1.»;.4 §€iG§i COiiRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DW§3i0N BENCH {imam : HQN’gLE $HR§ RAEEV GU?TA CJ. & }€GN’BLE 31HR§ SBNIL KUMAR 5§NHA3 J. WP, (Cl Na. G2 of Zim? $E‘3‘i1‘IONER : Gayatri Carriers Privaie Limited, through its Authcrized Signatory Narayan Singh Dahiya-, S/o Shri Prithi Singh, aged abou: 52 yeam, Rio Barod, OCM, Raigarh Area, Distt. RaEgarh (C.G.) Versus REsPONEENTS 1‘. Union oflndiaihrough The Secretary, M§n§stry 0f Coat New Delhi. 2. Director Genera}; Resettiementg West Blesku3, RK. Puram, New Dei’m. 3. Coaé india Limited; {A Government of India Undertaking), incerperated Under Companies Act,1956, Having its Registerea Office at 10, Netegt Subhash Road; Keikata — 7S0 001 {WE} Through its Chairman-cum- ixiienaging Directer. 4. South Easiem Coalfieids Limited! A Subsidiary Ceei Company 9f Coai indie Ltd. Having its registered office At Seeiaat Read, Biiaspur (Chhattiegar’h) through its Chairman-cumuManaging Directer. 5. Generai Manager (CMC-Contract Management Ceii}, 8euth Eastern Coaiiieids Limited. SECL Bhawan, Seepat Roadt. Biiaspur {Chhattiegarh} WRW P§¥ffiGN Bi€§ER ARECLE 22S GE Ti—iE CGN$T§T¥JT§ON OF iNDiA y‘rid w Present: S'rm Prashant Mishra, §earned Senior counsei w§th Shri Shashank Thakur, iearned counsel far the pei§tioner. ’ af“‘, w“, 3hr? SK. Bemval, Earned Standmg counse! for respondents Na. 1 & 2. Sm RS‘ Koshy, learned counsel for rspondents No. 3, 4 & 5. <!“ March, 2303} The foiiowing order of the Ceuri was passed by Rajeev Gunter C.J. Sm PS. Koshy, leamed oui for repondents No. 3 4 & cnse s 5 reterring to paras 1t & 12 of the repiy fiteoi on abehaif of respondents No. $148.5 submitted that the petitioner’s apprehension ieading to the fiiing ot the writ petition is without any foundation. 2. Paras 11 12 of the repw fiied on behaif of respondents 8: No.3, 4 & 5 read a foows :~ s ii “H. This tendev and any contyaet that may be entered into wiih {eference to the teder wit! have or adverse effect whatsoever, as far as the petitioners are ccerned and their equipment wtii not remain idie. ‘r‘heir present system of worktng, amount of work remains without any advance offered. t2. There ts no bar for the management of $ECL to issue any frsh der or enter into ny fresh Contract. The progoosed tender is for cutting nd ioading. The loading of the peitioner i on different Working piece and the tener issued is for a ditferent piece“ Therefore, there is no adverse effect on the petitioner. in any case. the petitioner canot dictate to the resoondent as to how they ehouid run the busiss or with om they have to enter the contract and the e ORDER 1? n n on e ten a a t s d n ne wh manner of entering contract. There is totai freedom with the respondent to enter into contract. MOU wiih the DGR is for iransgortatbn of coai and not for cutting of coal. At Qresent driiiing and biasting of coai is done bv SECL and exoiosives is used for this. Thereafter ioaciing and transgortation of coai is carried out by ESM aoencies through use of Surface Miner cost of production wiii qo down and the Droductiviiv of the mine wiii go up.” 3. Shri Prashant Mishra; iearned Senior counsei, in View of the above quoted categorical stand taken by respondents No. 3,485, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty .of fiiing another writ petition: if the future deveiopments so warrant. 4. Permission granted. 5. With the above iiberty; the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. ”# sw- sUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge Sdl- Chief Justice "