer
price would be determined by Ministry of Coal through its sub- committee
headed by Addi. Secretary (Coa~ . Having decided as above, the Screening
E
Committee proceeded to select the leader and the associate companies .
... . .. .To sum up, the following companies were founa deserving of allocation of
coal blocks alongwith their status:
Block Name of the Company Status
Utkal A To be merged with Gopalprasad for
Mining by MCL as one mine or by F
Jindal Thermal Power Ltd./Jindal
Vijayanagar ltd. and include Jliidal
Stainless Steel ltd. as a linked
Consumer or an associate. Final
decision and details to be taken up
in the Ministry of Coal.
G
Talabira II NLC
Priority linkage to be given for supply of coal
to companies to be worked out in the Ministry
of Coal so that their yearly satisfaction level
based on their assessed requirement after
adjusting the linkage is about equal to
those companies in the other blocks. H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A the Committee. Many of these applicants were 'meritorious. The
size of these blocks was large compared to the requif~ment
of the applicants. The Screening Committee decided that for
Bijahan Bhushan Limited Leader Company
Associate companies to be worked
B out in the Ministry of Coal so that
their yearly satisfaction level based
on their assessed requirement after
adjusting the linkages is about equal to the
associate companies in the ottier block.
Radhikapur Rungta Mines Leader Company
c (West) Associate companies to be
worked out in the Ministry of
Coal, so that their yearly
satisfaction level based on
their assessed requirement after
adjusting the linkages is about
equal to !he associate companies in the
D other block.
Radhikapur Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. Leader Company
(East) Associate companies to be
worked out in the Ministry of
Coal, so that their yearly
satisfaction level based on
E their assessed requirement
after adjusting the linkages is
about equal to the associate
companies in the other block.
To the extent possible, linkaged/associate companies would be grouped
in the blocks sought by them.
F Following companies were considered to be included as associate
companies or for linkages:
(1) Jindal Stainless Steel Ltd.
(2) o}issa Sponge Iron Ltd.
(3) SMC Power Generation Ltd.

G (4) OCL India Limited
(5) Shree Metalliks Limited
(6) Scaw Industries Limited
(7) Deepak Steel & Power Limited
(8) SPS Sponge Iron Limited
H (9) Shyam ORI Power Limited
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 541
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
each such block, one applicant company who had the highest A
stak~ and which was likely to take up proper mining could be
designated the leader company and allocated the block and a
group of other companies could be nominated as associate
companies for supply of coal by the leader company to these
designated associates. In our opinion, such procedure is B
apparently in contravention of the statutory provision contained
in Section 3(3)(a)(iii) of the CMN Act. Moreover, the
! arrangement of consortium of companies violates Section

3(3)(a)(iii) of the CMN Act as the leader company supplies the
associate share of coal to the associate company at a price c
: (though the price is determined by the Government). Winning
or mining of coal by such company is impermissible under the
[However, subsequently after the long -term linkage of Aditya Aluminium
was revealed from records, the other three companies who substantially
met with Jhe criteria employed for selection of the above associate D
companies, were found includable without much change in percentage
satisfaction of the earlier determined associate companies. These
companies are:
(10) Mahavir Ferro Alloys Ltd.
(11) Nalwa Sponge Iron Ltd.
(12) Bajrang lspat Private Ltd.] E
The companies whose cases were not decided in their favour for the five
captive blocks under consideration, are as follows:
i. N.T.P.C.
ii. Bengal Sponge Iron Ltd.
iii. Mundra SEZ F
iv. Gujarat Electricity Board
v. INDAL
vi. OPGENCO
vii. Madhya Utilities & Investment Ltd.
viii. Deo Mines & Minerals P Ltd. G
ix. Madhyadesh paper Limited
x. Sunflag
xi. Aditya Aluminium (HINDALCO)
xii. Jaiswal Neco
xiii. MSEB H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A CMN Act. The rules of game were changed to adjust large
number of applicants whose applications would have been
otherwise rejected as their coal requirement was far less than
the coal available in the coal block. However, in order to
accommodate these applicants, a novel idea of choosing a
B leader company and associate companies was evolved which,
as indicated above, is impermissible under the CMN Act. The
merits of 13 companies whose applications were rejected have
not been comparatively assessed with the 17 companies (5
leaders and 12 associates) whose applications were accepted
c and recommended for allocation to the Central Government.
138. In its 26th meeting** held on 01.02.2005, the
•• ..... Considering the financial SOL.tndness of the companies, status of advance
action taken, requirement of the end-use projects already put up, the
likelihood of setting up of the entire capacity of the end-use projects and
D the support of the Ministry of Steel and/or Power and the support of the
State Government the following companies were selected by the Screening
Committee for allocation of coal from captive blocks on the pattern similar
to the blocks in MCL area considered by the Screening Committee in its
meeting held on 10.1.2005.
1. Anjani Steels Pvt. Ltd.
E 2. Hindustan Zinc Limited
3. Chattisgarh Electricity Company Ltd.
4. Ind Agro-Synergy Ltd.
5. lspat Godavari Ltd.
6. Jayaswal Neco Ltd.
F 7. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.
8. MSP Steel and Power Ltd.
9. Nalwa Sponge Iron Ltd.
10. Nav Bharat Coalfields Pvt. Ltd.
11. Prakash Industries Ltd.
G 12. Sri Bajrang Power and lspat Ltd.
13. Sri Nakoda lspat Ltd.
14. 'Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
-15. Vandana Global Ltd.
It was decided to allocate coalirom the captive blocks in the same way as·
H decided in case of blocks in MqL area, the Committe.e proceeded to listing
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 543
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
Screening Committee considered allocation of five blocks in A
SECL area. Twenty-five applicants had applied for these
out the possible leaders from among the selected companies and listed
out the following possible leaders: ·
1. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
2. Chhattisgarh Electricity Company Ltd. B
3. Jayaswal Neco Ltd.
4. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.
5. Prakash Industries Ltd.
6. Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
7. Consortium of Nav Bharat Coalfields Pvt. Ltd., c
Ind Agro Synergy; !spat Godawari, Sri Bajrang Power & !spat Ltd., Sri
Nakada lspal Ltd., Vandana Global Ltd.
It was 'decided by the Committee that detailed formulation of groups or
'common pool' for allocation of coal/blocks in line with the dispensation
being contemplated in MCL blocks, will be worked out by the Ministry of
Coal. In this regard, it was decided that the following three alternative D
formulations for mining and distribution of coal by the group from the captive
mine appear workable.
(i) Formation of a Consortium company which will mine coal and
distribute among the consortium members.
(ii) If no consortium emerges by consensus, a leader may be identified
in the group who will do mining of coal and distribute it among the E
members of the group at a transfer price to be fixed by a Committee in the
Ministry of Coal.
(iii) If the group members and leaders are not agreeable to a direct
dealing with each other, they being competitors among themselves, the
subsidiary (here SECL) of CIL operating in that area shall undertake
distribution of the coal to the associate companies at the transfer price F
fixed by a Committee in the Ministry of Coal. Ministry of Steel raised the
issue that a number of companLes have, in their presentations, mentioned
the capacity of the end-use projects in excess of what has been
recommended by the Ministry of Steel and a view has to be taken on the
same. Further it was also observed that a number of companies have
raised the proposed capacity of their end-use projects after the cut-off date
of 28.6.2004. On this, representative of the State Government stated that G
the ground realities of the projects need to be verified and the capacities
of the end -use plants and coal requirements of such projects require to
be confirmed. Therefore, the Screening Committee decided that a
Committee of the representatives of the Ministry of Steel and Ministry of
Power, Government of Chhattisgarh and the Ministry of Coal will sit in a
meeting and assess and firm up the capacities and coal requirement. The
Meeting would be convened in the Ministry of Coal. H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A blocks. Ten applicants who had submitted their applications
after the cut-off date were rejected. The remaining fifteen were
chosen for allocation on the same lines as was done in the 25th
meeting for allocation of coal blocks in the MCL area. Of these
15 applicants, the Screening Committee listed out seven
B companies as possible leaders for 5 blocks. The procedure
followed in the 26th meeting suffered from the flaws similar to
recommendations made by the Screening Committee in its
25th meeting. Moreover, the minutes of the 26th meeting reveal
that the Ministry of Steel raised the issue that a number of
c companies have, in their presentations, mentioned the capacity
of the end-use projects in excess of what has been
recommended by the Ministry of Steel. It is further seen that the
representative of the concerned State Government had stated
that the ground realities of the projects needed to be verified
and the capacities of the end-use plants and coal requirements
0
of such projects is required to be confirmed, but despite that,
the Screening Committee proceeded to list out the possible
leaders from among the selected companies, viz., 1. Hindustan
Zinc Ltd.; 2. Chhattisgarh Electricity Company Ltd.; 3. Jay~wal
Neco Ltd.; 4. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.; 5. Prakash Industries
E Ltd.; 6. Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.; and 7. Consortium of Nav
Bharat Coalfields Pvt. Ltd., Ind Agro Synergy Ltd., lspat
Godawari Ltd., Sri Bajrang Power & lspat Ltd., Sri Nakada lspat
Ltd. and Vandana Global Ltd. Moreover, the Screening
Committee did not assess the capacities and coal requirement
F of these companies. The Committee decided that detailed
formulation of groups 'or 'common pool' for allocation of coal/
blocks in line with the dispensation being contemplated in MCL
blocks will be worked out by the Ministry of Coal. In our view,
the expression 'a comp~ny' occurring in Section 3(3)(a)(iii) of
G the CMN Act does not cover "consortiym of companies" or
"formulation of groups" or ''.common pool". The decision of the
Screening Committee to recommend allocation of coal blocks
to consortium of companies or formulation t>f groups or
comll)on pool is in 'contravention of Section 3(3)(a)(iii) of the
H CMN Act. CMN Act places ecnbargo on granting the leases for
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 545
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
winning or mining coal to persons other than those mentioned A
in Section 3(3)(a)(iii). Consortium of companies surely falls
outside Section 3(3)(a)(iii). The statutory scheme of the CMN
Act generally and Section 3(3)(a)(iii) in particular have been
given a complete go-bye in the procedure followed by the
Screening Committee and finally by issuing allocation letters B
to one leader company with obligation to share associate's
share of coal to the associate company at a price determinable
by the Government.

139. In the 27th meeting*** held on 01.03.2005, the
c
••• The above submissions of various companies who made presentation •
before the Screening Committee were deliberated by the members of the
committee in details and with the support of the representatives of the state
governments concerned, representatives of the administrative ministries,
such as Ministry Steel, Ministry Power, Ministry of Commerce and Industries
(Dept!. of Industrial Policy and Promotion) and the Ministry of Railway and
D
other members, allocation of the following blocks in favour of the
companies mentioned against each in line with consortium/leader and
associate approach adopted in case of the blocks in MCL and SECL areas,
was decided:-
i) North Dhadu (670 mt.) -Tata Power - Leader
Subject to their studying the
details and making available their E
views to Min. of Coal who would
then take an appropriate decision
in the matter.
M/s. Adhunik Alloys and Power Limited]
M/s. Pawanjay Iron and Steel Ltd.] Associates
M/s Jharkhand lspat Ltd. ] F
ii) Bundu -Rungta Mines Ltd Leader/consortium
Jai Balaji Sponge Ltd.
iii) Ardhagram -Sova !spat Ltd. Leader
Bengal Sponge Iron
Manufactures Mining Ltd.
iv) Parvatpur Electrosteels Casting Ltd. G
v) Gondulpara -Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd.
- Damodar Valley Corporation Ltd.
TVNL laid claim to Gondulpara on the assertion that since they have the
adjoining block of Sadan, it would save coal if the two are mined together.
CMPDIL clarified that there had to be two separate mines looking to the
geography of the block and, therefore, the question of coal saving does H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A Screening Committee considered allocation of blocks in the
not arise. It was decided to share the produce between DVC and TVNL.
Leader would be decided in the Ministry of Coal.
vi) Pirpainti-Barahat - Shyam Sel Ltd.
- Rashmi Cement Ltd.
vii) Mahan - Mis. Hindalco (subject
B to confirmation by Govt.
of Madhya Pradesh
viii) Gurha (East) -Mis. Marudhar Power Pvt. Ltd.
ix) Dumri - Neelachal Iron & Power Ltd.
- BajTang !spat Pvt. Ltd.
c 6. In regard to the decision taken on allocation of Mahan coal block to M/s
Hindalco since the representative of Govt. of Madhya Pradesh made repeated
request to consider to allocation of the block in favour of the Madhya Pradesh
State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, it was observed by the
Chairman of the Screening Committee that allocation of Mahan block to
Hindalco is likely to lead to substantial value addition and economic activities
in the state generating considerable revenue to the State exchequer. The State
D Mineral Corporation can ask for other blocks such as Amelia and Amelia north
in the vicinity of the Mahan block. However, considering the overall position, it
was decided that it would be appropriate to have the views of the Govt. of
Madhya Pradesh on the same. It was decided that within a CIL subsidiary
area, production from the blocks, instead of a one to one relation between
the leader and the associates, it could be pooled and shared amongst the
E associate companies via the local Cl L subsidiaries. The coal from these
blocks would be mined by the designated leader and transferred at a price to
be determined administratively as in the case of MCL and SECL blocks.
The issue of change of the area of the Gare-Palma-IV/I block which was
allocated to Mis. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd., by the allocatee company
themselves was also discussed. The details of the case was explained before
the Screening Committee. It was stated that Mis. Jindal Steel & Power Limited
F had shifted the area of the block to cover an adjoining area containing a coal
reserve of about 15 million tonne between the border of the State of Orissa
and block boundary which is in the State of Chhattisgarh. On the other side,
a portion of the block containing a reserve of about 36 million tonne under
forest cover and human habitation has been left out matching the acreage of
the changed area with the acreage area of the block allocated to them. It was
G pointed out by CMPDIL that the area between Orissa border and block
boundary which has been covered by Mis. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd., could
not form an independent block and should have been included earlier in the
area of Gare-Palma-IV/I. It was also stated that Mis. Jindal Steel and Power
Ltd., have already obtained a lease over the area which contains the un-
allocated area covered by them with the approval to the mining plan and
previous approval by the Central Government for grant of mining lease. In view
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 54 7
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
CCL area while in 28th meeting**** held on 15.04.2005, the A
Committee considered allocation of blocks in SECL area.
of the same it was held by the Committee that it was an error both on the part
of the Government and the Company and this needed to be regularized.
Thereafter, it was decided that Mis. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. should mine
the left out area of the block under forest cover and human habitation while
mining the reserve in the extra covered area. Accordingly, the representatives B
of Mis. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. were called before the Committee and
they were informed that they should work the entire area of the block including
the forest area and the area under villages and also the additional area in
question which has been covered by them and they should give details of the
whole area and its coal reserves to the CMPDIL and Ministry of Coal and the
mining plan be accordingly revised and considered. c
****
i) Patrapara
Looking to the size of the project, investment involved etc. it was decided that
the leadership should go to Mis. Bhushan Steel and Strips Limited and for
the associate status Mis. Nepaz Metalicks who had already been allocated a
sub-block in Patrapara would need to be included, Mis. Visa Industries in view D
of the progress achieved by them need to be included and after checking up
the availability of reserves, case of Mis. Ocean lspat could be decided in the
Ministry of Coal for inclusion of otherwise. The committee discussed at length
the limited reserve available in Patrapara. Considering the requirement of the
above applicants and the fact that Aunli block, north of Patrapara, which was
-yetto be explored in detail, had access from Patrapara and Machhakatta, most
of the intervening boundaries of Aunli being occupied by Patrapara, it was E
decided that CMPDIL would redraw the boundary of Patrapara so as to include
Aunli and the necessary part of Machhakatta so as to result in a fairly large
size block to meet the requirement of these companies.
ii}Marki Mangli II, Ill and IV
It was decided that Marki Mangli II, Ill and IV be allocated to Mis. Viangana. As
regards the request of Mis BS lspat it was felt that since they already have MM
F
I and if the percentage satisfaction with MM I matches the percentage
satisfaction of Virangana with Marki Mangli II, Ill and then BS lspat does not
have a case for Marki Mangli II.
iii) Nirad Malegaon
The Screening Committee decided to allocate this block to Mis. Gupta
Metalicks c.nd Power as the leader and they could give rejects'fmiddlings to
G
Mis. Gupta Coalfields for their proposed power plants. As the grade of coal
was superior, allocation of this coal block for power generation would not be
desirable. iv) Panch Bahini
The Screening Committee decided to allocate this block to Mis. Radhe
Industries they being the sole applicant for this block.
H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A Neither the counter affidavit nor the minutes of these two
meetings show that assessment of comparative merits of the
applicants was done. The Screening Committee continued with
consortium/ leader and associate approach, as was done for
the MCL area in the 26th meeting. This procedure is clearly in
B contravention of Section 3(3)(a)(iii) of the CMN Act. Except
recording the particulars of these companies, who had given
presentation, nothing is said about inter se priority or
comparative merits of the applicants. By adopting consortium
I leader and associate approach, the Screening Committee
c had indirectly done away with inter se priority and merit of the
applicant companies. The consideration does not reveal
application of any objective criterion. It is admitted in para 206
of the counter affidavit filed by the Central Government that as
regards the applicant - Neepaz Metalicks whose case was
considered in 28th meeting, the recommendation of the
0
v)'Bisrar
It was decided that this block be allocated to the following companies:
i) Chattisgarh State Electricity Board as leader and the following as associates:
a) Ultra Tech (for their pre cut of project requirement)
E b) Mis Chattisgarh Steel and Power
c) M/s Singhal Enterprises
d) M/s Vnadana
e) M/s Akshay Investment (subject to the views of the Ministry of Steel)
CMD, CMPDIL informed that earlier Madanpur was proposed to be sub-
F blocked into two blocks and now Bisrar is also being proposed to be sub-
blocked in two blocks. However, between the four sub-blocks, i.e. two sub
blocks of Bisrar and two of Madanpur. one each from Bisrar and Madanpur,
could be combined to be called, Madanpur North or Bisrar (North) and
Madanpur (South) or Bisrar (South) could bi; mined as one block each.
Consequently, the total number of blocks between Bisrar and Madanpur would
remain two. One would be with about 10 million tones of extractable reserves
G and the other about 120 million tones of extractable reserves. It was decided
that since CSEB would be inducted as the leader consequently one leader
from among those selected as leaders in the 26th meeting would need to be
dropped. This matter would be analysed and decided in the Ministry of Coal.
It was also decided that the allocattees under the leader-associate/consortium
concept should be called in the Ministry of Coal for seeking their views and
H finalizing the sharing of coal from captive mine arrangement between them.
MANOHA'R LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 549
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
Administrative Ministry was contrary to the recommendation of A
the State Government, yet the allocation of a sub-block in
Patrapara block was made on the basis of State Government's
recommendation. Moreover, it may be noticed that though the
representative of the State Government supported the request
of M/s Bhushan Steel and Strips Limited for allocation of B
Patrapara block but he stated that the State Government
supports the claimants for Patrapara in the following order: (a)
M/s Neepaz Metalicks Limited, (b) M/s SCAW, (c) M/s Visa
Industries, (d) M/s Shree Metalicks, all of whom have already
entered into a MOU with the Government of Orissa and the c
order of priority for M/s Bhushan Steel and Strips Limited would
be lower than these four claimants. As regards Panch Bahini
block, the representative of the State Government stated that
the applicant, M/s Shree Radha Industries, may be considered
for a share and inclusion in the earliest list of blocks allocated
D
in 26th meeting, still the Screening Committee decided to
recommend allocation of Panch Bahini block to Mis Shree
Radha Industries.

140. The counter affidavit in para 208 as regards 29th
meeting***** held on 03.06.2005 states that the Screening E

*****
CMD, CMPDIL stated that with respect to mining in the new patrapara
block, which would include Aunil and part of Machhakatta, that Aunil is yet to
be explqred in detail and part of Machhakatta would also need to be explored.
This would take like time. It was pointed out to CMD, CMPDIL that they should F
examine the possibility of allowing mining in the existing patrapara and
thereafter dove-tailing the mining plan of new patrapara which ~ould include
Machhakata and Aunil. In any cases Aunil is in the dip side of patrapara and
mining would reach there only after many years. Therefore, its. immediate
exploration for the purposes of mining may not be necessary. Chairman,
Screening Committee pointed out that for the purposes of calculating reserves, G
the data available as on date should be taken into consideration. He also
directed that Machhakatta should be explored within the next six months by
the time the mining plan for existing patrapara comes up. In case dove-tailing
is possible then the mining plan should be approved otherwise it could be
modified suitably, instead of holding back the entire process .
.. . . .. .. Sharing of Mahan Block between M/s. Hindalco and Esser Power Limited: H
The matter was discussed and by way of recapitulation the screening
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A Committee considered a detailed presentation of modalities
of competitive bidding by the CMPDIL. Despite the fact that
modalities for auctioning through competitive bidding were
discussed in 29th meeting, that was not carried further as is
-seen from the minutes of the 30th meeting of the Screening
B Committee held on 18.10.2005.

141. The minutes of 30th meeting show that the Screening
Committee decided to club Gare Palma Blocks IV/1 and IV/6
committee was informed that in the last meeting of the screening committee
the representative of Government of Madhya Pradesh had taken a position
c that the Mahan block should be given to the State Mineral Development
considering the overall merit of the competing claimants the block should be
allocated to M/s Hindalco for their aluminium project in which the coal should
be used in the captive power plant. However, the final decision was to be
taken in consultation with the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The Government
of Madhya Pradesh subsequently have given up their position for allocation of
D Mahan block to the State Mineral Development Corporation and have Instead
supported allocation of this block to Mis Essar Power Limited. Representative
from Government of Madhya Pradesh stated that as they are power deficit
state, they would recommend allocation of mahan coal block to Essar Power
Limited only. Representative from the Ministry of power also supported the
request of Government of Madhya Pradesh.The Screening Committee decided
that the views of the State Government and of the representative of Ministry of
E power be taken on record. as they too had merit. Iron and Case of M/s.
Neelachal Power Limited: The Screening Committee took note of the
assessed requirement of Mis. Neelachal Iron and Power Limited and also
that of its possible associate Mis. Bajrang !spat Limited. It also took note of
the fact that the overall percentage satisfaction was nearly 50% from the
allocated block of Dumri. The decision for allocation of Dumri to Mis. Neelachal
Iron and Power Limited as leader with Mis. Bajrang !spat as associate would
F remain unchanged.
! CMPDIL made an audio visual presentation Gare Pelma Blocks viz, IV/1, IV/
2, IV/3, IV/6 and IVn copy of the presentation is kept at Annexure-11. CMPDIL
essentially said that partial detailed exploration, except in IV/6, was done by
the allocattees themselves and exploration, in the lower seams in IV/2 and 3
is underway, precise data would be available only thereafter, and hence the
G estimates of reserves arrived at, based on GSI boreholes which are very few,
is highly tentative in respect of lower seams.
On the availability side
Addition to Gare Pelma IV/1
On account of additional area is estimated at 33.6• mill. Tonnes.
H '
On account of lower seams with inferior grade coals, which may not be
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 551
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
and further decided to allot the combined block (IV/1 and IV/6) A
to JSPL with Nalwa Sponge as a partner company. The
extracted being deep underground and of inferior grades, is for 4. 76 mill. T
and is not being taken into amount.
Addition to Gare Pelma IV/2 and IV/3
On account of lower seams is estimated at 35 mill. Tonnes. Of which 22.12 B
mill tonnes is of superior grade.
Gare Pelma IV/6
The block has been detailed explored by CMPDIL and has total of 102.77 mill
tonnes of extractable reserves of which 13.68 mill Tonnes in the lower seams
are of superior grades and the remaining 89.09 are inferior grade of which
27.79 are in the lower seams (underground) c
Gare Pelma IV/7
The block has been partially detail explored by the allocate. Exploration of the
lower seams has not yet been taken up or mandated. The upper seams
(opencast) in the approved mining plan show extractable reserves of 56.62
million tonnes. Extractable Reserves in the lower seams are tentatively
assessed at 21.98 mill tones of which 14.56 are of superior grade D
On the Demand Side JSPL and JPL
The existing Sponge Iron plant of JSPL of 6 Ltpa capacity requires 72 mill T
of inferior grade coal for a 30 year life of which 11 million tones have already
been extracted from GP IV/1. The 1000 MW power plants of JPL require about
158 mill T of ROM, considering the inferior grades of coal for a 30 years life.
E
The Proposed expansion of 6.6. ltpa in sponge Iron capacity of JSPL requires
about 80 mill T of inferior grade coal for 30 year life for which GP IV/6 is being
sought. The proposed 2.6 itpa sponge iron through the Rotary Hearth Furnace
(RHF) of JSPL requires 6.34 mill T of 10-12% ash coal which would result in
an increased ROM Quantity depending upon the yield upon washing.
The reserves available in IV/1, Considering 11 mill T already extracted, would
be 95.88 mill T. with extracted reserves it would be 106.88 mill. T another F
4.76 mill Tare inferior and in UG. Total reserve in GP IV/2 and IV/3 would be
160 + 35 = 195 Mill T. Where the 35 addition is highly tentative.
= =
Total available in IV/1, IV/2 and IV/3 95.88 + 11 + 4. 76 + 195 306.64 mill T
including 22.12 superior in UG and 17.64 inferior in UG. Inferior equivalent
not counting 4.76 in GP IV/1 would be 326.86 mill. T Total required =
72+79.2+157.5 = 308.7 mill T inferior grade. Not counting the requirement of G
RHF as superior grade coal in IV/2 and IV/3 may not be suitable for the RHF.
Another 34 mill T inferior equivalent count be added to the requirement if
washing yield is taken as 36% instead of 40% for sponge iron and 80% yield
is taken for power instead of 100% with ram as direct feed. Addition on account
of RHF would depend upon the wash yield, if it is taken as 50% the addition
would be about 13 mill tones of superior grade ram coal. H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A .minutes also record that if surplus still remains in the block, then
JSPL-Nalwa be asked to select another allottee failing which
Representative from the Government of Chhattisgarh stated that JSPL and
JPL are two separate Companies/legal entities. JPL cannot be compelled to
share coal given to them with JSPL. Company Law does not recognize Group
companies. Section 370(1 B) mention companies under the same
B management and JPSL JPL do not meet the criteria. Separate mining leases
have been executed with them. They have different shareholders, combining
them would create legal r.omp!ications and therefore, they should be treated
apart. Reserves in GP IV/2 and GP IV/3 should be kept out of the reckoning
when considering request of GP IV/6 as the company is the same and the
project is of expansion in capacity.
c CMD SECL stated that when allocation are being made in groups why should
sister companies not be asked to share first.
Representative from the Govt. of Chattisgarh stated that this would be
discrimination against JSPL JPL. When excess coal cannot be taken back
from earlier allocattees why should JSPL-JPL be singled out. Besides, all is
being based on data/projections which is admittedly highly tentative. He further
D said that power generation (JPL) is crucial and should not be affected.
Chairman sought views of the Ministry of Steel. The representatives of Mos
stated that the date is tentative, it is not fool proof. JSPL and JPL are two
separate companies and that they agreed with views of the representative
from Chattisgarh Govt.
Representative from CEA (power) stated that coal blocks given for power
E project of JPL should be kept apart and not clubbed with Sponge Iron project's
requirement of JSPL. Chairman observed that large numbers of people are
looking for coal. There should be a sense of enquiry for meeting requirement
of people. Legal solution can and should be found for it.
Representative from the Govt. of Chattisgarh stated that JSPL and JPL should
not be clubbed. People have invested in these companies. They are public
F limited companies, listed companies. There would be complications.
Chairman sought views of Chattisgarh on clubbing IV/1 and IV/6. This was
agreed and supported by Chattisgarh, CEA and MoS.
It was accordingly decided that reserves in GP IV/2 and IV/3 would be kept out
of consideration for deciding on extent of alloction in IV/6. The extractable
reserves in GP IV/1 +GP IV/6 are 95.88 + 102.77 = 198.65 mill. T.
G The Requirement of JSPL for 6 ltpa + 6.6 ltpa S.I comes to 72-11+79.2=140.2
mill. T. And if 36% yield in washing is considered, given high percentage of G
grade coal in GP IV/1 and 6 this becomes 157.2 mill T with addition of 17
mill. T.
As to the requirement in 2.6 ltpa in RHF, CMD CMDPIL was of the view that
coal from lower seams of IV/6 may not yield 10-12% ash coal on washi;--
H and that JSPL should seek linkage of superior coal. Representative from t
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v.-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY &53
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
the excess reserves to be handed over to SECL, in terms of A
annual production, at transfer price to be determined by the
Government. Coal availability and requirement in Gar~ Palma
IV/1 block as recorded in the minutes show that 31.05 m.t.
remained surplus with these companies. In the 30th meeting,
the Screening Committee also recommended to allot Dumri 8
Coal Block to M/s. Neelachal and Mis. Bajrang despite the fact
that CMPDIL informed the Committee that north portion (rise

Govt. of Chattisgarh stated that such superior coal is available nowhere and
that JSPL should be allowed to innovate and use the lower seams to meet C
their RHF Requirement. MoC could keep condition that when full facts are
known at the mining plan appropriately at the stage and allocate IV/6 to JSPl
and Nalwa Sponge.
CMD CMPDIL said that superior coal ih lower seams if IV/2 and IV/3 should
not be used for power generation and but for sponge Iron marking.
Chairman, summing up the discussion, observed that IV/2 IV/3 are to be kept D
out; reserve in IV/1 and IV/6 are be clubbed; RHF requirement be kept out;
requirement of partner company M/s Nalwa Sponge be included; the existin9
requirement be accounted for at 100% satisfaction and expansion requirement
of JSPL and requirement of Nalwa Sponge be given same satisfaction level
as the overall in SECL area. If surplus still remains in IV/1 + after this then
JSPL-Nalwa be asked to select another allocattee failing which the excess
reserves be handed over to SECL, in terms of annual production, at transfer E
price to be determined by the Government.
Coal availability and requirement in IV/1
Inferior Superior
Total
Available; 95.88+89.09=184.97 13.68 F
198.65
Required JSPL 157.2 NIL
At 100% Nalwa 026.6
Satisfaction
Required JSPL 144.7 (satisfaction level for existing 6 G
ltpa SI at 100%)
At86% Nalwa022.9
Satisfaction 167.6
Surplus: 17.37 13.68
31.05 H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A side) of Dumri remains unexplored in detail on account of
security problems. The unexplored portion has superior grades
of coal of about 15 m.t. As regards Gare Palma IV/8 block, the
minutes indicate that for this block Mis CECL; Consortium of
five applicants and Mis Jayaswal Neco Ltd. had made
8 presentations. Consortium of five applicants companies was
not recommended apparently inter alia for the reasons; (1) that
the Consortium of five applicants companies was yet to be
incorporated and (2) that they claimed the blocks mainly on the
ground of promoting consortium approach. It is interesting to
C note.that in the earlier meetings for allocation of coal blocks in
MCL, SECL and CCL areas, the Screening Committee on its
own adopted consortium / leader and associate approach and
the factor such as that the consortium company was not
incorporated was not at all viewed as an impediment for
recommendation but in this meeting the claim of consortium of
D five companies was not accepted and it was noted that they
imay be accommodated in other blocks.· The application of
norms by the Screening Committee changed from meeting to
meeting. There was no consistent or uniform consideration. The
portion of Dumri Coal Block bearing superior grade was
E admittedly unexplored but it was recommended for allocation.
The clubbing of blocks or sub-blocks was done which was not
the brief given to the Screening Committee.

141.1 . The recommendations made by the Screening
F Committee in its 30th meeting suffer from the same infirmities
as the recommendations made by it in favour of other
applicants in earlier meetings.

142. In the 31st meeting held on 23.06.2006, the
Screening Committee examined the applications for lignite
G blocks. 25 applicants made their presentation. The Screening
Committee, after noticing_ the particulars of each of the 25
applicants individually and recording that it discussed the
presentations made by the applicants and that it took into
consideration the views/comments of the Ministry of Power,
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 555
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
Ministry of Steel, concerned State Governments and the A
guidelines, recommended allocation of lignite blocks to 6
applicants.

143. In September, 2005, the Ministry of Coal issued
advertisement inviting· a~ ,:>lications for allocation of 20 coal B
blocks. This was the first time when applications were invited
·for allocation of coal blocks by way of an advertisement. The
applications received pursuant to the abo~e advertisement
were taken up for consideration by the Screening Committee
in 32nd meeting held on 29.06.2006 and 30.06.2006, 33rd
meeting held on 31.08.2006, Q1.09.2006 and 02.09.2006 and
c
34th meeting held on 07.09.2006 and 08.09.2006. In the 32nd
meeting, the Screening C-ommittee considered allocation of
Rohne, Sitanala, Tenughat-Jhirki, Choritand-Taliya and
Jogeswar coal blocks. 54 companies (some of which were
group companies) made presentations. The Committee also D
considered applications of those companies which did not
come for presentation. The minutes of 32nd meeting!! record

!! The Screening Committee discussed in detail the presentations made and
the applications submitted by thEi companies. Taking into consideration E
the views/comments of the Ministry of Power, Ministry of Steel, concerned
State Governments, and considering the guidelines laid down for the
allocation of coal/lignite bfo·cks, the Screening Committee decided to
recommend the allocation of the coal blocks as follows:
i) Rohne coal block jointly in favour of Mis. JSW Steels Limited, M/s. Bhushan
Steel and Power Limited and Mis. Jai Balaji Sponge Limited. F
ii) Sitanala coal bloc!<. in favour _of M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited.
iii) Tenughat-Jhirki coal bloc(S }Ointly in favour of M/s. Rashtriya !spat Nigam
Limited and Mls. Jindal Steel and Power ltd.
iv) Choritand-Taliaya coal block iointly in favour of M/s. Sunflag Iron and Steel
Limited and M/s Rungta Mines Limited.
G
It was further decided that a sub-committee consisting of Joint Stlcretary,
Ministry of CoaJ and Joint Secretary, Ministry of Steel would have
discussions with the recommended joint allocattees of Rohne, Tenughat
Jhirki and ChOritand-Taliaya coal blocks and work out the modalities and
details of the arrangements of the joint allocation. In case there is a problem
in the allocation as proposed, the sub-committee will bring the matter again
before. the s_creening committee. H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A that the applications received in the Ministry regarding above
coal blocks were sent to the State Government of Jharkhand
and the concerned Administrati\~e Ministries in the Central
Governmen.t for their views/comments. The views/comments of
the Government of Jharkhand were received on 28.06.2006.
B The Committee then recommended the allocation of Rohne coal
block jointly in favour of M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., Mis. Bhushan
Steel and Power Ltd. arid Mis. Jai Balaji Sponge Ltd.
Tenughat-Jhirki coal block was recommended jointly in favour
of Mis. Rashtriya lspat Nigam Limited and Mis. Jindal Steel and
c Power Limited while Choritand-Taliya was recommended jointly
in favour of Mis. Sunflag Iron and Steel Limited and Mis. Ri.mgta
Mines Limited. Insofar as Sitanala coal block is concerned, the
Committee recommended the said block in favour of M/s. Steel
Authority of India Limited. As regards Jogeswar coal block, the
0 Committee in view of the comments of the representative of the
Government of Jharkand decided not to recommend allocation
of that block in favour of any app!icant for the time being. The
minutes of 32nd meeting do not show how and in what manner.
the applications of those companies were considered which did
E not come for presentation. There is no comparative assessment
or evaluation of the applicants. Why the chosen companies
have been preferred over the others is not discernible? Merely
because there were large number of applicants, it did not mean
.that the consideration of each applicant could not have been
recorded or comparative assessment or evaluation of the
F applicants could not have been made. What are the reasons
for recommending three blocks jointly in favour of more than

As regards Jogeswar coal block the representative of the Government of
Jharkand had informed the Committee that the State Government were of
the view that due to some problems at the local level, it may be difficult for
G private ~mpanies to undertake coal mining. He further added that this block
may be earmarked for some State Public Sector Undertaking. The
Screbning Committee also took note of the fact that this block was earlier
allocated but due to some local problems the allocattee could not
commence mining and it was consequently surrendered. The Screening
Committee, \llerefore, decided not to recommend allocation of Jogeswar
H block in favoJr of any applicant for the time being.
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 557
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
one company are neither recorded nor disclosed in the minutes. A
The recommendations for allocation of blocks jointly in favour
of two or three companies, as indicated earlier, are not in
conformity with the CMN Act. Rather, they are in contravention
thereto.
B
144. In the 33rd meeting, the Screening Committee
considered allocation of Tubed, Chakla, Jitpur and
Pengedappa coal blocks. In that meeting, 165 companies
made their presentations. The applications of 16 companies
which did not turn up for making presentations were also
considered. In the 32nd meeting held on three dates, namely, C
31st August and 1st and 2nd September, 2006, the Committee
decided that recommendations regarding the above four blocks
would be finalised aJter hearing the applicants for the remaining
11 blocks, for which the meeting was already notified for
07.09.2006 and 08.09.2006. D

145. On 07.09.2006 and 08.09.2006, the 34th meeting of
the Screening Committee was .held to consider allocation ·of
Ansettipali, Punukula-Chilka, Brahmpuri, Mandia North,
Rawanwara North, Sial-Shoghri Lohara East, Kosar- E
Dongargaon, Warora West (North), Biharinath and Mednirai
coal blocks. In that meeting, geological reserves of some of the
coal blocks were reported by. CMPDIL/SCCL. The
presentations were made by 101 companies. 44 companies
did not turn up for mal<ing presentations. However, their
F
applications were consi~ered. In that meeting, it was decided
that the recommendatiohs regarding the above 11 blocks would
be finalized in the next meeting.

