W.P. (C) 463/2012
Petition seeking cancellation of the entire allocation of coal blocks to private companies between 1993 - 2012 and a court monitored investigation of the said allocation

The petition sought a court-monitored investigation into the allocation process and prayed for the imposition of punitive damages on the allottees for false declarations and breaches of the conditions of allotment, cancellation of the permission granted to captive coal block users to divert surplus coal for other purposes, and recovery of the windfall profits obtained by the allottees through direct or indirect sale of coal blocks.

The PIL highlighted the arbitrary manner in which the Central Government alienated a scarce natural resource in favour of a few select private companies to the detriment of the public exchequer and deferred the introduction of competitive bidding. The petitioners urged that as per the law propounded in the 2G Case and the subsequent Presidential reference, the coal blocks in question be resumed and auctioned as per Section 11A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development Act.

In a landmark judgment delivered on August 25, 2014, the Court ruled that neither the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, nor the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, empowers the Central government to allocate coal blocks. The Court also undertook a judicial review of the entire process of allocation and concluded that the allocations made on the recommendations of the Screening Committee as well as the allocations made through the Government Dispensation Route between 1993 and 2009 were arbitrary and illegal. Coal blocks, where competitive bidding was held for the lowest power tariff for Ultra Mega Power Projects, were excluded from the purview of the verdict. However, the Court, at the instance of our counsel, directed that no diversion of coal for commercial exploitation will be permitted from the blocks allocated for UMPPs commercial exploitation.

The Court held further hearings to determine the consequences flowing from its verdict. The UOI accepted the inevitability of auctions for the blocks held to be illegally allocated but sought an exemption for 46 blocks, where mining leases have been granted, or the end-use plants are nearing completion. The Court delivered its final order on September 24, 2014, cancelling 214 of the 218 allocations made in favour of private entities and joint ventures during the period from 1993 to 2010.

Common Cause had filed an interim application in September 2014 underlining determined efforts by the then Director CBI Mr Ranjit Sinha to subvert the investigation and prosecution of the Coal Scam cases and requesting for a court-monitored investigation by a Special Investigation Teams or by the Ant-corruption Bureau of Delhi Police in the entire matter.

The application also sought recusal of Mr Sinha from the ongoing investigations and prosecutions related to the coal blocks allocation case. Mr Sinha subsequently moved an application on November 17, 2014, praying for registration of an FIR for perjury against Kamal Jaswal, Common Cause and Prashant Bhushan for false statements made in the affidavit and course of the Court proceedings. The said case was however dismissed in a welcomed order of the Apex Court on May 14, 2015. The Court observed that under the circumstances it was difficult to hold that there was any intention to mislead the Court in any manner on the part of Mr Bhushan, Common Cause or Mr Jaswal. In the process, the Court also made several adverse observations on the manner of conduct of inquiry by the CBI. The arguments tendered by the CBI that any adverse order in the matter would irreparably damage its credibility was termed "fallacious" by the Court and rejected. Holding the meetings in the absence of the investigating officer or team as completely inappropriate the Court found it necessary to look into the question of whether anyone or more such meetings have had any impact on the investigations and subsequent charge sheet/closure reports filed by the CBI.

On September 15, 2015, a high-level committee headed by former CBI Director Mr M.L.Sharma has been constituted by the Court for the purpose of ascertaining whether the investigations conducted by CBI have been influenced in any manner by Mr Ranjit Sinha in respect of the accused in the case.

On December 14, 2015, expressing its unhappiness at the prolonged delays in the investigations by the CBI, the Court allowed its request for substitution of a senior police official made through the note on administrative issues filed on December 14, 2015. The Court however noted that it expected the CBI to conclude the investigations at the earliest without seeking further extensions or transfer of officials.

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) had on September 17, 2015, filed the 8th Status Report for July 4, 2015, to September 11, 2015. As per the report, investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2012 and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 in respect of 43 companies were being carried out. Refraining from commenting on the progress made by the ED, the Court directed both the ED and the CBI to file their reports up to December 31, 2015, by January 5, 2016. The matter has been listed for January 11, 2016.

