Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 306 (ORI)

Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. Union of India

2018-03-26

B.R.SARANGI, VINEET SARAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. Jindal Stainless Limited, the petitioner herein, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at O.P. Jindal Marg, Hisar, Haryana. The petitioner is a manufacturer of steel and allied products and has its integrated steel manufacturing unit and captive power plant situated at Kalinga Nagar Industrial Area, Jajpur, Odisha. For the purpose of ensuring regular supply of coal, the petitioner made an application for allocation of coal blocks. The Ministry of Coal made joint allocation of two combined coal blocks, i.e., Utkal-A and Gopal Prasad West in Odisha on 29.11.2005 in Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL) Area for working of joint venture company of (1) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited; (2) JSW Steel Limited; (3) Jindal Thermal Power Company Limited; (4) Jindal Stainless Limited; and (5) M/s Shyam Metallics and Energy Limited with certain conditions. The Ministry of Coal, Government of India issued an office memorandum on 18.10.2007 formulating new coal distribution policy, wherein under Clause-8 the role of Standing Linkage Committee has been prescribed. In the minutes of meeting of Standing Linkage Committee (Long Term) on power plants of Ministry of Coal held on 06.11.2007, having considered different agenda of items, gave its recommendation. So far it relates to the petitioner, the recommendation was as follows: 19. Jindal, Stainless, Kalinga Nagar, Industrial Complex, Jaipur, Orissa 4 X 125 MW MCL Keeping in view the recommendation of the Ministry of Power and the comments from coal companies based on Physical Verification carried out by them, SLC(LT) recommended issue of LOA by CIL for 500 MW ( 4 X 125 MW) Captive Power Plant (CPP) on normative basis as per provision of New Coal Distribution Policy.” The said recommendation of the Standing Linkage Committee, vide office memorandum dated 14.01.2008, has been approved. 2. Since it takes several years to make a coal block operational, during the intervening period, the petitioner, having been assured with regular supply of coal on 10.07.2008, entered into an agreement with opposite party no.4 (Mahanadi Coalfields Limited) on 05.02.2009 vide Annexure-1. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) also executed between Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (seller) and the petitioner (purchaser). Both the parties agreed mutually as per Clause-6 of the said MOU, which reads thus : “(6) Now, therefore, it is mutually agreed and declared as under : (i) This MOU shall form an integral part of the Agreement dated 5th Feb, 2009. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) also executed between Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (seller) and the petitioner (purchaser). Both the parties agreed mutually as per Clause-6 of the said MOU, which reads thus : “(6) Now, therefore, it is mutually agreed and declared as under : (i) This MOU shall form an integral part of the Agreement dated 5th Feb, 2009. (ii) Provisions of the Agreement dated 5th Feb, 2009 regarding issuance of notice of satisfaction of Purchaser’s CPs and its acceptance by the Seller and deemed to have been complied. (iii) Provision of the Agreement dated 5th Feb, 2009 regarding issuance of notice of satisfaction of Seller’s CP and its acceptance by the Purchaser are dealt as under : (a) CP in respect of supply of domestic coal is deemed to have been waived by the Seller provided that no project is identified for supply of coal to Purchaser on Cost Plus Basis. (b) CP in respect of supply of imported coal is deferred till the same is achieved/fulfilled by the Seller.” 3. Subsequently on 18.03.2009, there was an amendment to the fuel supply agreement dated 05.02.2009 between the MCL and the petitioner increasing the supply by modifying the original agreement dated 05.02.2009. The relevant terms and conditions mentioned in the coal supply agreement dated 05.02.2009 in Annexure-1: Annexure-E/3 are quoted below : 1. Definitions : (a) xx xx xx (b) “Annual Contracted Quantity” or “ACQ” shall have the meaning as ascribed to it in Clause 4.1 (c) “Applicable Laws” means all laws, brought into force and effect by the Government of India (“GoI”) or the State Government including rules, regulations and notifications made thereunder, and judgments, decrees, injunctions, writs and orders of any Court of record, applicable to either Seller/CIL or the Purchaser, their obligations or this Agreement from time to time. xx xx xx (x) “Quarterly Quantity” or “QQ” shall mean one-fourth (1/4th) of the Annual Contracted Quantity (ACQ).” xx xx xx “2. COMMENCEMENT & PERIOD OF AGREEMENT : 2.1. xx xx xx 2.2 This agreement shall, unless terminated in accordance with the terms hereof, remain in force commencing from the Effective Date till the end of five (5) years from the First Delivery Date. COMMENCEMENT & PERIOD OF AGREEMENT : 2.1. xx xx xx 2.2 This agreement shall, unless terminated in accordance with the terms hereof, remain in force commencing from the Effective Date till the end of five (5) years from the First Delivery Date. xx xx xx 2.7 On completion of five (5) years from the First Delivery Date, this Agreement shall expire unless both the Parties mutually agree in writing to extend the Agreement, on the same or such terms as may be agreed upon the Parties.” In view of the aforementioned provisions, the validity of the agreement was five years from 1st supply of coal, meaning thereby in the present case the first supply of coal was made on 26.03.2009 and on completion of five years period the agreement expired on 25.03.2014. 