SC rejects Gopal Subramanium / Khaitan plea challenging Coal Ordinance & retrospective levy on coal company

The Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a plea challenging the ordinance on coal blocks, providing for retrospective recovery of a levy of Rs 295 per metric tonne of extracted coal and linking its payment as a qualification to participate in the cancelled coal blocks’ auction.

The Coal Mines (Special Provision) Ordinance, 2014, was promulgated for the allocation of coal blocks by auction route.

A bench of Justice Madan B Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice AK Sikri rejected the plea by the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (CESC), which contended that because of the levy, it has been saddled with a liability of Rs. 990 crores which it was in no position to pay.

Appearing for the CESC, senior counsel Gopal Subramanium, briefed by Khaitan & Co, told the court that the case of his client company was decided by the screening committee but it was not vitiated by vice of arbitrariness or anything.

He said that CESC should be counted in the exception carved out for the ultra mega power projects by the apex court by its Sep 24 order as it was already operating a captive mine for producing power that was being supplied to 24 lakh consumers at regulated prices.

Subramanium told the court that the status of CSEC as using coal for from the captive mine for the production and transmission of power at regulated price gave it a locus standi to challenge the ordinance and demand the provision which excluded the companies from the bidding process for failing to pay the levy must go.

Opposing the plea, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the court that CESC is a case of taint of screening committee procedure and the wrath of the court, for paying the levy, must fall on it.

Another petitioner Electrosteel Castings Limited who had also challenged the ordinance withdrew its plea which was dismissed as withdrawn after senior counsel KV Vishwanathan, appearing for the firm, so requested.

Earlier the court had turned down the plea of another coal mining company seeking to be excluded from the category of companies whose coal blocks allocations were cancelled.

Addressing the various applications challenging the ordinance, and seeking to be exempted from the court’s judgment cancelling the allocations and imposing the levy, Rohatgi told the court that all these applications are to “delay the effect of ordinance, delay the auction and delay the economy”.

The apex court by its Sep 24 verdict had cancelled 214 coal blocks allocated from 1993 to 2011, except four vested with the NTPC, SAIL and Sasan Ultra mega power projects and imposed an additional levy per metric ton of coal extracted from exempted or operational mines.

Comments

??? 18 Dec 2014, 14:58
+0 -1
Which law firm was assisting CESC and Electrosteel?
Incomplete 18 Dec 2014, 15:20
+0 -1
Yo Kian, how about some independent-reporting, before talking about best-practices, when complaining about the BCI? Please do tell us about the Khaitan-team that instructed GS? I look at this report and its heading as a subtle smearing attempt on GS.
Guest 18 Dec 2014, 19:17
+0 -0
yes kian why the anti gopal stance suddenly. its not his stance its the companys stance.
kianganz 18 Dec 2014, 19:29
+1 -1
Not meaning to single out or smear Gopal, just good to see him back in action regularly arguing cases in the SC. We also want to focus on the arguing advocates a little more in courts coverage rather than giving limelight to law firms as we mostly used to (and got some flak for).

Wasn't aware Khaitan was on this actually but have checked case status and indeed true. Will add Khaitan to story too.
Also 19 Dec 2014, 06:17
+0 -0
If at all you do intend to report the outcome of a misc. hearing, be sure of at least reporting the implications of a dismissal to the petitioner properly. Sometimes matters are dismissed leaving a valid question of law open or keeping open another avenue to the petitioner available to vent its grievance. Ignorance isn't an excuse, esp. when you chaps are lawyers and are well connected to the lawyers who are working on these cases.
Absurd 19 Dec 2014, 12:21
+0 -0
Can it not be changed to CESC Plea, or would that upset your vested interests- against Gopal/ Khaitan/ the institution of senior advocates in India?
kianganz 19 Dec 2014, 12:26
+1 -0
Well, we are a legal publication catering to lawyers, so we generally don't care about CESC as much as we care about senior advocates and law firms...
Absurd 19 Dec 2014, 13:53
+0 -0
Your headings always give equal emphasis to both the lawyers/ law firms behind a litigation/ corporate-mandate and the matter/ their clients. The heading given for this particular, is most certainty a deviation from LI's usual practices. Still unfair to allege motives, Kian?
kianganz 19 Dec 2014, 14:01
+0 -0
Not always... Often we don't know the law firms in a case and only the advocates are reported, but if we had known earlier, we would have probably mentioned them too.

Do feel free to allege motives any time but yes, I think it's unfair in this case :)
Absurd-II 19 Dec 2014, 15:00
+0 -0
You didn't understand comment 4.2.1.1 Kian. The commenter presumably intended to say that you usually mention the names of the arguing counsel and the client together in your headlines. Unlike what has happened this time around, strangely. I second this observation.
kianganz 19 Dec 2014, 15:05
+0 -0
Ah, the client. Yeah, sometimes, but CESC is just one of dozens of upset coal companies, so didn't single them out for that reason...
Dumbfounded 19 Dec 2014, 20:41
+0 -0
Wow, what a response Kian!