Rajesh Shankar, J. - (1.) In W.P.(C) No.5329 of 2017 the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:- (i) For declaring the action of the Respondent-Central Coal Fields Ltd. (for short CCL) in forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD)/Security Deposit of the petitioner in respect of 225 rakes of coal amounting to Rs. 9,72,00,000/- as being wholly arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and contrary to the Special Forward e-auction Scheme for power producers 2016-17, Phase III held on 25.8.2016; (ii) For issuance for an appropriate direction upon the respondent-CCL to extend the last date of deposit of coal value and validity period of supply of coal from 31.7.2017 to 31.03.2018 or for a period of 8 months i.e the period in which no supply of coal was made to the petitioner and other bidders pursuant to Phase-III auction; (iii) For quashing the notice dated 17.07.2017 by which the petitioner was directed to deposit the coal value of the balance rakes load of coal by 31.07.2017 or else it was stated in the notice that action would be initiated as per the terms and conditions of the Special Forward e-auction Scheme; and (iv) An alternative prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent-CCL to immediately and forthwith refund the EMD amount forfeited by Respondent-CCL in respect of 225 rakes load of coal amounting to Rs. 9,72,00,000/-.
(2.) In W.P.(C) No.4426 of 2017, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents, particularly respondent No. 4-Central Coalfields Limited to immediately and forthwith refund the proportionate amount of Earnest Money Deposit/Security Deposit submitted by the petitioner towards Special Forward e-auction For Power Producers-2016-17, Phase-VII amounting to Rs.3,36,96,000/- in terms of Clause 14.3 of the terms and conditions of the Special Forward e-auction Scheme especially because the respondent-CCL has failed to offer part of the monthly scheduled quantity of coal to the petitioner within the validity period; and (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including writ of mandamus restraining the respondents' particularly respondent no. 4 from taking any steps whatsoever for forfeiture of the proportionate EMD/Security Deposit submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the auction held under the Special Forward e-auction for Power Producers-2016-17, Phase-VII, especially because it was the respondent-CCL who failed to offer part of the monthly scheduled quantity of coal to the petitioner within the validity period.
(3.) Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are similar, the same have been heard together and being decided by this common judgment. W.P.(C) No.5329 of 2017:;