146. As seen ftom the above, in the 33rd meeting held on
31.08.2006, 01.09.2006 and 02.09.2006 for allocation of four G
blocks and in the 34th meeting held on 07.09.2006 and
08.09.2006 for allocation of 11 blocks, no final decision was
taken and the matters were deferred. On 22.09.2006, the
Screening Committee met regarding allocation of 15 coal
H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A blocks, which was subject matter of consideration in its 33rd
and 34th meetings. The minutes 111 of the meeting held on
!!! 5.3 The State Government of Jharkhand vide its letter no.5711M.C. dated
29.8.06 and letter no. 592/CS dated 21.9.06 had conveyed the following
views regarding the captive coal blocks situated in the State of Jharkhand:-
8 S.No. BLOCK RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Tubed i) Mis Hindalco
ii) Mis Tata Power
iii) Mis Jindal Steel & Power Limited
2. Jitpur Mis Jindal Steel & Power Limited
3. Chakla i) Mis Essar Power
c ii) Mis Chaibasa Steel
4. Medinirai i) Mis JSMDC
ii) Mis Rungta Mines
5.4 The State Government of Madhya Pradesh vide its letter no.F-19-36120051
1212 (part-I) dated 23.1.06 and letter no. F-19-36120051122 (Part-1) dated 12.7.06
had conveyed the following views regarding the captive coal blocks situated in
D the State of Madhya Pradesh.
S.No. BLOCK RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Brahmpuri Mis Satna Power Company Ljmited
2. · Mandia North i) Mis Occidental Power Private Limited
ii) Mis Jaiprakash Associates. Limited
E 3. Rawanwara North Mis Ind Synergy Limited
4. Sial-Ghoghri Mis Prism Cement Limited
5.5 The State Govemment9f Maharashtra vide its letter no. MMN-10051C.R.969/
lnd-9 dated 19.11.05, letter no.MMN-10051C.R. 1000/lnd-9 dated 10.1.06, letter
no.MMN- 10051C.R.969 part-11/lnd-9 dated 4.5.06 arid letter no.MMN-10051
C.R.1000/lnd-9 dated 11.5.06 had conveyed the following views regarding the'
F captive coal blocks situated in the State of Maharashtra. ·
S.No. BLOCK RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Lohara East i) Mis Murti Agro Product Private Limited
ii) Mis Ultra Tech Cement Limited
iii) Mis IBEL Gas Power Lim1te
2. Warora West i) Mis Bhatia International Limited
G (North) ii) Mis Shri Sidhbali lspat limited
iii) Mis MSP Steel Private Limited
iv) Mrs Central India Power Company Ltd.
v) Mis Gupta Energy Limited
vi) Mis Jas Toll Road Company Limited
3.Kosar-Dongargaon Mis Wardha Power Company Private ltd.
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRlNCfPAL SECRETARY 559
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
22.09.2006 record recommendation for allocation of 15 coal A
blocks.
5.6 The State Government of West Bengal vide its.letter no.5477/PrS/CI dated
9.8.06 had conveyed the following views regarding the captive coal blocks
situated in the State of West Bengal.
S.No. BLOCK RECOMMENDATIONS B
1. Biharinath i) Mis Bankura DRI Manufacturing Pvt. Co.
Limited
5.7 The Secretary, Industries, Government of Andhra Pradesh apprised the
Screening Committee that Ansettipali, Punkula-Chilka and Pengedappa are
located in the notified tribal areas where the provisions of AP Land Transfer
Regulations are applicable. In such areas, the State Government will not be in
a position to grant mining leases in favour of private sector companies. The
c
Government of Andhra Pradesh has also brought out amendments to Section
11(5) of MMDR Act, 1957. Pursuant to this amendment grant of mining lease in
Andhra Pradesh to non-tribals except public sector undertakings is prohibited
in case of mines located in the notified tribal areas.
5.8 The Screening Committee discussed in detail the presentations made and
the applications submitted by the companies. Taking into consideration the D
views/comments of the Ministry of Power, Ministry of Steel, concerned State
Governments, and considering the guidelines laid down for the allocation of
coal/lignite blocks, the Screening Committee decided to recommend the
allocation of the coal blocks as follows:
S.No. BLOCK Company and end use plant
1. Tubed jointly to i) Mis Hindalco Industries Ltd. for its enduse plant E
in Latehar, Jharkhand
ii) Mis Tata Power Company Ltd. for its enduse plant
in Singhbhum, Jharkhand
2. Chakla Mis Essar Power Limited for its enduse plant in
Latehar, Jharkhand
F
3. Jitpur Mis Jindal Steel and Power Limited for its enduse
plant in East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
4. Mednirai jointly to i) Mis Rungta Mines Limited for its enduse plant in
Saraikela Kharswan, Jharkhand
ii) Mis Kohinoor Steels Pvt. Ltd. for its enduse plant
in Saraikela Kharswan, Jharkhand G
5. Brahmpuri Mis Pushp Steel and Mining for its enduse plant in
Durg, Chhatisgarh
6. Mandia North Mis Jaiparkash Associates Limited for its enduse
plant in Madhya Pradesh/Himachal Pradesh
7. Rawanwara North Mis SKS lspat Limited for its enduse plant in Raipur,
Chhatisgarh H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R ..

A 146.1. Of these 15 blocks, three namely, Ansettipali,
Punukula-Chilka and Pengedappa were recommended for
allocation to Andhra Pradesh Government undertaking as these
blocks were located in the notified tribal area. Of the remaining
twelve, the Screening Committee recommended their allocation
s to fifteen companies. Five.companies were recommended for
their power plants, three were recommended for the cement
plants and remaining seven were recommended for the Sponge
Iron Units. For these twelve blocks, Jharkhand recommended
seven companies, Madhya Pradesh recommended five,
c Maharashtra recommended ten and West Bengal
recommended one company. It is pertinent to notice that some
of the companies like Chaman Metallics Ltd., which was
recommended by the Screening Committee for Kosar
Dongergaon block had no recommendation by the State
Government (Maharashtra). Similarly, Pushp Steel and Mining
0
Ltd., which was recommended for Brahmpuri block had no
recommendation from the State Government (Madhya Pradesh)

8. Sial-Ghoghri Mis Prism Cement Ltd. for its enduse plant in
Satna, MP
E 9. Lohara East i) Mis Murli Agro Product Ltd. for its enduse plant in
jointly to Nagpur and Chandrapur, Maharashtra
ii) Mis Grace Industries Ltd. for its enduse plant in
Chandrapur, Maharashtra
10 Warora West Mis Bhatia International Ltd. for its enduse plant in
(North) Chandrapur, Maharashtra
11. Kosar- Mis Chaman Metallics Pvt. Ltd. for enduse plant in
Dongargaon Chandrapur. Maharashtra
12. Biharinath Mis Bankura ORI Manufacturing Pvt. Co. Ltd. for its
enduse plant in Bankura, West Bengal
13. Ansettipali Mis Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation
Limited (APGENCO) for its enduse plants in Andhra
G Pradesh
14. Punkula-Chilka
15. Pengedappa
5.9 Jn respect of blocks recommended to be allocated jointly, the allocatee
companies shall share the coal in the ratio of their assessed requirement for
H the capacities (end-use plants) as reflected in the original applicatidns.
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 561
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
and so also Kohinoor Steel (P) Ltd. for Mednirai coal block had A
no recommendation from the State Government (Jharkhand).
The minutes do not disclose in what manner the merits of the
companies which wer~ chosen for recommendation were
determined. Even particulars of the applicants individually are
not noticed. There is no indication at all in the minutes of 33rd B
meeting and 34th meeting or the meeting held on 22.09.2006
when final decision that the conditions laid down in the
guidelines are met by these companies was taken. Twenty
three companies were recommended by the four State
Governments while fifteen companies were finally c
recommended for allocation by the Screening Committee but
the reasons t_herefor are not discernible at all. The minutes also
do not disclose the criterion which the Screening Committee
applied in selection of the fifteen companies and the reason
for allocating twelve blocks to fifteen companies. M/s. Grace
0
Industries Limited was recommended allocation of a coal block
although that company had no recommendation/categorization.
It is true that the recommendation/allocation made in favour of
M/s. Grace Industries Limited was subsequently withdrawn/de-
allocated but that is altogether a different matter.
E
147. In 2006, the Ministry of Coal invited applications for
allocation of 38 coal blocks, of which 15 were reserved for the
power sector. The advertisement indicated that preference will
be accorded to the power sector and steel sector. Within the
power sector, it was indicated that priority shall be accorded F
to projects with more than 500 MW capacity. Similarly, in the
steel sector, priority would be given to steel plants with more
than 1 million ton per annum capacity. In response to the
advertisement, more than 1400 applications were received for
38 coal 'blocks. G
148. The allocation of coal blocks earmarked for power
generation was considered by the Screening Committee in its
35th meeting· which was held on 20.06.2007 to 23.06.2007,
3'-'· ", .2007 and 13.09.2007. The coal block that was numbered
H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A as one block in the advertisement was subsequently
considered as two blocks. Thus, 15 coal blocks, namely,
Amarkonda - Murgadangal, Ashok Karkata Central, Durgapur-
11/Sariya, Durgapur-11/Taraimar, Fatehpur, Fatehpur (East),
Ganeshpur, Gourangdih ABC, Lohara West & Lohara East,
B Mahuagarhi, Mandakini, Patal East, Rampia Dip Side of
Rampia, Sayang and Seregarha were considered. The status ·
of geological reserve of 15 blocks was indicated. The minutes~
of the 35th meeting briefly record the proceedings of the
meeting held on 20.06.2007 to 23.06.2007, 30.07.2007 and
c 13.09.2007. The Screening Committee in that meeting
recommended to allocate all the 15 blocks reserved for power
sector, many of which were recommended jointly in favour of
two or more companies. The minutes do not contain the
particulars showing consideration of each application. They also
do not disclose any comparative assessment or evaluation of
0
the applicant companies. In what manner and for what reasons
the companies were selected for recommendation are neither
disclosed nor are they discernible from the minutes. Though,

;<The Screening Committee, thereafter, deliberated at length over the
E information furnished by the applicant companies in the application forms,
during the presentations and subsequently. The Committee also took into
consideration the views/comments of the Ministry of Power, Ministry of Steel,
State Governments concerned, guidelines laid down for allocation of coal
blocks, and· other factors as mentioned in paragraph 10 above. The
Screening Committee, accordingly, decided to recommend for allocation
F of coal blocks ln the manner as follows:
Name of Block Recommended Companies End use Plant
1. Mandakini 1. Mis. Monnet lspat & Energy Orissa
Ltd.
2. Mis. Jindal Photo Ltd. Orissa

G 3. Mis. Tata Power Comp. Ltd. Orissa
2. Rampia 1. Mis. Sterlite Energy Ltd. Orissa
& 2. Mis. GMR Energy Ltd. Orissa
Dip Side of Rampia 3. Mis. Lanco Group Ltd. Orissa
4. Mis. Navbharat Power Pvt. Orissa
5. Mis. Mittal Steel India Ltd. Orissa
6. Mis. Reliance Energy Ltd. Orissa
H 3. Durgapur lllSariya 1. Mis. D.B. Power Ltd. Chhattisgarh
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 563
[RM. LODHA, CJI.]
the guidelines± provide for norms for consideration for inter se A
priority for allocation of a block among competing applicants
for a captive block but the minutes do not disclose at all how
the norms for inter se priority are met by the companies selected

4. Durgapur ll!Taraimar 1. Mis. Bharat Aluminium Co. Chhattisgarh B
Ltd.
5. Sayang 1. Mis. AES Chhattisgarh Energy Chhattisgarh
Pvt. Ltd.
6. Fathepur 1. Mis. SKS lspat & Power Ltd. Chhattisgarh
2. Mis. Prakash Industries Ltd. Chhattisgarh
7. Fathepur East 1. Mis. JLD Yavatmal Energy Maharashtra
c
Ltd.
2. Mis. Green Infrastructure Pvt. Chhattisgarh
Ltd.
3. Mis. R.K.M. Powergen Pvt. Chhattisgarh
Ltd. D
4. Mis. Visa Power Ltd. Chhattisgarh
5. Mis. Vandana Vidyut Energy Ltd Chhattisgarh
8. ~ohara West 1. Mis. Adani Power (P) Ltd. Maharashtra
& Lohara East (1200 MW)
9. Ganeshpur 1. Mis. Tata Steel Ltd. (CPP-600 Jharkhand
E
MW)
2. Mis. Adhunik Thermal Energy Jh:irkhand
Ltd. (Equal Share) .1000 MW
10. Seregarha 1. Mis Mittal Steel Ltd. Jharkhand
2. Mis GVK (Gonvindwal Sahib) Punjab
Ltd. F
11. Ashok Karkata Mis. Essar Power Ltd. Jharkhand
Central
12. Pata! East Mis. Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. Jharkhand
(750)
13. Amarkonda 1. Mis. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Jharkhand G
Mu~gadangal

2. Mis. Gagan Sponge Iron Pvt. Jharkhand
Ltd.
14. Mahuagarhi 1. CESC Jharkhand
2. Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt. West Bengal
Ltd. H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 8 S.C.R.

