HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Taking exception to the order passed by the learned District Judge acting as a Tribunal constituted under Sec. 27(2) of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 (for short, 'the Act of 2015'), this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein stating that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to facts and law available on record and therefore it is liable to be set aside.

(2.) Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the learned Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner, as pursuant to the order of the Delhi High Court, the petitioner has well in time approached the Tribunal constituted under Sec. 27(2) of the Act of 2015 for adjudication and it was required to be decided within 90 days in view of the provision contained in Sec. 27(3) of the Act of 2015 and meanwhile, the petitioner got the bank guarantee renewed from time to time and it was extended till 22nd of March, 2019 and the petitioner has incurred more than Rs. 44 lakhs and still, the reference petition has not been decided by the learned Tribunal, as the respondents are not co-operating and despite granting of several opportunities to them, they thought it expedient not to file return and again insisting for extension of bank guarantee which will again incur a cost of approximately Rs. 18 lakhs per quarter and which is unsustainable in law. He would further submit that in the meanwhile, the respondents are insisting for renewal as per the terms of the Coal Mines Development and Production Agreement (for short, 'CMDPA') and they are likely to cancel the lease, as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set-aside.

(3.) Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 / Union of India, on advance copy, would submit that though Union of India did not file return, but a reasonable time be granted to file return, they will quickly respond to the original reference petition and come back with their response before the Tribunal, as such, the petitioner is required to keep the bank guarantee alive as per law and in case of cancellation, if any, for fresh cause of action, he is required to invoke the remedy available under the law.