Regarding the CVC reports of July 27 & 28 and September 3, 2015, and letter of October 16, 2015, the Court stated that the same had been taken on record and would be dealt with on January 11, 2016, itself.

Noting that the Enquiry Committee constituted by the Court had started its functions from September 15, 2015, it directed the UOI to grant remuneration to the members and staff of the Committee. This high-level committee headed by a former CBI Director, (Mr Sharma) was constituted by the Court to ascertain whether the investigations conducted by CBI had been influenced in any manner by Mr Ranjit Sinha in respect of the accused in the case. The Court’s also granted permission to Mr Sharma to access the original Visitor’s Register maintained at the residence of Mr Sinha and the list of the names of 23 personnel and four CBI constables working at his residential establishment (which had been directed to be kept in a sealed cover).

Previously this matter was taken up on December 7, 2015, when the Court had granted time to Mr Sharma and listed the matter for December 14. The matter had similarly come up in October/ November 2015 but was deferred for later dates.

On January 23, 2017, the Supreme Court allowed the prayer in the IA 13 filed by Common Cause for the constitution of a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to probe the abuse of authority by Ranjit Sinha while he was the Director CBI. The Court has entrusted the CBI with the enquiry and decided not to appoint an outside body. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made in the IA nor made any comment on the contents of the report prepared by Mr M.L. Sharma and his team, except that a prima facie case had definitely been made out for an investigation into the abuse of authority by Mr Ranjit Sinha in terms of the report. Holding the matter to be of considerable public importance, the Court emphasized that it should be taken up with due earnestness. It directed that a copy of the order be provided to the Director, CBI so as to enable him, on the next date of hearing, to indicate the composition of his team and the time required to complete the investigations.

During the hearing on January 30, 2017, the Court directed the CBI to complete its investigation and file charge sheets in pending coal scam cases as expeditiously as possible, and in some cases by February 2017. The Bench advised the CBI against unnecessary delays in the filing of charge sheets in cases in which the investigation was already over.

The Court refused to entertain Ranjit Sinha's plea to modify investigation orders against him, restricting its order to calling the probe “an enquiry” and not term it as “an investigation”. Invoking the SC’s recent dismissal of documentary material produced in the Sahara-Birla pay-offs case, the former CBI Director on January 30, 2017, sought modification in the Court’s order of January 27, 2017, order. Mr Sinha’s counsel made a reference to how the Supreme Court refused to even direct the registration of an FIR into the Sahara-Birla pay-offs case in which top politicians, including the Prime Minister, were accused of receiving kickbacks from Sahara and Birla group of companies for alleged favours. The Bench, however, refused to entertain his plea as the order had already been passed and a modification could be sought under a separate plea for recall of the order. In the hearing on March 24, 2017, his plea for recall was formally dismissed.

In the hearing on December 4, 2017, the Bench directed the SIT to submit its status report to the Court within four weeks. It is listed for hearing on 15 January 2018.

In the hearing on 15 January 2018, CBI Special Prosecutor told the Court that it had made substantial progress in its enquiry against Ranjit Sinha, but the Court pointed out that the progress in the investigation has been slow.

In the hearing on November 27, 2018, the Court asked the SIT to file a fresh status report on the probe against Ranjit Sinha. The Special Public Prosecutor, RS Cheema, informed the Court that certain cases have been inexplicably delayed through the field investigation was long over. Advocate for the petitioner, Prashant Bhushan submitted that the process in some cases continued to be slow as politically influential persons were involved.

On September 4, 2019, the ED approached the SC bench headed by Justice N.V. Ramana, seeking permission to transfer 42 officials probing the coal block allocation cases on the ground that their deputation tenures were over. The bench said that the CJI would decide on listing the matter for a hearing. In July 2017, the SC had barred the transfer of officers of CBI and ED probing the cases without its prior approval.

On September 17, 2019, the SC sought to know from the CBI and the ED, the status of the investigation and trial being probed by these agencies. On ED's request for the repatriation of officers involved in the investigation of coal scam cases to their parent departments, the SC said it would take a practical view without stalling the investigation.

The bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose said it needed to go through the case files as it was a new bench and would also like to have the assistance of senior advocate Shri Cheema, the special public prosecutor appointed by the top court for the coal scam cases. No order was passed by the bench at the request of our advocate Shri Prashant Bhushan, seeking direction to the Special Investigation Team for filing a fresh status report of the probe into charges of abuse of official position by former Director CBI, Shri Ranjit Sinha. The matter is listed to be heard on October 27, 2019.

On September 27, 2019, the SC reiterated that no "investigating officer" associated with the probe of coal block allocation scam cases would be transferred or repatriated to parent cadres without its permission. The bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant, however, allowed a plea by some supervisory officers in the ED and CBI for repatriation to parent cadres. It said that the investigating officers of the coal scam cases shall not be released in order to maintain continuity but the supervising officers, who have completed their deputation tenure, can be released. The court said that the officers so repatriated shall be replaced by officers of the same rank.

Senior Advocate Shri Cheema pleaded before the bench to relieve him from the special public prosecutor for ED in the coal scam cases attributing the problems to the lack of prosecutors and personnel needed to handle the cases. The apex court declined to pass any order on this application and said it would consider the plea in December 2019.

During the hearing, the Court was also informed that the CBI has filed 33 charge sheets and judgements have been delivered only in six in the coal scam cases.

In WP (Cr.) No. 120/2012, on November 8, 2019, the bench consisting of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose ordered to list the matter on 24.01.2020.

In IA No. 187912/2019, the bench has directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta & the Special Public Prosecutor R.S.Cheema to:

... suggest the names of Special Public Prosecutors for (Directorate of Enforcement) in Coal allocation matters by 10.01.2020.

At the request of the Special Public Prosecutor, both the matters have been listed on February 19, 2020.

On February 19, 2020, I.A. No.19138/2020 in W.P. (CRL.) No. 120/2012 for directions is dismissed. The bench consisting of the Chief Justice and Justice Deepak Gupta accepted the Status Report filed on 25.09.2019 by CBI and ordered to list the matter after four weeks along with I.A. No.35 of 2012. In the meantime, the CBI may file a further status report before this Court.

On March 3, 2020, in SLP(Crl) No. 923/2020, the delay in filing spare copies is condoned and the registry was ordered to issue the notice urgently. The matter was directed to be listed again on April 21, 2020.

On February 22, 2021, in WP(Crl) 120 of 2012, the letter from the High Court of Delhi by the Registrar General was looked at and put up after two weeks. In the meantime, the bench consisting of the Chief Justice and Justices Bopanna & Ramasubramian, a copy of the letter was served to the Senior Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor, in a sealed cover.

In IA No 169501/2019 in WP(C) 463/2012, the Applicant did not appear for the proceedings. The applicant had investigated the case of Coal Block Allocation of M/s Navabharat Power Pvt. Ltd. (NPPL) and PAO has been issued and the prosecution complaint has already been filed before the Special Court in the year 2016. The applicant has already superannuated in January 2020. As the application has now become infructuous, it may be disposed of as such. The Solicitor General appearing for Union of India and Mr Bhushan raised no objection to the instant application being disposed of.

In IA Nos.123053/2020 & 123055/2020 in WP(C) 463/2012, the interlocutory application for impleadment is allowed for the purpose of passing orders in the instant application for directions. The court opined that the applicant may be repatriated to her parent department in view of the reasons stated in the interlocutory application.

On March 15, 2021, the bench requested the Chief Justice, Delhi High Court to submit a panel of names of about five judges of a high caliber and absolute integrity to suggest an appropriate replacement for Mr Bharat Parashar, Special Judge.

A letter from the Registrar General of Delhi High Court sought permission of the Apex Court to nominate another suitable Officer as Special Judge in place of Mr Bharat Parashar, Special Judge, in a matter pending for about six years despite the maximum period for disposal of such matters being two years which may be extended up to 4 times by periods of six months each. The bench found that Mr Parashar has now completed more than 6 years in the same post after having been posted as a Special Judge (PC Act), (CBI)-07, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.

Stand over for two weeks has been ordered.

