MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, carrying out mining of coal in different areas of State of Odisha, namely Bharatpur Area, Talcher Area, Jagannath Area, Lakhanpur Area and Ib Valley Area, etc., laid challenge to Order dtd. 15/11/2017 passed by the Collector, Jharsuguda, in Misc. Case No.07/2017 (under Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006), wherein the opposite party No.5-Jigyansu Sekhar Barik, second son of Tobraj Barik of Ubuda in the district of Jharsuguda, being nominated in preference to Ghanashyam Barik elder son of Tobraj Barik, is directed to be considered by the petitioner-Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. for employment under the Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006.

(2.) In this Judgment unless otherwise mentioned, the reference of parties are in accordance with their respective positions as found mentioned in W.P.(C) No.8891 of 2018 filed by Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.

(3.) Facts as adumbrated by the petitioner-Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. ('MCL', referred to for short) in W.P.(C) No.8891 of 2018 reveals that Sadhu Charan Barik having share of 21.76 Ac. land out of total 43.52 Ac. in Khata No.73 stood in the name of recorded tenant, namely Minaketan Barik, his son Prafulla Barik was found eligible for employment whereas his other two sons, namely Tobraj Barik and Akshyaya Barik were not found eligible for such benefit as they were minors on the cut-off date, i.e., the date of publication of preliminary Notification dtd. 16/1/1982 (vide Gazette of India No.3, dtd. 16/1/1982) issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (referred to as 'CBA Act' for brevity) during the first and second phase of assessment. However, in the third phase of acquisition process, though the opposite party No.3-Tobraj Barik, ('Tobraj', for short) having attained majority, was found eligible, he nominated one of his sons, namely Ghanashyam Barik-opposite party No.4 (referred to as 'Ghanashyam') for employment. It is the case of the petitioner-MCL that pursuant to direction of this Court vide Order dtd. 1/6/2017 in W.P.(C) No.10334 of 2017 (filed at the behest of Ghanashyam), in consideration of representation, notices dtd. 12/6/2017 and 18/6/2017 were issued for medical examination, to which Ghanashyam did not respond, yet in his place further nomination of his brother, namely Jigyansu Sekhar Barik-opposite party No.5 (for convenience referred to as 'Jigyansu') is made for employment, as he is one of the members of the 'displaced family' on account of acquisition of land. The petitioner urges that since Jigyansu was a minor on the cut-off date, such nomination is not acceptable. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the following direction of the opposite party No.2-Collector, Jharsuguda in Misc. Case No.07/2017 vide Order dtd. 15/11/2017 (Annexure-7), approached this Court invoking Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India: