Legal jam dampens coal block allocations

Despite a speedy allocation of coal blocks through e-auction, a legal jam seems to have delayed decisions on 20-odd ones, with the Delhi High Court having reserved judgment in as many as 25 cases. And, orders in 17 of these have been awaited for over a year. A Supreme Court guideline requires courts to deliver judgments within six months of conclusion of the hearings.

Despite a speedy allocation of coal blocks through e-auction, a legal jam seems to have delayed decisions on 20-odd ones, with the high court here having reserved judgment in as many as 25 cases. And, orders in 17 of these have been awaited for more than a year.

A Supreme Court (SC) guideline requires courts to deliver judgments within six months of conclusion of hearings. A person close to the development said at the expiry of every six months, sometimes the cases are scheduled again for a day, to comply with the guideline. “The government through its attorney general can seek an early order,” said the person, who did not want to be named.

The HC had reserved orders for 17 cases in April 2015, three in September 2015 and another three in March 2016. In a case involving Electrosteel Castings, the order was reserved on August 6, 2015.

The company has challenged the government-set compensation for mining infrastructure set up by it for the Parbatpur Central mine. Under Section 16 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act of 2015, prior allottees whose allocation was cancelled by the Supreme Court in September 2014 are entitled to such compensation, to be calculated in a particular way.

An order in a case involving Bharat Aluminium was reserved this May. The | | HC had reserved orders for 17 cases in April 2015, three in September 2015 and another three in March 2016 Electrosteel Castings has challenged the government-set compensation for mining infrastructure set up by it for the Parbatpur Central mine company had challenged the cancellation of auction of the Gare Palma 1V/1 mine, for which it was declared the preferred bidder. All the 25 cases have arisen out of the 2015 law, enacted after the SC de-allocated captive mines given out by the previous government without going through an auction. Fifteen of these cases are disputes on compensation.

Though all major companies are involved in these disputes, Jindal Steel & Power (JSPL) and Jindal Power (JPL), it subsidiary, have the largest number of cases, five, against the government.

In three of these, they have contested the government’s reduction in compensation amount for mine infrastructure they’d created prior to the SC de-allocation.

In two other cases, JPL has challenged the cancellation of auction for the Gare Palma IV/2 and IV/3, and Tara blocks. The | Jindal Steel & Power and Jindal Power, its subsidiary, have the largest number of cases, five, against the government company emerged as the preferred bidder in the e-auction conducted by the government last year. The bids were rejected for being too low. Beside the reserved judgments, JSPL is involved in cases challenging the government decision to change the end-use for which coal from some of the blocks can be used.

The end-use for Utkal B-1 and Gare Palma IV/6 was changed from sponge iron and steel to power. The company had also challenged the consolidation of the Utkal B-1 and B-2 blocks for the purpose of auction. The government moved a petition in the SC to challenge the Delhi HC decision of February 2015 in the case relating to Gare Palma IV/6. Jayswal Neco Industries is the other company which has more than one case against the government. Both cases relate to compensation on the Gare Palma IV/4 and Moitra blocks.