A. Y. Kogje, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner with following prayer : "C. To issue appropriate writ quashing and setting aside of judgment and order dated 10.02.2012 in invoking the bank guarantee of Rs.32.5 Crores by Respondent 1-Union of India and further debarring the petitioner from reallocation of coal block in lieu of the deallocation order. D. To issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ requiring Union of India-Respondent 1 to refund the sum of Rs.32.5 Crores illegally debited by Invocation of Bank guarantee. E. To the grant of ad interim/ interim injunction restraining Union of India-Respondent 1 from reallocating or creating any right of any nature whatsoever over the Naini Coal Block in favour of any third party, till the pendency of present petition."
(2.) At the outset, it would be appropriate to mention reported judgment of the Apex Court in case of MANOHAR LAL SHARMA V/S. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS, 2014 9 SCC 614 referred to by this Court in order dated 08.07.2015, by which the interim relief granted by this Court stood vacated. In this connection, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will not be able to press for the prayer clause 46(A), 46(B) and 46(E) as the decision of allocation, deallocation of the coal blocks all over India would be now governed by the aforementioned decision of the Apex Court and would therefore restrict his prayer to relief clause C and D which pertains to invoking of bank guarantee of Rs.32.5 Crores by the respondent Union of India.
(3.) To assail the decision to invoke the bank guarantee, it is submitted that a situation beyond the control of the petitioner was created as a result of which the petitioner was not able to perform as per the milestone chart and that became the reason for invoking the 50% bank guarantee. It is submitted that as per the milestone chart the first step after the allocation was the prospecting license which was responsibility of the State of Orissa and the Union of India and as the prospecting license of the petitioner was not issued by the State of Orissa, the milestone chart could not be adhered to. The Union of India could not have held, therefore the petitioner responsible for lagging in milestone chart and therefore there was no cause of action for invoking of the bank guarantee. He drew attention of this Court to the communication by non less than the Chief Minister of Orissa himself who had strongly opposed the move of allocation of Coal Blocks to the entities who were out of Orissa State and had requested for reviewing of all the Coal Block allocation in the State of Orissa. The development therefore was beyond the control of the petitioner and therefore the cause for invoking the bank guarantee was not provided by the petitioner.;