LAWS(DLH)-2012-11-349

LLOYDS STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. UOI & ORS.

Decided On November 06, 2012
LLOYDS STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. Appellant
V/S
Uoi And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present writ petition, the petitioner impugns the recommendation of the Screening committee appointed by the Respondent No. 1/Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Coal, dated 03.07.2008. The said recommendation provided for the allocation of coal block to various parties, viz. M/s Ispat Industries Ltd.(Ispat)/respondent no. 5, M/s ESSAR Steel Ltd.(Essar)/respondent no. 6, M/s Mukund Ltd. (Mukund)/respondent no. 7, M/s IND Synergy Ltd.(IND Synergy)/respondent no. 8, M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. (Prakash), M/s MESCO Steel Ltd. (Mesco), M/s Jindal Steel Ltd. (Jindal), M/s Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. (Bhushan) and M/s Monnet Ispat Ltd (Monnet). The Petitioner herein also challenges the consequential order of Central Government dated 07.10.2008, making the allotment partly at variance with the recommendation of the Screening Committee including to M/s Kalyani Steels Ltd. (Kalyani)/respondent No. 9. The Petitioner also prays for a direction to the Respondents not to take any action pursuant to the impugned recommendation of the Screening Committee and the allocation letter issued by Coal Ministry/Respondent no. 1 herein.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 (Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal) had advertised for the allocation of 38 coal blocks on 06.11.2006 to the companies engaged in the generation of power, production of iron, steel or cement. A Screening Committee was also appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers to scrutinize the applications for allocation of coal blocks. The Screening Committee prescribed a ceiling on projected capacity at 2 Million Tones Per Annum (MTPA). The Screening Committee formulated a set of guidelines and rules for the allocation of coal blocks. The said guidelines provided the basis on which priority was to be accorded for allocation of coal blocks. The guidelines formulated were as follows:

(3.) THE petitioner challenges the aforesaid allocation on a number of grounds, which are as follows: