Annexure XIV Continued… - Edelweiss

The Petitioners had also prayed for an ad-interim order restraining our Company from utilizing the aforesaid
land. Our Company by way of a reply dated June 14, 2006 denied the aforesaid allegations on the basis that the
stamp duty realised was in accordance with the prescribed market value as per the guidelines framed by the
Collector Korba and there has been no evasion of stamp duty. Further, the original land owners had not joined
this writ petition and no complaint in this regard has been made by them. Further, it was stated by our
Company that the diversion orders are not illegal as the sub –clause 6(ee) of Section 165 of the Land Revenue
Code of Chhattisgarh (“Chhattisgarh Code”) which put a prohibition on diversion was omitted with effect
from January 25, 2006. The Chhattisgarh High Court vide its order dated May 2, 2006 inter-alia directed our
Company not to use the land in question without taking the recourse of law. This matter is currently pending.
3. TN Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India, our Company, and Others
Interlocutory Application No. 1335 of 2005 in Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995 before the Supreme Court of
India
This Interlocutory Application (“I.A.”) was filed by the Central Empowered Committee (“CEC”), which is set
up by the Supreme Court to supervise and monitor compliance of the forest laws in the matter of T. N.
Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India. Maruti Clean Coal and Power Limited (“MCCPL”) was allotted
land by the Chhattisgarh government in village Ratija, district Korba, in the year 2002 for setting up a coal
washery. That land was acquired by SECL in 1985. A public interest litigation challenging the said allotment
of land by the State Government of Chhattisgarh to MCCPL was filed by Mr. Deepak Aggarwal wherein it
was alleged that the land is a forest land and the same is owned by SECL. The matter was referred to CEC by
the Supreme Court to examine whether this land is a forest land or not. In its first report, CEC observed that
the land in question is a forest land and washery operations of MCCPL shall not be allowed to commence on
the said land. MCCPL objected to the observations and stated that public interest litigation was a motivated
writ and requested for a re-examination of the matter, pursuant to which the matter was again referred to CEC
and CEC revised its earlier finding and was of the view that the land in issue was not a forest land. The public
interest litigant filed objections to this finding and produced satellite pictures showing the area as dense forest
prior to its allotment to MCCPL before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court again referred the matter for the third time to CEC to re-examine in the light of these
photographs. The CEC inspected the disputed land in the state of Chhattisgarh and submitted its third report
with the Supreme Court on May 11, 2005. The CEC reiterated its earlier stand as taken in the second report
that the land allotted to MCCPL is not a forest land but also filed this I.A. with Supreme Court stating interalia
that during their visit to the area/land in question they alleged large scale coal pilferage in that area and
indicated the involvement of SECL officials and the Company in this matter. The I.A. was registered by the
Supreme Court as a separate interlocutory application no. 1335/2005 on May 13, 2005 and issued notice to the
Ministry of Coal and State of Chhattisgarh and tagged this I.A. with the public interest petition filed by Mr.
Deepak Aggarwal. The Court dismissed the public interest litigation filed by Mr. Deepak Aggarwal. The
proceedings against our Company in respect of the I.A. continued. The Ministry of Coal filed their replies in
August, 2005 and November 2007 in relation to the I.A. The Supreme Court referred the matter to the
Secretary, Ministry of Home (“Ministry”) for his report on November 6, 2009. Our Company received a
notice from Ministry dated January 14, 2010 pursuant to which our Company presented its case before the said
Ministry in February 2010 and thereafter, our Company has not received any information. The matter is
currently pending.
4. Mr. M. Rajshekhar and Mr. O.P .Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, our Company, and Others
Writ Petition No. 3171 of 2006 before the Chhattisgarh High Court
Mr. M. Rajshekhar and Mr. O.P. Nirmalkar (collectively referred to as the ‘Petitioners) filed this writ petition
before the Chhattisgarh High Court in May 2006 to restrain our Company from utilizing certain land at village
Chakabura/ Kasaipali. The Petitioners inter-alia alleged that the said land parcels were purchased at a price
which was lower than the prevailing market price, as assessed by the sub-registrar (b) were also diverted by
our Company for commercial use in violation of the Chhattisgarh Code. The Petitioners inter-alia have made
further allegations in respect of usage of the land parcels for commercial purposes and insufficient payment of
stamp duty. The Petitioners have prayed for an ad-interim order restraining our Company from utilizing the
aforesaid land for purposes other than agricultural purposes. Our Company has submitted its reply in August
2006 wherein it denied the aforesaid allegations and contended that the stamp duty paid was as per law and in
accordance with the guidelines framed by the Collector, District Korba and there has been no evasion of stamp
309