N.R. Sponge And Power Private Limited vs Steel Authority Of India Limited on 21 July, 2026

Chattisgarh High Court

N.R. Sponge And Power Private Limited vs Steel Authority Of India Limited on 21 July, 2026

Author: Parth Prateem Sahu

Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu

                                   1




CGHC010299822021


                                                               NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                        WPC No. 4627 of 2021


N.R. Sponge And Power Private Limited Having Its Registered Office At
Village-Bahesar, Phase-Ii, Industrial Area, Siltara, Raipur Chhattisgarh
493111-Through Its Authorized Signatory, Shri Keshav Kumar Agrawal.
                                                       ... Petitioner(s)
                                Versus
1 - Steel Authority Of India Limited Through Its Managing Director,
Having Registered Office At, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
110003
2 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Its General Manager, Ispat Bhawan,
Bhilai Chhattisgarh 490001
3 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Government Of India, Ministry
Of Steel, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi 110011
                                                     ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Anand Bernard, Advocate
through Video Conferencing with Mr. Ashish
Mittal, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1: Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate
and 2
For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, Advocate
2

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU

SPONSORED

Order on Board

21/07/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs;

“10.1 Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ directing that the levy of additional charges
done/imposed by the respondent in sale offer no 40064055
and 40064057 dated 08/04/2021 is illegal and contrary to the
auction held on 26.3.2021 and not in accordance with the
Mines and Mineral Development Act as on 26.3.2021, and
the Respondent is therefore seeking to levy a retrospective
charge as per the amendment in MMDR act 2021 was
notified on 28.3.2021; and;

10.2 Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ directing that the levy of additional charges
done/imposed by the respondent in sale offer no 40064055
and 40064057 dated 08/04/2021 retrospective and violative
of the provisions of the amendment in MMDRA act 2021
which was notified on 28.3.2021; and
10.3 Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ declaring the recovery of Rs 1,66,13,928/-
(One Crore Sixty-Six Lakhs Thirteen Thousand nine hundred
and twenty-eight only) made by the respondent no 2 from the
petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merit and
substance and consequentially direct the Respondent that
the amount be refunded to the Petitioner with applicable
interest; and
10.4 Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ directing the respondent no 2 to refund
payment of under quantity supply amounting to Rs. 338,727,
and EMD of Rs. 800,000/- and Security Deposit amounting to
Rs. 35,08,000/- thereby cumulative total of Rs. 46,46,727/-
(Forty-Six Lacs Forty-Six Thousand Seven hundred and
3

Twenty-Seven Only) to the petitioner with applicable interest;
and/or
10.5 Any other order in favor of the petition as this Hon’ble
Court may deem appropriate.”

2. Counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 would submit that the

dispute which is raised in this writ petition is arising out of the

contract and in the auction notice, there is specific mention that if

any dispute arises between the parties, the initial remedy

available is of conciliation under Clause 23 and thereafter

arbitration under Clause 24. As the dispute is arising out of the

auction notice in which the petitioner had participated dated

24.03.2021, the writ petition, in view of the alternate remedy is not

maintainable.

3. Counsel for the petitioner would oppose this submission and

would submit that the writ petition is filed in the year 2021 and is

pending before this Court for considerable time and therefore, it

be heard on merits.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Perusal of the order sheet recorded in this writ petition would

show that it came for hearing for the first time on 17.11.2021 and

thereafter it was listed on 01.07.2026 after the respondent caused

their appearance. The respondents have also submitted their

reply raising such an objection.

6. Entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India in view of the efficacious alternate remedy is only in
4

exceptional circumstances as observed by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the matter of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of

Trade Marks, Mumbai and others [(1998) 8 SCC 1], wherein

Hon’ble Supreme Court has carved out four exceptions under

which writ petition can be maintainable even if alternate remedy of

revision or appeal is available. The said exceptions carved out are

extracted below for ready reference:

“(i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights;

(ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice;

(iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction; or

(iv) where the vires of an Act is challenged.”

7. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant

Limited [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 884, following the decision in

the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) has observed thus:

“11. The respondent had a statutory remedy under section

107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent
instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an
alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability
of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a
writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances
where there is:

(i) a breach of fundamental rights;

(ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice;

(iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or

(iv) a challenge to the vires of the statues or
delegated legislation.

5

8. The writ petition, even when the alternative efficacious remedy is

available can be considered only in exceptional circumstances as

held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cases. In above facts

of the case and the law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, I

am not inclined to entertain this writ petition when specific

efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner

will be at liberty to avail the other alternate remedy available in

accordance with law.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)
JUDGE

Saurabh