JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. I.A No.2855 of 2025. 1. The instant interlocutory application being I.A No.2855 of 2025 has been filed by the applicant-M/s Usha Martin Limited to implead it as respondent no.2 in the present proceeding. 2. It has been contended that the applicant-M/s Usha Martin Limited is prior allottee of the Lohari Coal Mine and subsequent thereto after cancellation of all the Coal Mine as per the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secy. And Ors. , (2014) 9 SCC 516 ” the writ petitioner has been allotted the Lohari Coal block through e-auction and the applicant-M/s Usha Martin Limited has handed over and delivered the possession of Lohari Coal block to the writ petitioner who is coming in possession of the same since the date of vesting under the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 (in short CMSP Act, 2015). 3. It has been contended that although Lohari Coal Mine has been vested in the writ petitioner under the provisions of CMSP Act, 2015 on 22.04.2015 but the writ petitioner has not deposited the amount of additional fixed land compensation of Rs.6,36,28,511.00 for which show cause notices were issued to the writ petitioner under section 24 of CMSP Act, 2015 and finally the impugned order dated 13.11.2024 has been passed by the respondent no.1. 4. It has been contended that being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has approached this Court for stay of the impugned order and, vide order dated 02.12.2024 ad-interim stay was granted to the writ petitioner by this Court. 5. It has been contended that admittedly the intervener is a necessary party as it is only the intervener who is to receive revaluated compensation amount based on fair market value determined by the respondent no.1 amounting to Rs.6,36,28,511.00. 6. 5. It has been contended that admittedly the intervener is a necessary party as it is only the intervener who is to receive revaluated compensation amount based on fair market value determined by the respondent no.1 amounting to Rs.6,36,28,511.00. 6. Considering the aforesaid fact, the applicant is having interest upon the right to sue having interest upon the dispute, hence, is necessary party in view of the fact that he was the prior allottee of the Coal Block in question and due to the effect of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Goa Foundation v. Union of India ” (2014) 6 SCC 590 followed by an auction that the Coal block has been allotted in favour of the writ petitioner but as has been contended that part of the land to the extent of Rs.6,36,28,511.00 is still in possession of the Usha Martin Limited by virtue of the provision of CMPS Act, 2015 found to be eligible in the lis. 7. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impleadment of the present applicant as party-respondent to the proceeding is necessary. 8. Accordingly, I.A No. 2855 of 2025 is allowed. 9. Let the necessary impleadment be carried out in the array of the party-respondent during course of the day. 10. Office to proceed accordingly. W.P.(C) No.6275 of 2024 11. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: “For issuance of an appropriate writ / order /direction particularly writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure-16) passed by the Additional Secretary/ Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, whereby and whereunder, penalty to the tune of Rs. 11,36,00,000/- as of 01.11.2024 has been imposed upon the petitioner under section 24 of the Coal Mines Special Provisions Act, 2015 for failure to comply with the directives issued by the Central Government or Nominated Authority along with the payment of additional fixed land compensation Rs. 6,36,28,511/- within 15 days failing which legal action would be taken for realization of the payment along with the penalty;” 12. 6,36,28,511/- within 15 days failing which legal action would be taken for realization of the payment along with the penalty;” 12. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under: (i) The grievance of the writ petitioner as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is that the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Additional Secretary/Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India whereby and whereunder the penalty to the tune of Rs.11,36,00.000/- as on 01.11.2024 has been imposed upon the petitioner in view of the provision of section 24 of the Coal Mines Special Provisions Act, 2015 (in short, Act of 2015) for failure to comply with the directives issued by the Central Government or Nominated Authority along with the payment of additional fixed land compensation to the tune of Rs.6,36,28,511 within 15 days failing which legal action would be taken for realization of the payment along with the penalty. (ii) The instant writ petition relates to the Lohari Coal Block which was earlier allotted to M/s Usha Martin Limited. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment and order dated 25.08.2014 passed in the case of “ Manohar Lal Sharma vs Principal Secretary ” bearing W.P.(Criminal) No. 120 of 2012 cancelled the allocation of 204 coal mines out of total of 218 coal mines which in effect cancelled the allocation of the Lohari Coal Block in favour of the prior allotee, namely, M/s Usha Martin Ltd. The Hon'ble Supreme Court issued specific directions with regard to the said coal blocks and directed the Central Government to take immediate action to implement the said order. (iii) The Central Government pursuant thereto took steps to allocate Coal Mines through auction process. The Parliament of India enacted the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 to provide for allocation of Coal Mines and vesting of right, title & interest in and over the land and mine infrastructure together with mining leases to successful bidders and allottees with a view to ensure continuity in coal mining operations and production of coal, and for promoting optimum utilization of coal resources consistent with the requirement of the country in national interest and for the matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. (iv) The petitioner participated in the e-auction and declared successful for Lohari Coal Block. Thereupon, a Vesting Order No.104/30/2015/?? (iv) The petitioner participated