4. The Ministry of Coal, Government of India issued guidelines/policy relating to issuance of Letter of Assurance (LOA)/Allocation of Coal on “tapering basis” to various consumers of power, cement and sponge irons on 26.02.2010 in Annexure-29 (Colly). The “tapering linkage” is the “short term linkage”, which is provided to the coal consumers, who have been allocated captive coal blocks for meeting coal requirements of its link End Used Plant (EUP), where the development/production of coal blocks allocation falls per EUP is not synchronized with operation/requirement of the coal by the EUP. In supersession of Ministry’s letter No.23011/7/2007-CPW dated 04.12.2007 and any other letter/instruction issued by the Ministry on the subject-matter, it has been decided that henceforth the following principles and procedures will be adopted for issuance of LOA/Allocation of Coal on “tapering basis” by various consumers, who are eligible as per this guidelines, and apply for the same to the Ministry. 5. During September, 2010 Mahanadi Coalfields Limited-opposite party no.4 informed that the coal supply under the said coal supply agreement shall be reduced to 50% of the contractual quantity. Even this quantity was offered at a price, which is higher by 40% of the notified price. The petitioner protested the said action of the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited vide letters dated 17.09.2010 and 18.09.2010 in Annexure-30 (Colly) and also requested for restoration of long term linkage of coal by the opposite parties. But the petitioner received letter dated 31.01.2011 under Annexure-31 whereby the opposite parties concerned have directed the tapering of coal supply against the terms of the coal supply agreement entered into between the parties. But the petitioner received letter dated 31.01.2011 under Annexure-31 whereby the opposite parties concerned have directed the tapering of coal supply against the terms of the coal supply agreement entered into between the parties. Hence this application. 6. Mr. A.N. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the action taken by the MCL by issuing a guidelines on 26.02.2010 amounts to breach of subsisting contract and more particularly the new coal distribution policy of Ministry of Coal, Government of India dated 18.10.2007, the condition stipulated in the policy as well as the agreement between the parties cannot be modified, cancelled or annulled, as it has no statutory force. It is further urged that the guidelines issued by the authority on 26.02.2010 cannot supersede the policy framed by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India on 18.10.2007. More so, such guidelines neither have statutory force nor have got Cabinet approval and, as such, it is prospective in nature. Thereby, by issuing such guidelines, it amounts to interference with the terms of the subsisting contract for supply of coal between MCL and the petitioner. Therefore, such internal guidelines are contrary to the terms of coal supply agreement and are illegal. Placing reliance upon the said guidelines, it is contended that tapering linkage would be considered by the standing linkage committee on long term basis and approved by the competent authority. Correctness of the same has been challenged placing reliance upon the agreement entered with opposite party no.4 by the petitioner with certain terms and conditions. More particularly, such terms and conditions are required to be implemented by opposite party no.4-MCL. Consequentially, such tapering linkage for supply of coal to the petitioner shall not have any application applying clause-1 (c) of the agreement. Further, clause-2.2 of the agreement provides that the agreement shall, unless terminated in accordance with the terms thereof, remain in force commencing from the effective date till the end of five (5) years from the First Delivery Date. In that view of the matter, the so called guidelines issued on 26.02.2010 in Annexure-29 treating the same as an executive order of the opposite party no.1 is in gross violation of the terms and conditions of the contract and, as such, the same has no force and should not be applied to the case of the petitioner during the subsistence of the contract. It is urged that in view of the submission made, this Court should interfere with the same and protect the interest of the petitioner. 7. Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India states that vide letter dated 29.11.2005 two coal blocks were allocated, namely, Utkal-A and Gopal Prasad West in MCL area for working by the joint venture company with the condition stipulated therein. In the said condition, it was stipulated that 60% of the annual production from the mine would be retained by MCL and remaining 40% would be shared between the aforesaid companies in proportion to their respective equity holding. The coal production from the captive block shall commence, within 36 months (42 months in case any area is in forest land) in case of open cast mine and 48 months (54 months in case the area fall under forest land) from the date of the said letter in case of UG mine. It is further contended that tapering linkage policy issued by Ministry of Coal dated 26.02.2010 in Annexure-29 is a temporary defined linkage policy to those companies who have got captive coal block to utilize coal captively for their specified end use project. So, this policy should be continued in order to push the coal block for speedy and timely development for commencement of coal production. The tapering linkage order dated 26.02.2010 comes in supersession of earlier order dated 04.12.2007, so its effect should be retrospectively and not prospectively. Therefore, the agreement executed on 05.02.2009 should come under the purview of tapering linkage policy guidelines dated 26.02.2010. It is contended that the action taken by the authority is wholly and fully justified and needs no interference by this Court at this point of time. It is further contended that during pendency of the writ petition, the term of the agreement having been expired, the petitioner has no right to continue with the claim as made in the writ petition and, as such, the writ petition has become infructuous by efflux of time. Even though the period has already expired, on the basis of the interim order passed by the apex Court on 28.05.2012 in SLP No.17711 of 2012, direction was issued to the MCL to continue supply of coal to the tune of 25% of the agreed quantity to the petitioner till the decision of this writ petition. Even though the period has already expired, on the basis of the interim order passed by the apex Court on 28.05.2012 in SLP No.17711 of 2012, direction was issued to the MCL to continue supply of coal to the tune of 25% of the agreed quantity to the petitioner till the decision of this writ petition. Thereby, the petitioner is enjoying benefits of the order passed by the apex Court dated 28.05.2012 even after expiry of the agreement period, though it is not entitled to get such benefit. It is further contended that the coal blocks granted in favour of other organizations having been cancelled during pendency of the writ petition and the petitioner is enjoying the benefits even after expiry of the agreement period and on expiry of the agreement period, the writ petition having been infructuous, the same should be dismissed. 8. Mr. B.M. Pattnaik, learned Sr. Counsel appearing along with Sri P.R. Pattnaik, learned counsel for MCL supported the arguments advanced by Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India and contended that since the terms of the agreement has already expired after lapse of five years in terms of clause-2.2, the writ petition should be dismissed without causing any further delay, as the petitioner has already got the benefit by getting supply of 25 % of coal of the agreed quantity in terms of the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the apex Court. 9. We have heard Mr. A.N. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India for opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 5-Union of India; and Mr. B.M. Pattnaik, learned Sr. Counsel appearing along with Sri P.R. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite party no.4-MCL and perused the record. Pleadings between the parties having been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed of at the stage of admission. 10. The facts narrated above are undisputed. B.M. Pattnaik, learned Sr. Counsel appearing along with Sri P.R. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite party no.4-MCL and perused the record. Pleadings between the parties having been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed of at the stage of admission. 10. The facts narrated above are undisputed. On the basis of the above facts, the petitioner has filed the aforementioned writ petition seeking for relief as mentioned in the prayer of the writ petition from Clause (i) to Clause (xiii) : “(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to resume the full supply of coal under the aforesaid Coal Supply Agreement and to make up for the short-fall in the supply of coal to the petitioner. (ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 5 for the restoration of the Long Term Linkage Coal supply; (iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to refund all the extra amounts realized from the petitioner against the coal supply i.e. the extra 40% over and above the notified rate being charged since January 2011; (iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities not to apply the Guidelines dated 26th February 2010 in the case of the petitioner; (v) Direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to immediately issue Notification under Section 9 and 11 of the CBA Act, regarding Utkal-A Coal Block, in case, the notification under Section 9 and 11 have already been made in respect of the Gopal Prasad West (W) Coal Block, then in such case such a