Allowed¶38

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. M/S.Niraj Umsl(Jv)

Orissa HC11 Jul 2025RVWPET/276/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court review petition RVWPET No.276/2022 (order dated 11.07.2025; Coram: Justice K.R. Mohapatra and Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra). Keywords: review petition; error apparent on face of record; recall of writ order; restoration of writ petition W.P.(C) No.9667/2019; Independent External Monitor (IEM); IEM recommendation Annexure-7 dated 07.05.2018; no direction to refund EMD; IEM recommendation not binding; EMD refund; DTCN Clause-39; DTCN Clause-41; Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.; NIRAJ-UMSL (JV).

What did the court decide?

Review allowed in effect: the order dated 7th July, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.9667 of 2019 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to file; the RVWPET is accordingly disposed of, with no opinion expressed on the merits of either party's case in the writ petition. ¶38

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs M/S.Niraj Umsl(Jv) — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 7th July, 2022 in W.P.(C) No.9667 of 2019 proceeds on an erroneous premise — that the IEM had directed/recommended refund of the EMD — amounting to an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

Prima facie, there was neither any direction nor any recommendation by the IEM under Annexure-7 to refund the EMD, contrary to what was observed by the writ Court.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The plea that the recommendation, if any, of the IEM is not binding upon the parties including MCL was raised before the writ Court but not taken into consideration by it; this Court therefore found it a fit case to review the order passed in the writ petition.

¶34

Key takeaways

The order dated 7th July, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.9667 of 2019 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to file.ratio¶38
The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case of either of the parties in the writ petition.obiter¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review petition (RVWPET No.276 of 2022, Orissa High Court, decided 11.07.2025) by Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL) — Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.9667 of 2019 — against the Writ Court's order dated 7th July, 2022. The Court found, prima facie, that the IEM's recommendation dated 7th May, 2018 (Annexure-7) merely forwarded UMSL's affidavit dated 28.04.2018 to MCL with an instruction to take a decision afresh on UMSL's bid, and contained neither direction nor recommendation to refund the EMD, contrary to the writ Court's observation; further, MCL's plea that IEM recommendations are not binding upon the parties was not taken into consideration by the writ Court. The order dated 07.07.2022 was recalled and the writ petition restored to file, with no opinion expressed on the merits. MCL also referred to remedies under Clause-39 and Clause-41 of the DTCN regarding EMD refund grievances.

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 14-Jul-2025 16:43:29

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

RVWPET No. 276 OF 2022

¶5

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur …. Petitioners and another

¶6

Mr. Haripada Mohanty, Advocate -versus-

¶7

M/s. NIRAJ-UMSL (JV), Bhubaneswar and others

¶8

…. Opp. Parties

¶9

Mr. Sidhant Dwibedi, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.1)

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

¶12

JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

11.07.2025

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶17

This RVWPET has been filed to review the order dated 7^th July, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.9667 of 2019.

¶18

Review Petitioners were the contesting Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2-Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL) respectively in the writ petition and Opposite Party in the review petition was the Petitioner in the writ petition. The parties are described as per their status before the Writ Court.

¶19

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for MCL submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the order sought to be reviewed. Although the Petitioner had approached the Independent External Monitor (IEM) as per Clause-41 of the DTCN, but it had never directed to refund the EMD along with interest to the Opposite Party No.1. He further submitted that the second

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 14-Jul-2025 16:43:29

¶23

recommendation of the IEM at Annexure-C/1 to the counter affidavit of the writ petition though formed part of the record in the writ petition, but was not taken into consideration by the Writ Court. The recommendation, if any, by the IEM is not binding on the parties. Be that as it may, when there was no direction or recommendation by the IEM to refund the EMD, direction in the writ petition to the extent of considering the grievance of the Petitioners as expressed by the IEM is misnomer and thus, the order passed in the writ petition warrants review.

¶24

Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently objects to the submission made by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1. It is his submission that a recommendation was made by the IEM to consider the refund of EMD to the Petitioner. Thus, the Writ Court only directed to consider the recommendation made by IEM. He further submits that the second recommendation as at Annexure-C/1 to the counter affidavit of the writ petition was never communicated to the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner had no occasion to challenge the same. He further submits that the writ Court had only directed to consider the recommendation of the IEM and it was open to the MCL-Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 to take a decision on the same. As such, there is no illegality or infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record, as alleged by the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 (Review Petitioner). He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶25

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 14-Jul-2025 16:43:29

¶29

IEM in its recommendation dated 7^th May, 2018 (Annexure-7) had observed as under:

¶30

“In view of the foregoing I would forward the affidavit dated-28.04.2018 of UMSL in original to MCL with the instruction to consider the contents of the said affidavit and take a decision afresh on the bid of UMSL in the best interest of the organization (MCL) as deemed fit and appropriate on the facts and circumstances of the case. I recommend accordingly.”

¶31

Thus, prima facie , it appears that there was neither any direction nor any recommendation by IEM under Annexure-7 to refund the EMD, as observed by the writ Court. Further, it appears from the order sought to be reviewed that the writ Court recorded the submission of learned counsel for the MCL to the extent that:

¶32

“……It is further contended that the Independent External Monitor is nominated by the Authority to take its view and therefore the same is not binding upon the Opposite Parties.”

¶33

6.1. Mr. Mohanty, Learned counsel for MCL also raised a grievance to the effect that if the Petitioner has any grievance with regard to refund of EMD, it could have availed the remedy under Clause-39 of the DTCN.

¶34

From the above, this Court finds that a plea was taken by learned counsel for the MCL that the recommendation, if any, of the IEM is not binding upon the parties including the MCL. This aspect, although raised by learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 (MCL), was also not taken into consideration by the writ Court. Hence, this Court feels that it is a fit case to review the order passed in the writ petition.

¶35

Page 3 of 4

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 14-Jul-2025 16:43:29

¶38

In view of the forgoing discussions, the order dated 7^th July, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.9667 of 2019 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to file.

¶39

While parting with the order, this Court makes it clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case of either of the parties in the writ petition.

¶40