Annexure XIV Continued… - Edelweiss

duty. Further, the original land owners have not been made a party to this writ petition and no complaint in this
regard has been made by them. This matter is currently pending.
5. Mr. M. Rajshekhar and Mr. O.P. Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, our Company, and Others
Writ Petition No. 817 of 2006 before the Chhattisgarh High Court
Mr. M. Rajshekhar and Mr. O.P. Nirmalkar filed this writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court in
February 12, 2006 challenging the omission of clause 6(ee) of section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Code by virtue
of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Amendment Act, 2005. Clause 6(ee) of section 165 of the Chhattisgarh
Code requires that the agriculture land transferred by a bhumiswami other than a bhumiswami, belonging to an
aboriginal tribe declared as such under section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Code, shall not be diverted for any other
purpose before the expiry of period of 10 years from the date of transfer of the agricultural land. The Clause
6(ee) of Section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Code was omitted by the state legislature with effect from January 25,
2006 and the omission of this clause was challenged by the aforementioned writ petition inter-alia on the
ground that the said sub section 6 (ee) of the Section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Code had been applicable in
relation to land earmarked as scheduled land under Schedule V of the Constitution of India for the upliftment
of the aboriginal tribes and consequently, state government lacks jurisdiction to amend the same and the said
power vests with the Governor of the state. Our Company filed an impleadment application in this writ
petition. The writ petition is currently pending and the Chhattisgarh High Court passed an interim order that
during the pendency of this writ petition, no diversion order will be passed in the state of Chhattisgarh, which
order is still in operation.
6. Union of India, represented by General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur and Others v.
our Company
Writ Petition No.19486 of 2009 before the Madras High Court of Judicature at Madras
A writ petition (no.19486 /2009) was filed by Union of India through General Manager, South East Central
Railway before the Madras High Court against the order dated January 27, 2009 passed by the Railway Rate
Tribunal, No.5, Chennai in the Complaint No. 11/2005. The said complaint was filed by our Company against
Railway Authorities to declare the charging of washed coal for the weight of CC+4 tonne as unreasonable and
fix reasonable chargeable weight for the washed coal transportation. The Railway Rate Tribunal vide its
aforesaid order while partially dismissing the complaint filed by our Company inter-alia directed the refund of
excess penal charges collected from our Company, failing which interest at the rate of 9% shall be levied on
the said amount. The General Manager, South East Central Railway filed this writ petition challenging the
partial relief granted to our Company and inter-alia prayed for a writ of certiorari. The matter is currently
pending.
Civil
1. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (“CSPDCL”) v. our Company and another
Civil Appeal no. 4968-69 of 2010 before the Supreme Court of India
Our Company on February 27, 2007, installed a coal rejects based generating station having a capacity of 30
MW at Chakabura. A power purchase agreement for purchase of 25 MW of power was also executed between
our Company and the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and 3 MW out of the remaining portion of the
balance power was self consumed by our Company for its washeries located at Dipka and Gevra in the state of
Chhattisgarh. Subsequently, our Company installed and erected the necessary infrastructure for selfconsumption
of electricity for its washeries. A show cause notice was issued by the Chhattisgarh State
Electricity Regulatory Commission (“CSERC”) against our Company on August 12, 2008 directing our
Company not to supply electricity to its washeries from the Chakabura plant since it did not constitute a
captive power plant under the Electricity Act, 2003. The CSERC further filed a petition no. 10 of 2008 against
our Company wherein it alleged that the supply of power by our Company to its washeries was in violation of
the Electricity Act, 2003. Our Company filed a counter petition no. 11 of 2008 before the CSERC seeking
permission to supply electricity to its washeries by paying the applicable cross subsidy charges. The petition
no. 10 of 2008 and petition no. 11 of 2008 were disposed off vide order dated January 23, 2009 by the CSERC
which directed our Company to discontinue supply of power to its washeries and either obtain supply of
electricity to its industries from the distribution licensee or supply its industries own power through open
access in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
310