HIGI-)GQURTOFaUDECAT0iaE®IHArFISGARI-fKBIL»SPUR DIViSIONBENCl-1 HOhRBLE SHRISBR.NftYAK.CJ. ^H@R'Bl.ESf-IRI%K?SWRI%ftSTWft,J. V itPietiti6 No.3lOof2006 RETITIQNER RESPONDENI'S u? '^. •a.^» ;£- J$;:'-,K%|®u rnQto.takBn;writ'|^tion^^ !;.:VerSus'.:I:::;l:-''':?:.1 .:.:1;;^ .^.'!.%:^n^iori:^V.c^l.:,.{ndia,:^.^^tK :';of^ ,'Coa!,: ^:;GQvernment^^Af.?^1fldJa,.::;:..^astri:.'':^ ^haWarh'NewEfelhii:'^':1: ;:;:.^t;'.J'?s'.^l^^^^^ (3oa!S!ndia^Limited, ^;'@0%ernnieht ^Com^ny.^diiah^ii-istryroen^lity'^::';' ;th^^ntl'a|^So"i(ernmer!tg1®:;.Netaji^':;:' Sub(^ |sioaci,Kolkat»—7ttm3il.igft its:l©hairman:;;•^:^ • .^'^.S"':^',, 1;:;:1^ ;": ;..'' (^rat StateS Ejectridty G •tim^;;^A^:c(mipany/.,inc;6^ratetf^ fuHd8r::T^?^lndia^Gompantes.^^t^and'?::.;.. ;•:.;.:^^an^^n^iTientsility^'^^ .i;govaeFrtnigFlt <:)f^'©ujrat^'.ya8ocfara,./.: ->.^^<3^t^^'i'$u'8u^^©hajma^:^,^ ;. •;^.v ..^^SoutK^fi;aster^©o^^:F:ieScl'Syra!tscfci.;^ •l;':^.:;:,^aving^i^^red;:c^&;?at'-Si|3af^,^ fSf^aQ^Saa^K^'^ ^.:'KSil^|:^;^T)Ti^ghi^g©hairm^;-ana^ ' ,'::'^.s^Managing^reG^r.,^^^. fe:::'::\:.^^'Srt'^N^^iM:'^^^BeBefi<:at^ ^:^l^ti|gg^fColTipa^^n(;c^rateds.^ .^%^<:i%f^^gte^'surKl^'fte^r^e^(t.'-^ '.^i'osisiQns%:<^^s-,.;iC%(npames":;AGt.^ ^ ^ISSBlhawng^i^ registerect^ce at^^^^^^^^ ^;-<>-1;Q2,;.l°|Gwer,/;^round^.flc>6r,%:Nem:^-^ .•,^IUX^:;IMu^.|^ar,.'N^':D6lhi-^ Preseht': -••:'/©r^Shai|esh^huja^&Em^^iftmK;^:<^^e.,''.^ ;;l?:'.''^.f;Thakiff^a^iSiSgfi,iletwr^:?^^oHe S^i)nc(i^Ee§ROf^ntIN^^:,y;':^',i.:^ ;E::^iSKciSRrasM|^|%j^ra,rf|earrfecl;S^nic>r:;^v<ie^^tteShri^ •:.^|^^j^i^tearn^?8<?HBseEfo^i^^dent,N^S.;:/^ Shii^F'.StKosli^aridSiiri N;Na ^respemaenNK''^'''^^''^;,'^':',',' leamiEidsounssKSoF •.§:hffi^ ?Bhatt^nid^Ti|Mar)in<jia%ttivasla<a,^l!aarnea^Sfc ;:,AdMfli5atesG^iti^hw%roi'it81E3iSBliacj^^uns^^ ,^pen^i^t'4@.Il6U:®SSU8»i^^%% •:;:^i^g||ftg||||^^j^^^^gg|^gi^|||B||grav^|gi||i|i8<3 ®isGMiSSJIfB^B^ ^^BiKISN81BISB88§lli|siUl ^":. "^:'^^^^'^^1^^'^-^;^^^:^-^-' r^^^^ ^^^^w^^^^f^^^^?^^^^^^^^^ ^^.^^: ^^^•^^^^^ ^.•.^^--^"^"-^w^^.y - 2^ l ne ToHowinQ ora In this writ petition, vide order dated 1-3/11/2006, the offtes was dirscted to delete the names of Shri Arnit Sin.gh VVaiia and Shri Manish Yadav from the array of partiss in view or the binding judgments of the Hon'bie Supreme Court referred to therein, and directsd that the writ petition be treated as a suo moto taken writ petition. We appointed Dr. ShaElesh Ahuja, a learned Member of this Bar to assist the Court as amScus ciiriae and directed the office to !ist the writ petition on 30" November, 2006 for the purpose of examining whether the writ petition Invojves enforcing any pubiic law obiigation a,"d whether the Court shouid under tak®adjudication or the issue brought bet'ors the Coun bv way of this writ petition in public Interest. Since the Bench was not avsijabie on 30 November, 2006, the matter Is iisted today for the same purpose. (2) We have heard Dr, Shailesh Ahuja, learned Amicus Cunae, Thakur'i/ijay Singh, learned Asst. Soilcitor Generai for Union of india/respondent No.1,Shri Prashant JViJshra, iearned Senior Advocats w/ith Shri V.R. Tiwari, iearned counsel for respondent No,3.,Shri N. Nah Roy, 'earned counsel for respondent 4 and Shri K.N. Bhatt and ^ Shri Manindra Shrivastava, iearned Sr. Advocates with Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for respondsnt No.5, (3) Having heard iearned counse! for the parties v/hat transpires which is not disputed Is the following: (4) The coa! rejects in " terms of the contract entered into benc/een the SECL and the ihird respondent herein beiong to the third --S- respondent. !t js stated that though it is permissible for th8 third respondent to take out the coal rejects to Gujarat or. anywhere chosen by them, but for their ov/n convenience as a pt-udent business entity, they have an arrangement !n writing with th.e 5 respondent-company, whereby and v/hereunder the rejects have been allowed to be retained by the 5 respondent for a price. If this is the admitted position, we are at a loss to understand how the retention of the coai rejects beionging to the third respondent by the 5 respondent under an agreement v/ould in any way impair or affect the public interest. it is nobody's case that the coai rejects befona to Government of India or SECL and in fact none of the resDondeni pubiic authorities have any objection to the aforementioned arrangement befra'een the 3 and 5 respondents. in that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that in this writ petition, originally riied by vested' Interests sst up by a rivai business group, enforcing any public law obiigation would not arise. The writ petition is~meritfess and it is accordingiy dismissed. T'ne third respondent is directed So Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Flve Thousand only) to iearned amicus hvo v/eeks from today. it is needless to state Shat all thi pay a sum of caiise within Interim orders passed in this writ petition shall stand terminateo' with the dismissai of the writ petition. Sd/- The ChiefJustice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge 3:^"