in the e-auction and declared successful for Lohari Coal Block. Thereupon, a Vesting Order No.104/30/2015/?? dated 22.04.2015 was issued by the Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India in pursuance of which a Coal Mine Development and Production Agreement was signed between the Hon'ble President of India through the Nominated Authority and the petitioner, on 16.03.2015. The petitioner had deposited an upfront money amounting to Rs. 1,43,17,824.50/- as also Bank Guarantee of Rs. 54,78,00,000/- towards Performance Security and had also deposited fixed amount of Rs. 4,84,93,999/-towards cost of land and geological report. (v) Further, pursuant to the execution of the Agreement dated 16.03.2015, the lands within the leasehold area as acquired by M/s Usha Martin Limited stood vested in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, a valuation summary of Lohari Coal Mine was prepared by RBSA Advisory wherein the petitioner was required to pay compensation of Rs. 3,53,48,674/- towards cost of Rs. 126.40 hectares land and interest thereon. (vi) Thereafter, the Additional Secretary/Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India vide Provisional Order dated 28.03.2023 has directed the petitioner to deposit additional land compensation amount of Rs. 6,36,28,511/- in the designated account of Ministry of Coal and further the petitioner and M/s Usha Martin Limited were called upon to present their objection/ comments on 03.04.2023. The said order has mentioned that the issue of revised claim for land was raised by M/s Usha Martin Limited vide email dated 26.02.2018 and letter dated 23.03.2023 and thereupon, the land was valued by the authority. It is pertinent to mention herein that vide order dated 28.03.2023, the petitioner for the first time came to know that an area of 145.69 hectares has been acquired by M/s Usha Martin Limited under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. (vii) Further, the petitioner, vide letter dated 03.04.2023, submitted its reply before the Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India stating therein that the petitioner cannot be saddled with the additional liability of Rs. 6,36,28,511/-towards the value of land as the land valuation done by the land valuer mentions that the fair market value is calculated using the market rate received from the official website of Maharashtra which cannot be relied upon for the calculation of value of land and the petitioner had also raised other grounds with the request to recall the order dated 28.03.2023. (viii) The Additional Secretary/Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India vide Final Order dated 11.04.2023 has directed the petitioner to deposit additional land compensation amount of Rs. 6,36,28,511/- in the designated account of Ministry of Coal within 7 days and in accordance with section 27 of Act, 2015, it was kept open for the petitioner and M/s Usha Martin Limited to raise disputes with regard to compensation before the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. (ix) Further, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Government of India vide letter dated 21.04.2023 sent final reminder to the petitioner to deposit additional land compensation amount of Rs. 6,36,28,511/- in the designated account of Ministry of Coal within 7 days. (x) The petitioner vide letter dated 24.04.2023 informed the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Coal, Government of India that the management of petitioner company has decided to challenge the order dated 11.04.2023 before the appropriate forum disputing the quantum of compensation and is in the process of filing application under section 27 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 and requested to keep the order dated 11.04.2023 at abeyance till the disposal of the matter/any further direction from the concerned Court. (xi) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the Additional Secretary/ Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, the petitioner filed an application dated 25.04.2023 under section 27 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 which was registered as C.B.C Case No. 15 of 2023 before the Court of learned AJC-I-cum- Special Judge under CBA (A&D) Act at Ranchi. 13. The grievance of the writ petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Additional Secretary/Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, government of India, whereby and whereunder, penalty to the tune of Rs. 11,36,00,000/- as on 01.11.2024 has been imposed upon the petitioner in view of Section 24 of the Coal Mines Special Provisions Act, 2015 for failure to comply with the directives issued by the Central Government or Nominated Authority along with the payment of additional fixed land compensation of Rs.6,36,28,511 within 15 days failing which legal action will be taken for realization of the payment along with the penalty. 14. 14. The background of the issuance of the said demand, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, is that one Lohari Coal Block which was earlier allotted to M/s Usha Martin Limited but in view of the judgment dated 25.08.2014 of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of “Manohar Lal Sharma V. Principal Secretary ” , being W.P (Criminal) No.120 of 2012, the allocation of 204 coal mines out of total of 218 coal mines have been cancelled which also includes the cancellation of allocation of Lohari Coal Block in favour of the prior allottee being M/s Usha Martin Limited. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court has issued a specific direction with regard to the said coal block and directed the Central Government to take immediate action to implement the said order. 16. The Central Government, pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court, took steps to allocate the said Coal Mines through auction process. 17. The Government of India enacted the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 to provide for allocation of coal mines and vesting of right, title and interest in an over the land and mines infrastructure together with mining lease to successful bidders and allottees with a view to ensure continuity in coal mining operations and production of coal, and for promoting optimum utilization of coal resources consistent with the requirement of the country in national interest and for the matters connected therewith an incidental thereto, the Act 2015 came into effect. 