The Supreme Court disposed of the miscellaneous applications, observing that the respondent is not entitled to monetary compensation for the suspended period and that the earlier orders require the supply of coal at the current price in accordance with the prevalent policy and also give the choice to the respondent to select the applicable date to determine the current price and direct execution of a fuel supply agreement accordingly.
The case arose out of compliance proceedings following dismissal of the special leave petition on August 19, 2025, under which the Union of India was directed to report compliance of the order dated May 17, 2019. The Respondent filed miscellaneous applications seeking directions to SECL either to pay compensation for the period during which coal supply remained suspended or to adjust the amount against future supply under existing fuel supply agreements.
The dispute traces back to the suspension of coal supply by SECL on November 09, 2011, for the alleged diversion of coal, which was set aside by the High Court and affirmed on appeal with a direction to compensate the respondent for the past period. This Court, in its order dated April 09, 2014, modified the direction by permitting the supply of coal at the current rate in lieu of compensation and requiring the execution of a Fuel Supply Agreement for the suspended period. Subsequent communications providing tapering linkage were quashed by the High Court on April 17, 2019, which was affirmed upon dismissal of the SLP.
Before the Court, the union of India and SECL submitted that compliance stood effected by offering to supply coal in terms of the order dated April 09, 2014, and that the respondent was not entitled to monetary compensation. However, the Respondent, on the other hand, contended that the offer was not in conformity with the earlier orders, that it had no requirement of coal, and that it was entitled to compensation representing the price difference along with interest.
Hearing the application, the bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti noted that both the parties are interpreting the orders of this court to suit their convenience and observed that the combined reading of these orders makes it clear that the relief granted was the supply of coal at the current price and not payment of compensation, and the expression “current price” cannot be construed to expand the relief to include monetary compensation.
Further, the court held that the respondent is obligated to supply coal at the current price for the suspended period as per the prevalent policy. Accordingly, the court has given the choice to the respondent to select the applicable dates, i.e., April 09, 2014, or May 17, 2019, to operate the current price and policy and directed that upon such choice, a fuel supply agreement be executed within two weeks and coal be supplied as a normal linkage and not on a tapering basis. Thus, miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
Appearance:
For Petitioner- AOR Mr. Vikramjeet Bannerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. P V Yogeshwaran, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantrey, Adv. Mr. Saransh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR
For Respondent- Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankur Chawla, Adv. Mr. Aditya Samaddar, AOR Mr. R K Mohit Gupta, Adv. Mr. C B Bansal, Adv. Mr. Aamir Khan, Adv. Mr. Amit Kathuria, Adv. Himanshu Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Faiz Alam, Adv. Mr. S. D. Sanjay, A.S.G. Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Adv. Mr. Harshit Singh, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