A for recommendation by the Screening Committee. Many of the
companies selected -by the Screening Committee had no
recommendation from the State Government or from the Ministry
of Power and CEA and some of them had no recommendation
either from the State Government or the Ministry of Power and
B CEA at all. For example, for Durgapur-llrraraimar, the selected
company Balco had no recommendation at all from the State

15. Gourangdih ABC 1. Mis: Himachal Emta Power
Ltd. and Mis. 'JSW Steel Ltd.
c on equal share- basis.
2. Representative from the
West Bengal GoV!. suggested
that either the block be
allotted to WBMQTC Bengal
or else be left unallotted. The
committee felt that since
D WBMTDC Bengal had not
applied for the block. it would
not be possible to consider
them. Regarding non-
allotment, the matter may
be placed for consideration
of the Govt.
E
± lnter-se priority for allocation of a block among competing applicants for
a captive block may be decided as per the following guidelines.
Status (stage) level of progress and state of preparedness of the projects;
Networth of the applicant company (or in the case of a new JV, the networth
of their principals); Production capacity as proposed in the application;
F Date of commissioning of captive mine as proposed in·the application;
Date of completion of detailed exploration (in respect of unexplored blocks
only) as proposed in the application;
Technical experience (in terms of existing capacities in coal/lignite mining
and specified end use); Recommendation of the Administrative Ministry
concerned;
G
Recommendation of the State Government concerned (i.e. where the captive
block is located); Track record and financial strength of the company
Preference will be accorded to the power and the steel sectors. Within the
power sector also, priority shall be accorded to projects with more than
500 MW capacity. Similarly, in steel sector, priority shall be given to steel
plants with more than 1 million tonne per annum capacity.
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMAv. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 565
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
Government, Ministry of Power and CEA. Although the group A
company Mis. Vedanta Alumina Ltd. was recommended by
Ministry of Power and CEA, but it was not selected. Similarly,
for Mandakini block, Mis. Tata Power Company Ltd. had no
recommendation from the State Government and Ministry of
Power and CEA. For Rampia and Dip Side of Rampia, B
Reliance Energy Ltd. did not have any recommendation from
the State Government, Ministry of Power and CEA. For
Fatehpur East, the selected company Visa Power Ltd. had no
recommendation from Ministry of Power and CEA. For
Fatehpur block, Prakash Industries Ltd. had neither C
recommendation from the State Government nor from the
Ministry of Power and CEA. The Screening Committee, as a
matter of fact, did not select eight companies which were
recommended by the Ministry of Power but selected eleven
companies which were not recommended by Ministry of Power.
Though in additional counter affidavit, some justification in this D
regard has been sought to be made but we are afraid that the
said justification hardly merits acceptance as the minutes of the
35th meeting of the Screening Committee do not disclose
anything what is now stated in the additional counter affidavit.
The eight companies which were recommended by the Ministry E
of Power but not selected by the Screening Committee are (1)
Mis. Rashmi Cement Ltd.; (2) Mis. TRN Energy Pvt. Ltd.; (3)
Mis. Maithon Power Ltd.; (4) Mis. Mahavir Global Coal Ltd.; (5)
Mis. Rosa Power Supply Ltd.; (6) Mis. Bhushan Energy; (7) Ml
s. Lanco Amarkantak Power Ltd. and (8) Mis. Vedanta Alumina F
Ltd. The minutes do not disclose any reason at all for not
selecting these companies which were recommended by the
Ministry of Power. The eleven companies which were not
recommended by the Ministry of Power and selected by the
Screening Committee are (1) Mis. Tata Power Company Ltd.; G
(2) Mis. Reliance Energy Ltd.; (3) Mis. Balco; (4) Mis. SKS lspat
and Power Ltd.; (5) Mis. Prakash Industries Ltd.; (6) Mis. Green
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.; (7) Mis. Visa Power Ltd.; (8) Mis.
Vandana Vidyut Energy Ltd.; (9) Mis. GVK (Govindwal Sahib)
Ltd.; (10) Mis. Gagan Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd.; and (11) Mis. Lance H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A Group Ltd. The reasons for selecting above eleven companies
which were not recommended by the Ministry of Power are
neither disclosed nor discernible.

149. In the 36th meeHng, which was held on 07.12.2007-
08.12.2007, 07.02.2008-08.02.2008 and 03.07.2008, the
8 Screening Committee considered allocation of 23 coal blocks
earmarked for non-power sector. For these 23 coal blocks
earmarked for non-power sector, 674 applications were
submitted by 184 companies for allocation. Some companies
had applied for more than one block and some had submitted
C more than one application for single block for different end use
plants located at different locations. The geological reserve of
23 blocks;!!~ was noted by the Screening Committee. The
minutes of the 36th meeting show that the Committee decided
'to recommend blocks earmarked for pig iron (coking coal)
D jointly to two or more than two companies and nineteen blocks
earmarked for other end-uses/non-cooking coal were
recommended for allocation to single companies as well as
jointly to two or more companies. The minutes of 36th meeting
do not contain the particulars showing consideration of each
E application. There is no assessment of comparative merits of
the applicants who were selected for recommendation. The
minutes do not disclose how and in what manner the selected
companies meet the norms fixed for inter se priority. Many of
the selected companies were neither recommended by the
F State Government nor by the Administrative Ministry. Some of
them were recommended by the State Government but not
~ecommended by the Administrative Ministry while one of them
was not recommended by the State Government but

.G # Urtan Beharaband North Extn., Tandsi-111 & Tandsi-111 extn., Urtan North
(coking blocks), Macherkunds, Rajhara North (Central & Eastern) Moira
Madhujore (North & South), Datima, Bhaskarpara, Kudari, Bikram, Vijay
Central Rajgamar Dipside (South of Phulakdih Nata), Kesla North,
Gondkhari, Kappa & Extn. Dahegaon-Makardhokra-IV, Bander, Hurilong,
Hutar sector C, Rajgamar Dipside (Deavnara), Tehsgora-B/Rudrapuri and
Andal East (Non cooking blocks)
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 567
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
recommended by the Administrative Ministry. For Rajhara North A
' (Central & Eastern) coal block, Vini Iron & Steel Udyog Ltd. had
no recommendation by the State Government or by the
Administrative Ministry. Similarly, for Thesgora-8/Rudrapuri
1 coal block, Revati Cement P. Ltd. did not have recommendation

either from the State Government or from the Administrative 8
Ministry. As regards Tandsi-111 and Tandsi-111 (Extn.), Mideast
Integrated Steels Ltd. did not have recommendation from the
State Government. Similarly, as regards Thesgora-8/Rudrapuri,
Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Limited had no recommendation
from the State Government. As regards Moira Madhujore coal c
block, Ramswarup Lohh Udyog Ltd. had no recommendation
from the Administrative Ministry.

150. From the above discussion;-it is clear that 21 coal
blocks stood allocated to private companies in pursuance of
Screening Committee's recommendations during the period D
from the 1st meeting held on 14.07.1993 till the 21st meeting
held on 19.08.2003. For the period from 04.11.2003 (22nd
meeting) to 18.10.2005 (30th meeting) in pursuance of
Screening Committee's recommendations, 26 coal blocks
stood allocated to private companies. Following 32nd meeting E
held on 29.06.2006/30.06.2006 till the 34th meeting on
07.09.2006/08.09.2006, in pursuance of the recommendations
made by the Screening Committee, two coking coal blocks
were allocated to private companies and twelve non-coking
coal blocks were allocated to private companies. In pursuance F
of the recommendations made by the Screening Committee in
35th and 36th meetings, 33 coal blocks were allocated to private
companies. Some of the coal block allocations made to the
private companies have been de-allocated from time to time.
For consideration of legality and validity of allocations made G
to such companies, it is not necessary to deal with de-allocation
aspect. It needs no emphasis that assuming that the Central
Government had power of allocation of coal blocks yet such
power should have been exercised in a fair, transparent and
non-arbitrary manner. However, the allocation of coal blocks to H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A the private companies pursuant to the recommendations made
by the Screening Committee in 36 meetings suffers from
diverse infirmities and flaws which may be summarized as
follows:

1st Meeting to 21st Meeting
8
1. The guidelines framed and applied by the Screening
Committee for the period frorn 14.07.1993 (1st meeting) to
19.08.2003 (21st meeting) are conspicuously silent about inter
se priority between the applicants for the same block. As a
C matter of fact, for the 21 coal blocks allocated to private
companies in pursuance of Screen.ing Committee's
recommendation during the first period, inter se priority or merit
of the applicants for the same block had not at all been
· determined.
D
2. The guidelines do not contain any objective criterion for
determining the merits of the applicants. The guidelines do not
provide for measures to prevent any unfair distribution of coal
in the hands of few private companies. As a matter of fact, no
E consistent or uniform norms were applied by the Screening
Committee to ensure that there was no unfair distribution of
coal in the hands of the applicants.

3. The Screening Committee simply relied upon the
information supplied by the applicants without laying down any
F method to•verify applicant's experience in the end-use project
for which allocation of coal block was sought. The guidelines
also do not lay down any method to allot coal blocks as per
the end-use projects coal requirement.

G 4. The Screening Committee kept on varying the
guidelines from meeting to meeting. It failed to adhere to any
transparent system.

5. No applications were invited through advertisement and
thus the exercise of allocation denied level playing field, healthy
H competition and equitable treatment.
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 569
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
6. Certain coal blocks which did not fit into the criteria of A
captive blocks were decided to be allocated by applying
peculiar approach that the reserves could either be permitted
to be explored by a private party or lost forever. For example,
Brahmadiha block was allocated to Mis. Castron Technology
pursuant to the recommendations made by the Screening B
Committee in the 14th meeting.