18. The writ petitioner has participated in e-auction and has been declared successful for Lohari Coal Block. Thereupon the Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, has issued a vesting order being 104/30/2015/NA dated 22.04.2015 and in pursuant thereto the Coal Mine Development and Production Agreement was signed between His Excellency the President of India through the Nominated Authority and the petitioner, on 16.03.2015. 19. The writ petitioner has deposited an upfront money amounting to Rs.1,43,17,824.50 as also Bank Guarantee of Rs.54,78,00,000/- towards performance security and had also deposited fixed amount of Rs.4,84,93,999/- towards cost of land and geological report. 20. The land within the leased area as acquired by M/s Usha Martin Limited stood vested in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the Agreement dated 16.03.2015. 20. The land within the leased area as acquired by M/s Usha Martin Limited stood vested in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the Agreement dated 16.03.2015. Thereafter, the valuation summary of Lohari Coal Mine was prepared by RBSA wherein the petitioner was required to pay compensation of Rs.3,53,48,674/- towards cost of Rs.126.40 heactares land and interest thereon. 21. The Additional Secretary/Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India vide provisional order dated 28.03.2023 has directed the petitioner to deposit additional land compensation amount of Rs.6,36,28,511/- in the designated account of Ministry of Coal. 22. The petitioner and M/s Usha Martin Limited were called upon to present their objection/comments on 03.04.2023. 23. The land was valued by the authority and vide order dated 28.03.2023 the petitioner came to know that an area of 145.69 hectares has been acquired by M/s Usha Martin Limited under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. 24. The petitioner has replied and by taking the plea that so far as the area of 145.69 hectares acquired by M/s Usha Martin Limited under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 is concerned, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the additional liability of Rs.6,36,28,511/-. 25. The Additional Secretary/Nominated Authority, had passed the final order on 11.04.2023 directing the writ petitioner to deposit the additional land compensation amount of Rs.6,36,28,511/- within seven days in accordance with the section 27 of the Act of 2015 and it was kept open for the petitioner and M/s Usha Martin Limited to raise disputes with regard to the compensation before the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. 26. The writ petitioner has challenged the quantum before the Tribunal by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under section 27 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 and also by filing an application to keep the order dated 11.04.2023 at abeyance till the disposal of the application registered as C.B.C Case No.15 of 2023. 27. The authority thereafter has come with an order on 26.04.2023 directing the petitioner to deposit the amount within 7 days to avoid penal action and other action which led the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. Submission on behalf of the writ petitioner: 28. 27. The authority thereafter has come with an order on 26.04.2023 directing the petitioner to deposit the amount within 7 days to avoid penal action and other action which led the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. Submission on behalf of the writ petitioner: 28. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order: (i)The ground has been taken that no power has been conferred under the executive authority to impose penalty by way of punishment in exercise of power conferred under section 24 of the Act of 2015. (ii) It has been contended that the said power is only vested upon the competent Court of jurisdiction as would be evident from bare perusal of section 23, 25 and 26 thereof. Therefore, the impugned order raising the demand against the writ petitioner by the executive authority invoking the jurisdiction conferred under section 24 is without jurisdiction. (iii) The contention has been raised that this Court has not taken into consideration that the grievance is already lying before the Tribunal in view of the provision of section 27, then the direction ought to have been passed by this Court for early conclusion of the said proceeding instead of passing an order of stay of further proceedings due to which the petitioner is also not getting the amount of its part. 29. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned order, therefore, needs interference by this Court. Submission on behalf of the Respondents: 30. Per contra, the learned ASGI appearing for the respondent-UOI to defend the impugned order has raised the following grounds: (i) It has been contended that section 23 of the Act 2015 is to be read out along with sections 25 and 26 wherein the power has been conferred upon the Court to impose penalty by taking cognizance only with respect to the commission of offences as incorporated under section 23. (ii) Section 24 stipulates with respect to the conferment of power upon the Executive Authority for imposition of penalty for failing to comply with directions from the Central Government, a Nominated Authority, or a Designated Custodian and if any person fails to comply with such direction without reasonable cause, with a direction given by the Central Government or its Nominated Authority or the Designated Custodian, he shall be liable to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh and in the case of continuing failure with a maximum fine of Rs. Two lakhs for every day during which the failure continues depending upon the nature of offence. (iii) It has been contended that the reference made in section 24 that “if any person fails to comply, without reasonable cause, itself suggests by the cause shown to be reasonable is to be seen by the executive functionary and not by the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction, rather, the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction is to go