BRAHMI IMPEX LTD. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the facts of the case the petitioner preferred this writ petition in the year 2007 and at the time when coal blocks were not allotted to the contesting respondent/private party. During the pendency of the writ petition, the recommendation in favour of the petitioner for allotment of two coal blocks or may be one coal block consisting of two areas namely Hutar-Hurilong was made. The petitioner then challenged the recommendation of the State Government for allotment of the above blocks of Hutar-Hurilong by moving Interlocutory Application. During the pendency of the writ petition, the recommendation was revised by the State Government and petitioner submitted yet another Interlocutory Application to challenge the revised order of recommendation. Then, during the pendency of the writ petition, the revised recommendation in favour of the respondent/contesting private party was accepted by the Central Government and according to learned counsel for the respondent/private party, the coal block Hutar-Hurilong has been allotted to the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner's contention originally was that his case was not considered by the State Government and the State's contention in reply, obviously in writing, was that petitioner's case was not considered because he tried to pressurize clerks and officers of the Department of the Government in a matter where the petitioner was aspirant for the allotment of some iron ore mine.

(3.) The learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner was not eligible because of the reason that he had no existing industrial unit of steel and he is only prospective industrialist for the steel plant, therefore, petitioner was not eligible and, therefore, cannot question the allotment of coal block to the respondent. Even after holding as mentioned above, the learned Single Judge also held that respondent/private party was eligible for allotment of the coal block.