7. If a certain party requested for a particular block, it was
so recommended without objectively considering the merit of
such request. For example, in the 14th meeting, the proposal
of M/s. Monnet lspat Ltd. for a new Sponge Iron pTant in c
Keonjhar area of Orissa of 1.2 million tonnes of capacity for
which the requirement of 2.2 m.t. of raw coal has been
indicated, was discussed. The party requested for Utkal-82
block in Talcher coalfield having 106 m.t. of reserves. CMD,
.MCL was of the view that Chendipada block is likely to rave D
better grade of coal and suggested to the party for preference
of Utkal B-2 block. However, the party insisted for Utkal B-2
bfock and the same was allotted. Similarly, as regards the
proposal of M/s. Jayaswal Neco Ltd. for their Sponge Iron Plant,
the party had earlier requested for Gare-Palma IV/6 and IV/7 E
blocks for meeting their requirement of 1 m.t. Sponge Iron Plant
and a captive power plant. Then they requested for allocation
of Gare-Palma IV/4 and IV/8 blocks. On the representation
made by the representative of the party that 125 m.t. of reserves
in Gare-Palma IV/4 block will be adequate for meeting the F
requirement of their Sponge Iron Plant for a period of 30 years
and 91 m.t. of reserves in Gare-Palma IV/8 block will be
adequate for 30 years life of the proposed CPP, the Screening
Committee recommended allocation of Gare-Palma IV/4 and
IV/8 blocks to M/s. Jayaswal Neco Ltd. The representation G
made by the party was accepted as it is without any veriftcation.

8. Certain blocks with coal reserves on the higher side .
were recommended to the companies with lower requirement.
There 'f'ere no steps or measures taken to prevent possible ·
H
57'0 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A misuse of end-use project of private companies. For example,
M/s. Prakash Industries Limited, being a BIFR company, was
denied coal block earlier. However, the Screening Committee
recommended Chotia I and II coal blocks to Mis. Prakash
Industries Limited in 2003 for its proposed expansion project
B of 0.4 MTPA Sponge Iron though the company was having
capacity of only 0.3 MTPA.

9. Some coal blocks which were already identified for
development by CIL were offered to the private companies and
some of the blocks which were close to the projects of CIL were,
C in fact, recommended for allocation and ultimately allocated.
This was clearly in breach of the guidelines for selection of
captive blocks.

22nd Meeting to 30th Meeting
D
10. With regard to allocation of coal blocks to private
companies pursuant to its 22nd meeting to 30th meeting held
between 04.11.2003 and 18.10.2005, the guidelines do not lay
down any criteria for evaluating the comparative merits of the
E applicants. The consideration had been ad-hoc in so much so
that in every meeting, the guidelines were altered.

11. In the 24th meeting held on 09.12.2004, the Screening
Committee altered the norms by shifting insistence on
achieving financial closure of the end-use projects to some
F appropriate stage after the mining plan approval. Except
mentioning the particulars of each applicants, the minutes do
not show that there was any application of mind by the
Screening Committee. How the guidelines are met by the
recommended companies has not been discussed. ,
G
12. In the 25th meeting held on 10.01.2005, the Screening
Committee considered allocation of 5 coal blocks in the MCL
area. The size of these blocks was large as compared to the
requirement of the applicants. The rules of game were changed
H to adjust large number of applicants whose applications would
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 571
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
have been otherwise rejected as their coal requirement was far A
less than the coal available in the coal blocks. However, in order
to accommodate these applicants, a novel idea of choosing a
leader company and associate companies was evolved though
such procedure is apparently in contravention of the statutory
provision contained in Section 3(3)(a)(iii) of the CMN Act. B

13. The merits of the companies, who were recommended
for selection and those companies whose applications were
rejected were not comparatively assessed.

14. While considering allocation for 5 blocks in SECL area C
in the 26th meeting, despite the revelation by the Ministry of
Steel that number of companies have in their presentations
mentioned the capacity of the end-use plants in excess of what
has been recommended by the Ministry and the concern .
expressed by the representative of the State Government that · D
the ground realities of the project needed to be verified and the
capacities of the end-use plants and coal requirements of such .
projects are required to be confirmed, the Screening
Committee proceeded to list out the possible leaders witho'Ul.
assessing the capacities of coal requirements of these E
companies.

15. The minutes of the 27th and 28th meetings also do not
show that the assessment of comparative merits of the
applicants was done. The Screening Committee continued with
F
consortium I leader and associate approach which, as noted
above, was in contravention of Section 3(3)(a)(iii) of the CMN
Act. Even in case of a certain company, where
recommendation of the Administrative Ministry was contrary to
the recommendation of the State Government, yet the
rec~mmendation was made by the Screening Committee that G
led to allocation on the basis of State Government's
recommendation. The Screening Committee even decided to
club the blocks and recommended allotment of such combined
block to two companies jointly.
H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A 16. The consideration has been absolutely ad-hoc and
without even knowing how much surplus will remain, the
company so chosen was asked to select another allottee for
surplus, if any. This is seen from the minutes of the 30th meeting.
In the 30th' meeting, the Screening Committee also
B recommended allocation of Dumri coal block although north
portion of that blocl< remained unexplored and the unexplored
portion had superior grade of coal.

17. The policy of pick and choose was adopted. The
C application of norms was changed from meeting to meeting
with no uniform or consistent consideration.

18. Certain companies which did not come for
presentation were also considered but how and in what manner
the applications of those companies were considered is not
D discernible. Why the chosen companies have been preferred
over the others is also not discernible.

32nd Meeting to 36th Meeting

19. The minutes of the 32nd meeting do not show the
E reasons for recommending three blocks jointly in favour of more
than one company.

20. Some of the companies which had no recommendation
by the State Government were recommended by the Screening
F Committee. The minutes of the 33rd and 34th meeting do not
show in what manner the merits of the companies which were
chosen for recommendation were determined. The minutes of
the 33rd and 34th meeting even do not note the particulars of
the applicants individually. The criterion which the Screening
G Committee applied in the selection of 15 companies and the
reasons for allocating 12 blocks to these companies are not
discernible.

21. A certain company which has no recommendation/
categorisation was also recommended for allocation and
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 573
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
ultimately allocation was made. The recommendation to allocate A
15 blocks reserved for power sector by the Screening
Committee in its 35th meeting does not contain the particulars
showing consideration of each ap·plication. Though, at that time,
the guidelines provided for norms for consideration of inter se
priority for allocation of a block among competing applicants B
for a captive block, but the minutes do not at all disclose how
the norms for inter se priority are met by the company selected
for recommendation by the Screening Committee.1Many of the
companies selected by the Screening Committee had no
recommendation from the State Government or from the Ministry c
of Power and CEA and some of them had no recommendation
from the State Government, Ministry of Power and CEA at all.
As many as eight companies which were recommended by the
Ministry of Power were not recommended by the Screening
Committee while eleven companies which were not
0
recommended by the Ministry of Power were recommended by
the Screening Committee.

22. The minutes of the 36th meeting do not contain the
particulars showing consideration of each application for
allocation of 23 coal blocks earmarked for non-power sector. E
There is nothing in the minutes to indicate how and in what
manner the selected companies meet the norms fixed for inter
se priority. Many of the selected companies were neither
recommended by the State Government nor by the
Administrative Ministry. Some of them were recommended by F
the State Government but not recommended by the
Administrative Ministry while one of them was not
recommended by the State Government but recommended by
the Administrative Ministry. Many companies which had failed
to secure allocations earlier yet they were recommended. The G
Screening Committee failed to consider capability and capacity
of the applicant in implementing the projects.

151. The entire exercise of allocation through Screening
Committee route thus appears to suffer from the vice of
H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A arbitrariness and not following any objective criteria in
determining as to who is to be selected or who is not to be .
selected. There is no evaluation of merit and no inter se
comparison of the applicants. No chart of evaluation was I
prepared. The determination of the Screening Committee is
B apparently subjective as the minutes of the Screening
Committee meetings do not show that selection was made after
proper assessment. The project preparedness, track record
etc., of the applicant company were not objectively kept in view.
Until the amendment was brought in Section 3(3) of the CMN
c Act w.e.f. 09.06.1993, the Central Government alone was
permitted to mine coal through its companies with the limited
exception of private companies engaged in the production of
iron and steel. By virtue of the bar contained in Section 3(3) of
the CMN Act, between 1976 and 1993, no private company
(other than the company engaged in the production of iron and
0
steel) could have carried out coal mining operations in India.
Section 3(3) of the CMN Act, which was amended on.
09.06.1993 permitted private sector entry in coal mining
operations for captive use. The power for grant of captive coal
E block is governed by Section 3(3)(a) of the CMN Act, according
to which, only two kind of entities, namely, (a) Central
Government or undertakings/corporations owned by the Central
Government; or (b) companies having end-use plants in iron and
steel, l?ower, washing of coal or cement can carry out coal
mining operations. The expression "engaged in" in Section
·F 3(3)(a)(iii) means that the company that was applying for the
COC!I block must have set up an iron and steel plant, power plant
or cement plant and be engaged in the production of steel,
power or cement. The prospective engagement by a private
company in the production of steel, power or cement would not
G entitle such private company to carry out coal mining operation.
Most of the companies, which have been allocated coal blocks,
were not engaged in the production of steel, power or cement
at the time of allocation nor in the applications made by them
any disclosure was made whether or not the power, steel or
H cement plant was operational. They only stated that they
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 575
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
~proposed to set up such plants. Thus, the requirement of end- . A
use project was not met at the time of allocation.