by the evidence not only on the reasonable cause to be shown by the person who fails to comply. Therefore, section 24 is altogether different which the conferment of power of executive authority while section 23 speaks about penalty for certain offences which have been available under section 23 by (a), (b), (c) and (d). (iv) It has been contended that section 25 speaks about the offences if committed by the Companies while section 23 speaks about the offences committed by any person and section 26 speaks with respect to the issue of cognizance of offence wherein it has been provided that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder except upon complain in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or by the Nominated Authority or Designated Custodian. (v) It has been contended by the learned ASGI that herein the demand which has been raised against the writ petitioner, impugned in this writ petition, by way of penalty inflicted under the provision of section 24 of the Act of 2015. (v) It has been contended by the learned ASGI that herein the demand which has been raised against the writ petitioner, impugned in this writ petition, by way of penalty inflicted under the provision of section 24 of the Act of 2015. (vi) It has further been contended that it is the admitted case of the petitioner that dispute pertaining to the same cause of action has already been agitated before the Tribunal under the provision of section 27 of the Act of 2015, but for the same cause of action this writ petition has also been filed, which is not maintainable. (vii) The contention has also been raised that it is the writ petitioner who has chosen to avail the jurisdiction of the Tribunal incorporated under the provision of section 27 way back in 2023 and the same is at the stage of evidence but during its pendency the present writ petition has been filed on 22.11.2024. 31. The learned ASGI based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned order, thus, needs no interference and the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Submission on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent-M/s Usha Martin Limited: 32. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded party-respondent, i.e., M/s Usha Martin Limited has submitted that it is absolutely not available for the writ petitioner to approach this Court during pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal when the writ petitioner itself has chosen to contest the case before the Tribunal. 33. It has been contended that before the Tribunal also the interim application for getting the demand stayed has been filed. But in the advance stage of said lis the present writ petition has been filed. Therefore, the present writ petition is not fit to be entertained. 34. The grievance has been shown that this Court has passed an order on 02.12.2024 staying the further proceeding including recovery of penalty levied on the petitioner by the respondent under the impugned order dated 13.11.2024 until further orders. Analysis: 35. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition and the counter- affidavit including the averments made in the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2855 of 2025 which we have disposed of today. 36. Analysis: 35. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition and the counter- affidavit including the averments made in the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2855 of 2025 which we have disposed of today. 36. This Court before proceeding further needs to refer herein that this Court has passed the order directing the respondent-Central Government to file an affidavit but no affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Central Government. 37. The learned ASGI appearing for the concerned respondent, i.e., Union of India through Nominated Authority has submitted that he will argue the issue on merit, since, the factual aspect has not been disputed, rather only the issue of jurisdiction has been raised regarding the applicability of the statutory provision as contained under section 24 under which the demand has been raised saying it is not fit to be exercised by the executive authority in the light of the provision as available under section 23. 38. This Court, therefore, on the pretext of the submission made on behalf of the learned ASGI that he does not intend to file a counter- affidavit, rather ready to argue the issue has proceeded to hear the matter on merit. 39. This Court before proceeding further needs to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court has pronounced a judgment with respect to the issue of allotment of coal block through the auction process only in the judgment rendered in the case of “ Manoharlal Sharma v. Union of India (supra). 40. The Central Government acting upon the direction and mandate of the said judgment has come out with a legislation as Coal Mines (Special Provision Act) 2015, Act No. 11 of 2015 with the following objects: THE COAL MINES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 2015 ACT NO. 11 OF 2015. An Act to provide for allocation of coal mines and vesting of the right, title and interest in and over the land and mine infrastructure together with mining leases to successful bidders and allottees with a view to ensure continuity in coal mining operations and production of coal, and for promoting optimum utilisation of coal resources consistent with the requirement of the country in national interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. WHEREAS the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 25th August, 2014 read with its order dated 24th September, 2014 has cancelled the allocation of coal blocks and issued directions with regard to such coal blocks and the Central Government in pursuance of the said directions has to take immediate action to implement the said order; AND WHEREAS it is expedient in public interest for the Central Government to take immediate action to allocate coal mines to successful bidders and allottees keeping in view the energy security of the country and to minimise any impact on core sectors such as steel, cement and power utilities, which are vital for the development of the nation; AND WHEREAS Parliament is competent to legislate under entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution for regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.” 