notification would not be necessary for the Gopal Prasad West (W) Coal Block; (vi) Direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to complete the process of acquisition, meaning thereby taking possession of the land comprising both Coal Blocks and handing over of possession to the respondent No. 10; (vii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities not to forfeit the Bank Guarantee amounting to Rs.10.116 crores deposited by the petitioner; (viii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondent authorities from de-allocating the coal block allotted to the petitioner; (ix) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to waive the requirement of submission of Bank Guarantee and return the Bank Guarantee furnished by Respondent No.10 on the basis that the Respondent No. 10 is a Government Company. (x) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to fix the Zero Date which shall be considered from the date of completion of key activities as specified in Approved Mining Plan viz. Forest Clearance, EIA-EMP clearance and land acquisition etc. (xi) Pending disposal of the Writ Petition, Direct the Respondent No. 5 to continue the coal supply to the petitioner pursuant to Coal Supply Agreement dated 5th February, 2009 entered into-between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 at agreed contractual price and stay the tapering linkage of coal supply. (xii) Pending disposal of the Writ Petition, Stay the De-allocation of the two Coal Blocks i.e. Utkal A and Gopal Prasad West (West) in Orissa allotted to the petitioner, by the Ministry of Coal/Respondent Authorities. (xiii) Pass any other further order/direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.” Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has also filed Misc. Case No.2981 of 2012 with following relief : “a. Direct the Respondent No. 5 to continue the coal supply to the petitioner pursuant to Coal Supply Agreement dated 5th February, 2009 entered into between the petitioner and opposite party No. 4 at agreed contractual price and stay the tapering linkage of coal supply; b. Stay the De-allocation of the two Coal Blocks i.e. Utkal A and Gopal Prasad (West) in Orissa allotted to the petitioner, by the Ministry of Coal/Respondent Authorities. c. Pass such other and further order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.” 11. Considering the grievance of the petitioner, this Court issued notice on 01.03.2012 to opposite party no.4-Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. by speed post with A.D. returnable within ten days and served copy on Mr. S.D. Das, learned Asst. Solicitor General appeared for opposite party nos.1 to 3 and 5 and directed the matter to be listed on 20.03.2012 for consideration of interim prayer. After due adjudication on 18.05.2012, this Court did not feel inclined to grant any interim relief and dismissed the misc. case. Challenging the said order dated 18.05.2012, the petitioner approached the apex Court in SLP (C) No.17711 of 2012 and the apex Court on 28.05.2012 passed the following order: “Issue notice returnable in second week of July, 2012. Till then, M/s. Mahanadi Coalfieldss Ltd.-respondent may continue supply of coal to the tune of 25% of the agreed quantity to the petitioner.” On 30.07.2012 the apex Court disposed of the matter finally with the following order : “We find no reason to keep this matter pending here since the matter is pending for consideration before the High Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we feel it appropriate that the special leave petition itself is disposed of with a request to the Division Bench of the High Court to finally dispose of the writ petition itself in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. However, the interim order passed by this Court dated 28.05.2012 will continue, till the matter is finally decided by the High Court. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.” An application was also filed before the apex Court bearing I.A. No.5 of 2014 seeking for clarification/modification of Court’s order. The apex Court, on 06.05.2014, passed the following order : “I.A. No. 5 is disposed of. However, we request the High Court to dispose of the M.. No. 2981/2012 in W.P.(C) No. 2866/2012 and W.P.(C) No. 29717/2011 within a period of three months. Learned counsel for Union of India states that period of contract is already over and the petitioner is enjoying the benefits of the interim order. However, we request the High Court to dispose of the M.. No. 2981/2012 in W.P.(C) No. 2866/2012 and W.P.(C) No. 29717/2011 within a period of three months. Learned counsel for Union of India states that period of contract is already over and the petitioner is enjoying the benefits of the interim order. Liberty is therefore granted to the respondent the High Court and the High Court is requested to pass appropriate orders on that application, if made. Interim order dated 28.05.2012 passed by this Court to continue till the application or writ petitions is finally decided by the High Court, earlier.” 12. This matter was listed on 13.01.2016, on which date this Court directed that the matter should be listed for final disposal and subsequently, on 11.01.2018 this Court passed the following order : “Heard Shri A.N. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri A.K. Bose, learned Asst. Solicitor General for Union of India and Shri B.M. Patnaik, learned Sr. Counsel for Mahanadi Coalfieldss Limited. 2. There are thirteen prayers made in this writ petition. Shri Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated that the petitioner will be pressing the first four prayers and giving up the remaining prayers no.(v) to (xiii). 3. It is stated by Shri Das that even though the coal supply agreement dated 05.02.2009, which was valid for a period of five years i.e. up to 04.02.2014, has come to end, but because of the short fall in supply made by the opposite parties during the said period, the petitioner would be entitled to supply of coal, which could not be supplied to the petitioner even during the period of agreement. 4. As regards prayer No.(ii), it is submitted by Shri Das that a fresh policy with regard to long term linkage of coal supply has been announced by the Central Government in the year 2016. The Central Government has decided to continue with the old long term linkage of coal supply policy and, as such, the said prayer will also not be pressed by the petitioner.” 13. In view of the aforementioned order dated 11.01.2018, since the petitioner is pressing the first four prayers from (i) to (iv) and giving up remaining prayers no. The Central Government has decided to continue with the old long term linkage of coal supply policy and, as such, the said prayer will also not be pressed by the petitioner.” 13. In view of the aforementioned order dated 11.01.2018, since the petitioner is pressing the first four prayers from (i) to (iv) and giving up remaining prayers no. (v) to (xiii), therefore, on the basis of the prayer available in the writ petition from (i) to (iv), this Court proceeded with the matter on the basis of the argument advanced by the parties as mentioned above. 14. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the New Coal Distribution Policy dated 18.10.2007, the petitioner is entitled to continue with a long term coal linkage but in view of that the right which has accrued in its favour cannot be curtailed by issuing subsequent guidelines on 04.12.2007 and 22.07.2010, without any Cabinet decision or having statutory force on short term basis. As has been pointed out by learned Assistant Solicitor General of India that in the meantime there is cancellation of coal blocks granted in favour of all the organizations whether the guidelines issued has got any statutory force or has got any Cabinet approval or it supersedes any policy and contrary to agreement will have no consequence. More particularly, during pendency of the writ petition, the tenure of the agreement has already been over. We find sufficient force in the contention raised by learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. As such, after expiry of the tenure of the agreement, this Court is not inclined to examine the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, since it has lost its efficacy in view of the fact that the guidelines issued on 04.12.2007 and 22.07.2010 supersede the policy dated 18.10.2007. 15. Needless to say that by virtue of interim order passed by the apex Court on 28.05.2012 in SLP(C) No.17711 of 2012 to the effect that MCL may continue supply of coal to the tune of 25% of the agreed quantity to the petitioner. By virtue of said interim order, MCL is supplying coal to the tune of 25% of the agreed quantity to the petitioner. By virtue of said interim order, MCL is supplying coal to the tune of 25% of the agreed quantity to the petitioner. Even when the said SLP was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2012, the apex Court has categorically stated that the interim order passed by the said Court dated 28.05.2012 will continue till the matter is finally decided by the High Court. Therefore, even after expiry of the tenure of the agreement on 25.03.2014 on expiry of five years, the petitioner is still being supplied with coal by the MCL in terms of the interim order passed by the apex Court till date, as has been admitted by Mr. A.N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. From the date of expiry of the lease agreement, i.e., 25.03.2014 till date the petitioner has been supplied with coal in terms of the interim order passed by the apex Court on 28.05.2012, which has also been merged with the final order dated 30.07.2012. Even though the prayer was made before this Court, after expiry of the contract period, by the opposite parties in I.A. No.5 of 2014, the apex Court disposed of the same on 06.05.2014, without interfering with the said interim order, with a request to this Court to dispose of the writ petition. In any case, the petitioner is enjoying the benefits even after the expiry of the contract period by virtue of the order passed by the apex Court during pendency of the writ petition. 