On April 5, 2021, a bench comprising the Chief Justice with Justices Bopanna & Ramasubramanian looked at the letters dated 03.02.2021 & 22.03.2021 of the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi concerning the appointment of Special Courts for the disposal of matters in this case. This was a suggestion made by Mr RS Cheema, the SPP and Mr Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General agreed with him. Names of five officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Service forwarded by the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court on the recommendations made by the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court vide letter dated 22.03.2021 were presented. Mr Arun Bhardwaj and Mr Sanjay Bansal were nominated to be appointed as Presiding Judges of Special Court Nos.1 and 2 respectively, to be appointed in the order of their seniority. Both Mr Bhardwaj & Mr Bansal are district and sessions judges heading special CBI courts who will be responsible to hear over 40 cases relating to the coal scam.

As per Mr Cheema's request, the letter seeking permission to withdraw from the responsibility of Special Public Prosecutor in the cases filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under the PML Act has been listed to be heard in the upcoming week.

IA No.187912/2019 in W.P.(C) No.463/2012 was mentioned by the Solicitor General, and the bench ordered it to be listed next week.

Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, petitioner-in-person submitted to the Apex Court that he is a petitioner in the case but was not provided copies and was unaware of the contents of the Intervention Applications. The Registry is directed to supply a copy of the interlocutory application to Mr. forthwith.

On April 12, 2021, the bench comprising the Chief Justice with Justices Bopanna & Ramasubramanian considered the application by the Directorate of Enforcement seeking appropriate directions for the appointment of a new Special Public Prosecutor to conduct prosecution of cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pertaining to coal-block allocation matters, among other requests.

Vide order dated 25.07.2014, Senior Advocate RS Cheema was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor by the Apex Court to conduct the prosecution of the offences pertaining to coal-block allocation, on behalf of CBI and Directorate of Enforcement.

Mr Cheema expressed a desire to be relieved and the SG & Mr Cheema have suggested a few names though there was no consensus on the names of individuals. The counsels appearing on all sides have unanimously agreed that the Court should appoint a seasoned trial court lawyer of impeccable integrity and a designated senior advocate to guide him and conduct the proceedings. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General of India and Rajesh Batra, Advocate as the new Special Public Prosecutors. Mr Cheema shall be relieved upon the newly appointed Prosecutors taking charge.

On June 1, 2021, Justices L Nageswara Rao & Aniruddha Bose looked into IA No.62308/2021. On November 27, 2018, the Supreme Court directed the Directorate of Enforcement not to transfer or remove any supervising officer or investigating officer associated with the coal block cases without leave of the Court. It was reiterated on September 29, 2019, and the court said that the repatriation of six supervising officers to their parent States/Departments after completion of their tenure of the deputation was permitted subject to their being replaced by officers of equal rank.

Solicitor General mentioned that the applicant worked as a supervising officer in the coal block scam case investigation and claims to not be an investigating officer. The applicant has been appointed as Private Secretary to the Minister of Health and Family Welfare for a period of five years. The applicant was working as Deputy Director in the Directorate of Enforcement on deputation and completed the tenure of his deputation on 14.08.2019 which was later extended periodically till 14.03.2021. The bench held that the Directorate of Enforcement is permitted to relieve the applicant from the post of supervisory officer to enable him to join in as Private Secretary to the Minister of Health and Family Welfare and disposed of the IA.

IA No.62307/2021 filed by Mr Vaibhav Bajaj was allowed.

On August 11, 2021, in IA No.66805/2021 In WP(C) No.463/2012, the bench comprising the Chief Justice, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Surya Kant heard the counsels and disposed of the matter accordingly.

The applicant filed an instant application to permit the Directorate of Enforcement to relieve him from being a Supervisory Officer in Coal Block Scam Case as he has already completed his deputation tenure with the Directorate of Enforcement. The applicant is Deputy Director, Indore Sub-Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement. On November 27, 2018, this Court directed the Directorate of Enforcement not to transfer or remove any Supervising Officer or Investigating Officer associated with the coal block cases without leave of the Court and reiterated it on September 27, 2019. It was averred in the said application that the applicant had completed his deputation tenure on March 5, 2020 and was relieved from all charges being handled by him as Deputy Director. However, in view of his responsibility/charge as `Supervising Officer’, the applicant was retained with the Enforcement Directorate as an `Officer on Special Duty’(OSD) till leave/permission of this Court is obtained vide Office Order (Admn.) No.31/2020 dated 06.07.2020. Furthermore, the applicant has been promoted to the post of “Joint Commissioner” in his parent department, CBIC. However, as the applicant is not repatriated to CBIC and without the leave of this Court, the applicant cannot assume charge over the post of Joint Commissioner.

