Rpl-Smasl-Cisc (Jv), Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal vs. Central Coalfields Limited, Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's claim of non-compliance was prima facie suspicious, given the nearly four-year delay in filing the current petition without any prior reminders or contempt proceedings. The Court found the respondents' submission that a decision was taken on July 7, 2022, and communicated, supported by documentary evidence including signatures of receipt, to be credible. The Court also found the petitioner's argument that the July 7, 2022 communication was merely a show cause notice to be ex facie misconceived, as it contained reasons for deeming the petitioner's claim "inadmissible" and sought reasons why the claimed amount should be paid. The Court stated that the issue of whether the signatures on the communication were genuine could not be decided in a writ petition, but the surrounding circumstances, including the delay and lack of prior action, lent credence to the respondents' contention that the petition was filed to overcome the limitation period. The Court dismissed the petition, refraining from imposing costs.

Facts

The petitioner, RPL-SMASL-CISC (JV), filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court alleging non-compliance by the respondents, Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) and its officials, with a previous High Court order dated April 27, 2022. This prior order directed the General Manager, CCL, to decide the petitioner's claim within six weeks. The petitioner claimed that this period expired on June 7, 2022, and no decision was communicated. The current petition was filed on May 4, 2026, nearly four years later. The petitioner had invoked the RTI Act shortly before filing this petition to seek information on compliance. CCL, in its counter-affidavit, stated that a decision was taken on July 7, 2022, and communicated to the petitioner, providing a copy with signatures of receipt. The petitioner denied receiving this decision and argued it was merely a show cause notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents complied with this Court's order dated April 27, 2022, by taking and communicating a decision within the stipulated six weeks, as required under the principles of judicial discipline and adherence to court orders? 2. Whether the communication dated July 7, 2022, constitutes a final decision on the petitioner's claim or merely a show cause notice, impacting the petitioner's right to challenge it? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that no decision was taken or communicated within the six-week period specified in the April 27, 2022 order. They argued that the communication dated July 7, 2022, was not a decision but a show cause notice. The petitioner also denied any nexus with the signatures on this communication, asserting non-receipt. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that a decision was indeed taken on July 7, 2022, and communicated to the petitioner, evidenced by a copy of the decision with signatures of receipt. They contended that the current petition was filed with an oblique motive to revive a time-barred claim and to create grounds for overcoming the limitation period to challenge the July 7, 2022 decision.