16. In DLF Universal Ltd. v. Director, T. and C. Planning Department Haryana., AIR 2011 SC 1463 , the apex Court held as follows : "It is a settled principle in law that a contract is interpreted according to its purpose. The purpose of a contract is the interests, objectives, values, policy that the contract is designed to actualise. It comprises joint intent of the parties. Every such contract expresses the autonomy of the contractual parties' private will. It creates reasonable, legally protected expectations between the parties and reliance on its results. Consistent with the character of purposive interpretation, the court is required to determine the ultimate purpose of a contract primarily by the joint intent of the parties at the time the contract so formed. Every such contract expresses the autonomy of the contractual parties' private will. It creates reasonable, legally protected expectations between the parties and reliance on its results. Consistent with the character of purposive interpretation, the court is required to determine the ultimate purpose of a contract primarily by the joint intent of the parties at the time the contract so formed. It is not the intent of a single party; it is the joint intent of both parties and the joint intent of the parties is to be discovered from the entirety of the contract and the circumstances surrounding its formation. As is stated in Anson's Law of Contract, "a basic principle of the Common Law of Contract is that the parties are free to determine for themselves what primary obligations they will accept...Today, the position is seen in a different light. Freedom of contract is generally regarded as a reasonable, social, ideal only to the extent that equality of bargaining power between the contracting parties can be assumed and no injury is done to the interests of the community at large." The Court assumes "that the parties to the contract are reasonable persons who seek to achieve reasonable results, fairness and efficiency...In a contract between the joint intent of the parties and the intent of the reasonable person, joint intent trumps, and the Judge should interpret the contract accordingly." In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 4794 , the apex Court held as follows : “A party cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the terms of contract, for the reason that contract is a transaction between the two parties and has been entered into with open eyes and understanding the nature of contract. Thus, contract being a creature of an agreement between two or more parties, has to be interpreted giving literal meanings unless, there is some ambiguity therein. The contract is to be interpreted giving the actual meaning to the words contained in the contract and it is not permissible for the court to make a new contract, however is reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves. It is to be interpreted in such a way that its terms may not be varied. The contract has to be interpreted without giving any outside aid. It is to be interpreted in such a way that its terms may not be varied. The contract has to be interpreted without giving any outside aid. The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly without altering the nature of the contract, as it may affect the interest of either of the parties adversely.” The aforesaid view has also been considered by the apex Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation V. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd., AIR 2013 SC 1241 . 17. Taking into account the law laid down by the apex Court, since the parties have entered into an agreement with open eyes and understanding the nature of contract, which is a creature of an agreement between the two parties, the same has to be interpreted, giving detailed meaning, unless there is some ambiguity. As it appears from the agreement dated 05.02.2009, under Clause-2.2, it has been provided that the agreement shall, unless terminated in accordance with the terms thereof, remain in force commencing from the effective date till the end of five years from the first delivery date. The first delivery of coal being on 26.03.2009, the five years period has expired on 25.03.2014. Otherwise, if the agreement has been entered on 05.02.2009, it was valid till 04.02.2014 after completion of five years. Since Clause-2.2 specifies that it should be from the date of first delivery date, then in that case five years period of completion shall relate back to the date 25.03.2014. As such, by virtue of interim order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the apex Court, the petitioner is being supplied with 25% of the agreed quantity of coal till date, even though coal blocks, so far relates to other organizations, have been cancelled as a matter of principle. 18. In our considered opinion, during pendency of the writ petition, even though coal blocks so far relating to other organizations have been cancelled by Union of India, because of pendency of this case, no action has been taken as far as the petitioner is concerned, and as such pursuant to interim order passed by the apex Court the petitioner is being supplied with 25% of the agreed quantity of coal till date. We are thus not inclined to continue with the writ petition, as the same has become infructuous in the meantime. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. We are thus not inclined to continue with the writ petition, as the same has become infructuous in the meantime. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.