(1.) Two writ petitions filed by the appellant, i.e. OWP No. 1452/2010 and OWP No. 1552/2010, were dismissed by the learned Writ Court vide a common judgment dtd. 13/4/2022. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant has preferred two separate intra-court appeals, being LPA No. 60/2022 and LPA No. 61/2022, assailing the said common judgment dtd. 13/4/2022. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and involve identical questions of fact and law, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) It is contended by the appellant that the learned Writ Court has not appreciated the controversy in its right perspective and dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not lifted the Coal Mill Reject (CMR) with stones within the stipulated period, whereas Coal Mill Reject constitutes a distinct and separate material. It is further contended that the learned Writ Court has not appreciated the fact that despite repeated requests made by the appellant to NTPC for extension of time for lifting the stock and for allotment of alternative land for shifting the material in terms of NTPC's own rehabilitation policy, no due consideration was accorded to such requests. According to the appellant, the learned Writ Court, has wrongly concluded that the rehabilitation policy was inapplicable to the appellant and was meant only for project-affected people.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.