The bench permitted the Directorate of Enforcement to relieve the applicant from the post of Supervisory Officer to enable him to join the post of “Joint Commissioner” in his parent department, CBIC.

Prayers in IA No.66801/2021(application for intervention) and IA No.66807/2021 (application for exemption from filing notarized affidavit) were allowed. The bench shall hear IA Nos. 93391/2021, 67646/2021 & 67647/2021 next week.

On September 8, 2021, Chief Justice along with Justices Surya Kant & AS Bopanna looked into several IAs in the matter.

In IA No.93391/2021 & IA No. 67647/2021 in WP(C)No.463/2012, the applicants have sought a direction to permit the Director, Directorate of Enforcement to relieve the applicants when the tenure of their deputation in the Enforcement Directorate comes to an end and permit them to be repatriated back to their parent Department, as per the order dated November 27, 2018.

The order dated November 27, 2018 provided a specific restriction to the effect “that no Supervising Officer or Investigating Officer should be transferred or removed without the leave of this Court”, the Directorate of Enforcement is not in a position to relieve the applicant on completion of his period of deputation, without the leave of the Court.

The investigation in the case has been completed long back. The Court permitted them to be relieved as they have already completed their deputation tenure with the ED as well as completed the investigation in this matter.

On April 19, 2022, Senior Counsel Ashok Kumar Panda and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati mentioned the matter on behalf of applicants in IA Nos.165998/2021, 166001/2021 and 40929/2022. The bench consisting of the Chief Justice, Justice Krishna Murari & Justice Hima Kohli directed the registry to list the IAs in the next week before an appropriate bench.

On May 12, 2022, the Chief Justice along with Justices Maheshwari & Kohli heard IA No. 40929/2022 & IA Nos.165998/2021 & 166001/2021 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.463/2012.

Mr. Bhushan said that although over 10 years have passed & the investigation is incomplete, there is no objection against repatriation of the officers. The bench directed the Union of India to file an affidavit indicating the status of the investigation with respect to the deveral cases before July 15, 2022.

DE has been allowed to relieve 4 suprevisory officers whose tenure is complete/close to completion & their continuance is no longer required. As for the 3 investigating officers, as they have completed their deputation period & have also filed provisional attachment orders as well as prosecution complaints before the Special Court, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, it is allowed, provided that the ED shall ensure that investigation into the scam will not be affected in any manner and equally competent officers shall replace the repatriated officers. IA Nos.165998/2021 & 166001/2021 were also allowed on the same lines.

The bench has asked the matter to be listed after the summer vacations.

On July 11, 2022, Senior Advocate RS Cheema (appearing for the CBI) mentioned the matter for seeking urgent listing. Chief Justice along with Justice Krishan Murari & Justice Hima Kohli heard and listed the matter on Friday, the 15th July, 2022.

On July 15, 2022, the bench consisting Chief Justice and Justice Krishan Murari took into record the Note on Administrative Issues dated 20th June, 2022 filed in a sealed cover on behalf of CBI. In this Note, a prayer has been made to relieve Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, Additional Legal Advisor from CBI on his selection as Joint Secretary and Legal Adviser in the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. The bench directed CBI to file an appropriate application for this and the matter may be listed ater such an application is filed.

On July 25, 2022, CBI has filed IA No. 101177/2022 seeking permission to relieve Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, Additional Legal Advisor in compliance with the order dated July 15, 2022 and the Chief Justice along with Justices Krishan Murari & Hima Kohli allowed it.

On July 27, 2022, in IA No. 102894/2022, the bench consisting Chief Justice, Justice Krishan Murari & Justice Hima Kohli directed the Registry to list the IA on July 28, 2022 upon being mentioned by Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, the counsel appearing on the matter.

On July 28, 2022, IA No. 102894/2022 filed the application to seek permission to relieve Sh. Kiran S., Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI from the Special Investigation Team constituted vide judgment dated 23.01.2017 passed by this Court for the purpose of investigation of the case registered against Sh. Ranjit Sinha, Ex. Director, CBI. The Chief Justice, Justice Krishan Murari & Justice Hima Kohli allowed the IA and Sh. Kiran S. Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI is relieved from the Special Investigation Team.

On 22 November 2022, in Conmt Pet. (Crl.) no. 2/2015 in WP(C) no. 120/2012, was heard by the bench of Hon'ble Chief Justice Hima Kohli and Chief Justice J.B. Pardiwala. In view of the letter circulated by counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 3, 6 and 7.

In Conmt. Pet. (Crl.) No. 9/2016 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 120/2012, Conmt. Pet. (Crl.) No. 10/2016 in WP(C) No. 120/2012, Conmt. Pet. (Crl.) No. 1/2016 in WP(C) No. 120/2022, Conmt. Pet. (Crl.) No. 4/2016 in WP(C) No. 120/2022, were heard by the bench of Hon'ble Chief Justice Hima Kohli and Chief Justice J.B. Pardiwala. In the view of the letter circulated by cousel appearing on behalf of Respondent. The matter was ordered to be listed on 10 Jan, 2023.

On 6 Feb 2023, the bench of Chief Justice Pamidighantam Chief Justice Sri Narasimha and Chief Justice J.B. Pardiwala, heard the matter. IA No. 13601 of 2023 filed by the Enforcement Directorate fro repatriation of the officers is allowed subject to necessary arrangements being made for substituting them with officers as required by the exigencies of the matter.

An updated status report on the status of the investigation be filed by the end of February 2023. Matter was ordered to be listed on 13 Mar, 2023.

On 13 March, 2023 upon hearing WP (C) No. 463/2023 (PIL-W), IA No. 13601/2023, the bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Chief Justice J.B. Pardiwala, ordered the Writ Petitions and IA No 35 of 2015 in Writ Petition (C) No 463 of 2012 to be listed on 20 Apr, 2023.

On 2 May, 2023, WP(C) no. 120 of 2022 and IA No. 35 of 2015 in WP(C) no. 463 of 2012 were heard by the Chief Justice J.B. Pardiwala. The matter was ordered to be listed on 8th May 2023

On 8 May, 2023, WP(C) no. 120 of 2012 and IA no. 35 of 2015 WP (C) no. 463 of 2012 were heard by the bench of Chief Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Chief Justice J.B. Pardiwala and ordered to be listed on 14 July 2023.

On 24 Jul 2023, Chief Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Chief Justice Manoj Misra, upon hearing the WP (C) no. 463 of 2012 with IA no. 115781 of 2023-application for directions, ordered to take the matter on board. Permission is granted to the Enforcement Directorate, as sought, for the transfer of the seven investigating officers in the normal course. The interlocutory Application for directions is disposed of.

On 25 Jul, 2023, upon hearing the matter, it was ordered to be listed on 1 Aug, 2023. The matter was further ordered to listed on 14 Aug, 2023.

On August 14, 2023, the Chief Justice, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, a Note on Administrative issues, indicating the present status of the investigation and prosecution in the coal block allocation cases was placed on record by CBI Director, Mr Praveen Sood. Purusing this, the permission was granted to relieve the seven officials from their present charge. Previously, the Supreme Court had said that that no officers who were investigating the coal block allocation cases shall be moved out without its prior permission.

The matter is ordered to be listed on 28th Aug, 2023.

Download :

W.P. (C) 463/2012
Petition seeking cancellation of the entire allocation of coal blocks to private companies between 1993 - 2012 and a court monitored investigation of the said allocation

Vision

Mission

Objective

W.P. (C) 463/2012Petition seeking cancellation of the entire allocation of coal blocks to private companies between 1993 - 2012 and a court monitored investigation of the said allocation

Vision

Mission

Objective

W.P. (C) 463/2012
Petition seeking cancellation of the entire allocation of coal blocks to private companies between 1993 - 2012 and a court monitored investigation of the said allocation