152. It is pertinent to note here the stand of Maharashtra.
According to Maharashtra, the allocation of coal blocks by the
Screening Committee meant that the benefits. of the differential
8
in price of coal, as the case may be, would accrue to the allottee
of the coal block. The differential in price would not necessarily
be passed to the public as the price of the final product of the
company is determined by import parity price in case of steel
companies, competitive market price in case of cement C
companies (many may not have access to captive coal) and
the price of power on an exchange or in bids by State utilities
irrespective of source of fuel. No material has been placed by
the Central Government which may rebut the Maharashtra's
stand.
D
153. The challenge has also been laid to the legality of the
allocations made to the State/State PSUs through the
Screening Committee route as well as Government
dispensation route. It is not in dispute that the Screening
Committee has recommended allocation of coal blocks to 29 E
State Government PSUs while through Government
dispensation route allocation has been recommended for 72
PSUs. The question that requires consideration is whether
commercial mining operation can be carried on by the State
or State PSUs. The answer has to be found out from the F
statutory provisions. By virtue of Section 3 of the CMN Act, as
was originally enacted, on and from the appointed day, the right,
title and interest of the owners in relation to the coal mines
specified in the Schedule stood transferred to and vested
absolutely il"l_ the Central Government free from all G
encumbrances. This provision further provides that if after the
appointed day, the existence of any other coal mine comes to
the knowledge of the Central Government, the provisions of the
Coal Mines Management Act shall apply until that mine is
nationalized by an appropriate legislation. Section 3 of the CMN
H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A Act was amended by the 1976 Nationalisation Amendment Act
whereby sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 3 were inserted.
Along with this, Section 1A was also inserted in the CMN Act.
By sub-section (3) of Section 3, it is provided that on and from
the commencement of amendment in Section 3, no person
B other than the Central Government or a Government company
or a corporation owned .. managed or controlled by the Central
Government or a person to whom the sub-lease has been
granted by any such Government, Government company or
corporation or a company engaged in the production of iron and
C steel shall carry on coal mining operation in any form. Clause
(b) of sub-section (3) also provides for termination of all mining.
leases and sub-leases for winning or mining of coal except the
mining leases granted before such commencement in favour
of the Government, Government company or corporation and
any sub-lease granted by any such Government, Government
company or corporation. Clause (c) of sub-section (3) of
Section 3 prohibits grant of lease for winning or mining coal in
favour of any person other than the Government, Government
company or corporation referred to in clause (a) thereof •. But
this prohibition is subject to only one exception inasmuch· as
E the Government, company or corporation owned, managed or
controlled by the Central Government may grant a sub-lease
to any person in any area on such terms and conditions as may
be specified in the instrument granting sub-lease provided the
reserves of coal in the area are in isolated small pockets or
F are not sufficient for scientific and economical development in
a coordinated and integrated manner and the coal produced
by the sub-lessee will not be required to be transported by rail.
Section 3(3)(a)(i) thus provides that only Central Government
or a Government company (Central PSU or a corporation
G owned or managed by the Central Government) can carry on
mining operations in India in any form. In other words,
commercial mining cannot be carried on by the State
. Government or the State PSU. The expression '"Government
company or a corporation owned, managed or controlled by the
H Central Government" means Government of India Pttblic
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 577
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
Undertaking. It does not include State Government Public A
Sector Undertaking. This is fortified by Section 3(4), Section 4
and Sections 5, 6 and 7. The mining leases and sub-leases
which were terminated under Section 3(3)(b) were available only
to the Central Government or for that matter, the Government
company or a corporation owned, managed and controlled by B
the Central Government. The State Government or State Public
Sector Undertakings became entitled to obtain sub-lease of
reserves of coal in isolated small pockets under clauses (i) and
(ii) of proviso to Section 3(3)(c). It is pertinent to notice here
that Circular dated 30.07.1979 records the correct position of C
legislative policy articulated in the CMN Act under which only
the Central Government Public Undertakings have been
permitted to carry on coal mining operations in the country. After
the amendment was carried out in the CMN Act, the circular
states that while continuing the existing policy of the Central
Government carrying out coal mining operations by its own
0
undertakings, the State Governments might also be allowed to
carry out coal mining operations in isolated small pockets
subject to the conditions set out therein. The "isolated small
pockets" are those which are away from the main coalfields and
have limited known reserves which are not sufficient for E
scientific and economic development in a coordinated and
integrated manner and the coal produced from. such areas
would mainly be utilized for local consumption without
transportation by railways. However, almost after 22 years, vide
Circular dated 12.12.2001, the Central Government, reviewing F
its earlier policy, allowed the State Government companies or
undertakings to do mining of coking and non-coking coal or
lignite reserves either by opencast or underground method,
anywhere in the country, subject to the conditions set out therein.
Under the revised policy, the State Government company/ G
undertaking was permitted to mine non-coking coal and coking
coal reserves or lignite by opencast/underground method
without the restriction of "isolated small pockets". Having
carefully examined the Circular dated 12.12.2001, in light of the
provisions of the CMN Act, as amended in 1976, it appears to H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A us that the circular is not in conformity with the provisions of the
CMN Act and, consequently, has no legal sanction·. CMN Act
and further amendments therein carried out in 1976 do not allow
State Government or State PSUs to mine coal for commercial
use. The problem seems to have arisen because of the 2001
B circular which permits the State Government companies or
undertakings to do mining of coking and non-coking coal
reserves but, as noted above, the legislative policy in the CMN
Act does not permit that. The recommendation for allocation
by the Screening Committee to the State PSUs and also the
C allocation made to the State PSUs through Government
dispensation route are, therefore, in violation of the provisions
of the CMN Act, as amended from. time to time.. Moreover, the
State PSUs, besides having been allocated coal mines for
commercial purpose, have also been allowed to form joint
D venture companies, i.e., 51 % shareholding of State PSUs and
49% of private company. However, in the joint venture
agreements between th_e State PSUs and the private
companies, mining operations have been given to private
company. For example, the notice inviting offer dated·
02.07.2008 issued by Chhattisgarh Mineral Development
E Corporation (CMDC) for selection of partner for formation of a
joint venture company for exploration, development, mining and
marketing of coal from coal blocks provided that the Joint
Venture Company (JVC) to be formed by CMDC and the
selected offerers I bidder will explore, develop and operate
F such coal deposits and the' coal produced by JVC will be sold
commercially to various consumers in the open market. CMDC
was allocated Sondiha coal block and coal blocks Bhatgaon-
11 and Bhatgaon-11 (Extension). Similarly, the Joint Venture
Agreement between the Madhya Pradesh State_ Mining
G Corporation Limited and Monnet lspat and Energy Limited
reveals that Joint Venture Company has been further allowed
to enter into Mine Development Operation Agreements with
other private partner or sister concern. This modus operandi
has virtually defeated the legislative policy in the CMN Act and
H winning and mining of coal mines has resultantly gone in the
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAk·SECRETARY 579
[R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
hands of private companies for commercial use. As indicated A
above, by 1976 amendment in the CMN Act, other than the
Central Government or Central Government undertakings, a
company engaged in the production of iron and steel was
permitted to carry on coal mining operations in any form. By
subsequent amendments in Section 3 of the CMN Act, besides B
a company engaged in the production of iron and steel, a
company engaged in generation of power or a company
' engaged in washing of coal obtained from a mine or such other
end-use, as the Central Government may by notification specify,
no other company can "carry on mining operation in coal". c
Allocation of coal blocks to the State PSUs which ultimately on
getting mining leases may enable them to win or mine coal
commercially is clearly in breach ofthe provisions of the CMN
Act.

154. To'sum up, the entire allocation of coal block as per D
recommendations made by the Screening Committee from
14.07.1993 in 36 meetings and the allocation through the
Government dispensation route suffers from the vice of
arbitrariness and legal flaws. The Screening Committee has
never been consistent, it has not been transparent, there Is no E
proper application of mind, it has acted on no material in many
cases, relevant factors have seldom been its guiding factors,
there was no transparency and guidelines have seldom guided
it. On many occasions, guidelines have been honoured more
in their breach. There was no objective criteria, nay, no criteria F
for evaluation of comparative merits. The approach had been
ad-hoc and casual. There was no fair and transparent
procedure, all resulting in unfair distribution of the national
wealth. Common good and public interest have, thus, suffered
heavily. Hence, the allocation of coal blocks based on the G
recommendations made in all the 36 meetings of the Screening
Committee is illegal.

155. The allocation of coal blocks through Government
dispensation route, however laudable the object may be, also
H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A is illegal since it is impermissible as per the· scheme of the
CMN Act. No State Government or public sector undertakings
of the State Governments are eligible for mining coal for
commercial use. Since allocation of coal is permissible only to
those categories under Section 3(3) and (4), the joint venture
B arrangement with ineligible firms is also impermissible. Equally,
there is also no question of any consortium / leader I association
in allocation. Only an un·dertaking satisfying the ·eligibility criteria
referred to in Section 3(3) of the CMN Act, viz., which has a
unit engaged in the production of iron and steel and generation
c of power, washing of coal obtained from mine or production of
cement, is entitled to the allocation in addition. to Central
Government, a Central Government company or a Central
Government corporation.

156. In this context, it is worthwhile to note that the 1957
D Act has been amended introducing Section 11-A .w.e.f.
13.02.2012. As per the said amendment, the grant of
reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining lease
in respect of an area containing coal or lignite can be made
only through selection through auction by competitive bidding
E even among the eligible entities under Section 3(3)(a)(iii),
referred to above. However, Government companies,
Government corporations or compa11ies or corporations, which
have been awarded power projects on the basis of competitive
bids for tariff (including Ultra Mega Power Projects) have been
F exempted of allocation in fa1t0ur of them is not meant to be
through the competitive bidding process.

157. As we have already found that the allocations made,
both under the Screening Committee route and th~ Government
G dispensation route, are arbitrary and illegal, what should be the
consequences, is the issue which remains to be tackled. We
are of the view that, to this limited extent, the matter requires
further hearing,

158. By way of footnote, it may be clarified and we do, that
H no challenge was laid before us in respect of blocks where
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 581
[RM. LODHA, CJI.]
competitive bidding was held for the lowest tariff for power for A
Ultra Mega Power Projects (UMPPs). As a matter of fact, Mr.
Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for Common Cause
submitted that since allocation for UMPPs is in accord with the
opinion given in Natural Resources Allocation Reference20
and the benefit of the coal block is passed on to the public, the B
said allocations may not be cancelled. However, he submitted
that in some cases the Government has allowed diversion of
coal from UMPP to other end uses i.e. for commercial
exploitation. Having regard to this, it is directed that the coal
block~ allocated for UMPP would only be used for UMPP and c
no diversion of coal for commercial exploitation would be
permitted.
Rajendra Prasad Matter pending.