{"id":254573,"date":"2021-09-22T17:00:16","date_gmt":"2021-09-22T11:30:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=254573"},"modified":"2021-09-23T16:48:59","modified_gmt":"2021-09-23T11:18:59","slug":"scope-of-the-court-to-enquire-in-decision-of-an-executive","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/22\/scope-of-the-court-to-enquire-in-decision-of-an-executive\/","title":{"rendered":"Scope of the Court to enquire in decision of an Executive: Whether Court is concerned with decision-making process or ultimate decision? Supreme Court throws light"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: <\/strong>While elaborating the scope of judicial review, Bench of L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIt is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or a particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Crux of the Matter<\/span><\/h3>\n

Question relating to interpretation of Section 11 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 which was an outcome of the judgment of this Court\u2019s decision in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, <\/em>(2014) 9 SCC 516<\/a>, and ancillary question pertaining to the scope of judicial review of administrative action of the State authority arose for consideration in the instant appeals.<\/p>\n

What are the present appeals challenging?<\/span><\/h4>\n

Present appeal challenged the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court thereby allowing petitions filed by respondent \u2013 EMTA Coal Limited and holding that respondent herein will have the first right of refusal in the matter of lending of Mining Lease.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/span><\/h3>\n

Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) now known as Punjab State Power Corporation Limited was proposed to be allotted Captive Coal Mines by the Union of India.<\/p>\n

Bids were invited for the purpose of development of Captive Coal Mines and in the said bid, the respondent emerged successful. This resulted in an agreement, thereby creating a Joint Venture Company called Panem Coal Mines Limited.<\/p>\n

Further, the said agreement provided the rights for mining of coal from the Coal Mines, transporting and delivery of it, wholly and exclusively to PSEB. Since EMTA being a partnership firm could not have been a shareholder of the Joint Venture Company, a follow up Joint Venture Agreement was entered between PSEB, EMTA and three partners of EMTA, incorporating the same terms and conditions as were found in the earlier agreement.<\/p>\n

Later, Union of India allotted a Pachhwara Coal Block in the State of Jharkhand to PSEB.<\/p>\n

In August, 2006 a coal purchase agreement was executed between Panem and PSEB, for the purpose of supply and delivery of the coal to power station of PSEB from Pachhwara Coal Block.<\/p>\n

In 2007, Mining Lease was issued by the Jharkhand Government in favour of Panem, for mining coal even from the forest areas of the Coal Block.<\/p>\n

When did the problem occur?<\/span><\/h4>\n

Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, <\/em>(2014) 9 SCC 516<\/a>, Supreme Court held that the entire allocation of Coal Blocks made between 1993 and 2011, except those which were made through competitive bidding, were invalid, unfair arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n

Further orders passed in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 9 SCC 614<\/a>, this Court quashed all Coal Block allocations made by the Central Government between 1993 and 2011.<\/p>\n

Court also accepted the submission of the Attorney General that the allottees of the Coal Blocks other than those covered by the judgment and the four Coal Blocks covered by the subsequent order, must pay an amount of Rs 295\/\u00ad per metric ton of coal extracted as an additional levy.<\/p>\n

Further, Centre vide allotment order again allocated Pachhwara Captive Coal Block in favour of PSPCL.<\/p>\n

On facing acute shortage of coal for paddy season, PSPCL entered into a transitory agreement and with EMTA later published Notice inviting Global Tender, inviting bids for the appointment of Mine Developer-cum-Operator, for supply of coal.<\/p>\n

EMTA in view of the above facts, filed a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the said NIT.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h3>\n

Firstly, the Court referred to Section 11 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015.<\/p>\n

\u201c11. Discharge or adoption of third party contracts with prior allottees.\u2014<\/em><\/p>\n