Skip to main content

Investment can’t legalize mine allocation: Supreme Court

In a significant observation in the coal scam case, the Supreme Court made it plain that huge investments adding up to Rs 2 lakh crore could not be invoked as a ground for regularizing coal mines allotted in violation of norms.

The comment from a bench of Justice RM Lodha, Justice Madan B lokur and Kurian Joseph came after it noticed that project proponents in many pre-2006 coal block allocations had begun investing in plants anticipating grant of licences by states on the basis of an allocation letter from the Centre.

The government will note the remarks carefully as it hopes the court does not cancel allocations on a large scale, concerned as it is about the fallout on a power sector facing fuel shortages and price escalation and a further fallout on a slowing economy.

The bench found the action of project promoters to be incompatible with the laid down procedure — an allottee had to first secure a mining plan, followed by forest clearance (if block falls in forest land) and an environmental clearance before starting construction.

"They (companies) must suffer consequences no matter how much investment has been made by them. The alleged illegality cannot be compounded," the court said.

The court asked Attorney General G E Vahanvati if the Centre intended to de-allocate coal blocks in such circumstances. Vahanvati said the situation has to be reviewed on a case to case basis. However, he indicated some practical difficulties in de-allocation as project proponents have invested close to Rs 2 lakh crore in setting up of power or sponge iron plants.

"All such investments would go in drain and it cannot be a defence and no law would help them," said the bench. It was of the view that any company who invested did so at their own risk as their rights were yet to mature.

States jumped in to the defence of the allottees as about 29 such projects, many of which were joint venture partnerships with the state government PSUs were at stake. Madhya Pradesh, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi told the Court that once a person has been earmarked coal block by the Centre, the process of allocation mechanically followed.

As the environmental and forest clearances usually take four to five years, Rohatgi argued the balance of convenience lay in starting the process for setting up the plant while completing the formalities.

"There are cases where a man is stuck to get forest clearance which takes five years...Ideally, he would like to wait, but in doing so he will lose his allocation. If not, he loses on his investment," Rohatgi argued, presenting the catch 22 situation facing coal block beneficiaries.

Allocation could be cancelled on ground of unsatisfactory progress or breach of conditions attached with letter of allocation, the state said. The bench dismissed the argument as "matters of commerce" and said the allottee was taking a risk. Giving an example, the bench explained, "If area is in forest land, activity is forbidden. Obviously then it (work undertaken) leads to nothing."

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Investment-cant-legalize-mine-allocation-Supreme-Court/articleshow/28571340.cms

Comment:
This is an important judgment also in the sense that it raise precedence in matters where anything illegally procured/provided would not be justified through subsequent actions particularly in commercials ventures, even if such action is beneficial. In other words, if the beginning is wrong, it remains wrong.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...