gllKiil: se.^ ^ ^-2c^7-~- } IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (C) N0. ^^^OF 2010 H PETITIONERS : ^/t/A0 ^^ ^Zov'> /^^' [°/7^°¥ w'y & .^~ X" ^ ,,€; .^? ..ff... / ^:' .^' y ^ ^y <^ /^ NALWA STEEL AND POWER Ltd. Raigarh , District: Raigarh , (Chhattisgarh) Through authorized signatory Mr. S.K. SoniS^.^- . Aged about. Mariager , Raw Materials . Nalwa Steel and Power Ltd, Raigarh , District : Raigarh , ( Chhattisgarh) . Arvind Dave ,S/o. Shri Jagdish lal Dave , Aged about 43 years , Share Holder , Nalwa Steel and Power Ltd, Raigarh , District : Raigarh , ( Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS: ^•s- ?' ^ ;;_^ '^^-.^•^' ^ ''^ ^'?% "^^^m -^' 1. South Eastern Coal field Itd, Bilaspur, through Chairman cum Managing Director , Bilaspur ,(Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA |<t|i?NiNttl^WyS^WNN^w^5- Bl'i lli: II ii- K Kfi 11 i' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETmON (C) N0. 5638 OF 2010 Versus Respondents Nalwa Steel And Power Ltd. & Another South Eastem Coal Field Ltd. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Naman Nagrath with Shri B.D.Guru, Advocates for the petitioners. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on 30th day of September, 2010) 1. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus or direction to the respondent not to cancel the LOA dated 3.10.2008 entered into between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent. Further, restraining the respondent from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner No.1 in terms of the LOA dated 3.10.2008. It was further prayed that LOA dated 3.10.2008 may be held that it will not lapse by efflux of time after expiry of the 24 months period. Accordingly, the respondentbe djrected to enter into a Fuel Supply Agreement in termsof LOAdated 3.10.2008. 2. The Letter of Assurance (for short "LOA") dated 3.10.2008 was sent to Nalwa Steeland Power Ltd. / petitioner, wherein in clause 4, it was provided that "the LOA shall remain valid for a period of 24 months from the date of issue of this LOA and shall stand annulled upon expiry of such period". Thus, LOA would come to an endon 2.10.2010. ;:^ II,•-^^,,^^ jl^. '^ii^s^, | ^^"^ /^s^^' 3. The petitioner has filed this petition raising severalgrounds that certain obligations could not be completed within the prescribed timeas per Annexure P-2. Thus, the period of LOA may be extended by issuanceof a writ or direction. 4. The law is well settled that a writ or direction can be issued to enforce the legal, statutory and other right. In the case on hand, it appears that the petitioner is seeking extension ofvalidity of LOA, which can not be done by interference of the Court. If the petitioner has any grievance, the petitionerought to have approached the respondent No.1 for doing the needful. Thisappears to be a case of misuse of abuse ofjudicial process. The grounds raised in the petition do not raise any cause of action seeking interference of this Court in exercise of special and extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Thus, the petition is dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i ashok^- Kll- Eii^ll' .:-ES 1 tgtl:;