- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Two petitions—Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 120 of 2012 filed by Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of 2012 filed by Common Cause and others—challenge the process by which the Union of India allocated certain coal blocks. During the hearing, the Attorney General submitted that an allocation letter is merely an initial step that does not itself confer any mining rights, which remain subject to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act). In view of this submission, the Court explored whether State Governments in whose territories the coal blocks lie should be heard. The petitioners raised no objection, and the Court decided to seek affidavits from seven States (Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal) before proceeding further.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a Central Government “allocation letter” for a coal block, standing alone, creates any enforceable right to mine under the MMDR Act.
- The extent of each concerned State Government’s role and understanding in the allocation process and subsequent steps taken under the MMDR Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Union of India (through the Attorney General)
- An allocation letter is merely a preliminary or “letter of intent” that does not, by itself, authorize mining.
- Issuance of such a letter does not curtail or replace the statutory powers of State Governments under the MMDR Act.
Petitioners
- The petitioners expressed no objection to issuing notice to the concerned State Governments so that their positions could be placed before the Court.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reasoned that, because the coal blocks in question are physically situated within seven different States, it is vital to ascertain each State Government’s stance on the allocation process and their subsequent actions under the MMDR Act. Accepting the Attorney General’s contention that allocation letters alone do not vest mining rights, the Court deemed it procedurally necessary and fair to invite the States’ explanations. Accordingly, specific questions were framed for the States to answer via affidavits sworn by senior officials. The Court also coordinated service of all pleadings and counter-affidavits to ensure that the States could file complete responses before the next hearing date.
Holding and Implications
ORDER: NOTICE ISSUED. The Court directed that:
- Notices be served “dasti” on the seven identified States.
- Each State file an affidavit, sworn by an officer not below the rank of Secretary, addressing the Court’s four enumerated questions and responding to both writ petitions.
- Petitioners and the Union of India supply all relevant pleadings and counter-affidavits to the States within five days.
- All matters, including related petitions and a criminal miscellaneous petition, be listed on 29-10-2013 at 2 p.m.
Implications: The order does not adjudicate the merits of coal block allocations; it expands participation to key State stakeholders and sets a procedural timetable. No new legal precedent is created at this stage, but the forthcoming State affidavits are expected to inform the Court’s eventual merits determination.
Order
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 120 of 2012 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of 2012
1. In the course of hearing, Mr Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, argued that the allocation letter was only a first step towards obtaining mining lease and that, by itself, does not confer any right on the allottee to work mines. According to him, at the highest, allocation letter is a letter of intent and issuance of such allocation letter in no way impinges the rights of the State Governments under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
2. In light of the above position, we wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioners whether they have any objection if the State Governments concerned are issued notice to enable them to explain their position in the matter to which Mr Manohar Lal Sharma and Mr Prashant Bhushan responded that they have no objection to this course.
3. In our view also, it is necessary to have the views of the States of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal as the subject coal blocks for which the allocations have been made by the Union of India are located in these States. Besides their response to the two writ petitions, one filed by Mr Manohar Lal Sharma [being Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 120 of 2012] and the other by Common Cause and others [being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of 2012], these States need to explain their position on the following questions:
(i) How did the State Government understand the allocation of coal blocks by the Central Government?
(ii) What was the role of the State Government in the allocation of coal blocks?
(iii) What was the role of the State Government in the subsequent steps having regard to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957?
(iv) The details of the agreements entered into by the State public sector undertakings which were allotted coal blocks, with private parties in the coal blocks located in the State.
4. Each of the above States shall respond to the two writ petitions and explain the position on the questions noted above by way of an affidavit sworn in by an officer not below the rank of Secretary to the Government. We, accordingly, direct that notice be issued dasti to the following States:
(1) Jharkhand
(2) Chhattisgarh
(3) Odisha
(4) Maharashtra
(5) Andhra Pradesh
(6) Madhya Pradesh, and
(7) West Bengal.
5. The notice to the above seven States shall be served through their Standing Counsel in the Supreme Court.
6. The Advocates-on-Record representing the petitioners in the writ petitions shall serve upon the Standing Counsel of the State concerned, a copy of the respective writ petition along with documents annexed therewith within five days from today. The Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of 2012 is also permitted to annex with the copy of the writ petition, a copy of the written submissions dated 12-9-2013 titled “Issue of constitutional validity of the allocations”.
7. The Advocate-on-Record for the Union of India is also directed to supply suitable number of copies of the counter-affidavits (counter-affidavit, additional counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit) filed on behalf of the Union of India to the Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of 2012 within five days from today so that the counter-affidavits may also be served upon the Standing Counsel of the State concerned along with copy of the writ petition(s).
8. Notice is made returnable on 29-10-2013. The Standing Counsel of each of the above States shall ensure that written response by way of affidavit as indicated above is filed on or before the returnable date.
9. List on 29-10-2013 at 2 p.m as already fixed.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4731 of 2013 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 120 of 2012
10. Issue notice on the criminal miscellaneous petition to the Union of India and so also to the newly added seven States returnable on 29-10-2013.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 515 of 2012 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 283 of 2013
11. List these writ petitions along with Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 120 of 2012 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of 2012 on 29-10-2013.
Court Masters
Alert