41. Thus, the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, was enacted to streamline and regulate the allocation of coal mines in India, ensuring a transparent and efficient process for coal mining operations. It aims to facilitate the continuity of coal mining and its optimal utilisation, aligning with the country’s national interests. The Act lays down the procedures for the auction of coal mines and establishes clear guidelines for the transfer of rights, titles, and interests in land and mining infrastructure. 42. The core provisions related to the allocation of coal mines are laid out in Chapter II of the Act, which focuses on the auction process and the eligibility of participants. Section 4 of the Act outlines the eligibility criteria for participating in coal mine auctions. Coal mines listed in Schedule I of the Act are to be allocated through public auctions. To participate in the auction, interested parties must pay fees as prescribed by the rules. This provision ensures that only eligible and responsible companies participate in the auction, promoting fairness and transparency in the process. 43. In certain cases, coal mines may be allotted directly to government companies or corporations, as specified under Section 5 of the Act. To participate in the auction, interested parties must pay fees as prescribed by the rules. This provision ensures that only eligible and responsible companies participate in the auction, promoting fairness and transparency in the process. 43. In certain cases, coal mines may be allotted directly to government companies or corporations, as specified under Section 5 of the Act. This section provides that the Central Government has the authority to allot Schedule I coal mines to Government companies or corporations or to a Joint ventures between two or more Government companies or corporations or to a Private companies that have been awarded power projects through competitive bidding, including Ultra Mega Power Projects. This provision helps in ensuring that key projects, particularly those related to power generation, have access to coal mines for their fuel supply. 44. Now this Court is adverting to the section 6 wherein it has been stipulated that the Central Government to act through Nominated Authority, the Section 6 thereof is being referred hereinbelow which reads as under: “ 6. Central Government to act through nominated authority .––(1) The Central Government shall appoint an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India as the nominated authority who shall act for and on behalf of the Central Government for the purposes of this Act and shall exercise such powers as may be prescribed. (2) The nominated authority may engage any expert having such qualifications and experience and, on such terms, and conditions as may be prescribed to make recommendations to the authority for the conduct of auction and in drawing up of the vesting order or allotment order in relation to Schedule I coal mines. (3) The Central Government shall act through the nominated authority for the following purposes, namely: — (a) conduct the auction process and allotment with the assistance of experts; (b) execution of the vesting order for transfer and vesting of Schedule I coal mines pursuant to the auction; (c) executing the allotment order for any Government company or corporation in pursuance of section 5; (d) recording and mutating incorporeal rights of whatsoever nature including, consents, permissions, permits, approvals, grants, registrations; (e) collection of auction proceeds, adjustment of preferential payments and transfer of amount to the respective State Governments where Schedule I coal mine is located in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (4) The nominated authority shall complete the auction or execute the allotment orders of Schedule I coal mines within such time and in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed. (5) The Central Government may appoint such other officers and staff as it may think fit to assist the nominated authority. (6) The salaries and allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the nominated authority and such other officers and staff appointed under this section shall be such as may be prescribed. (7) The nominated authority shall be bound by the written direction given by the Central Government on the question of policy.” 45. From perusal of Section 6 of the Act 2015 it is evident that Section 6 of the Act mandates that an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India be appointed as the nominated authority. This officer is responsible for managing the entire allocation process and ensuring that all legal requirements are met. 46. Section 8 by which the Nominated Authority has been conferred with the power to issue allotment order which is being quoted hereunder as: “ 8. Nominated authority to issue vesting order or allotment order. – –(1) The nominated authority shall notify the prior allottees of Schedule I coal mines to enable them to furnish information required for notifying the particulars of Schedule I coal mines to be auctioned in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed. (2) The information required to be furnished under sub-section (1) shall be furnished within a period of fifteen days from the date of such notice. (3) A successful bidder in an auction conducted on a competitive basis in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed, shall be entitled to the vesting of Schedule I coal mine for which it bid, pursuant to a vesting order drawn up in accordance with such rules. (3) A successful bidder in an auction conducted on a competitive basis in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed, shall be entitled to the vesting of Schedule I coal mine for which it bid, pursuant to a vesting order drawn up in accordance with such rules. (4) The vesting order shall transfer and vest upon the successful bidder, the following, namely:— (a) all the rights, title and interest of the prior allottee, in Schedule I coal mine concerned with the relevant auction; (b) entitlement to a 1 [prospecting licence, mining lease or prospecting licence-cum-mining lease, as the case may be] to be granted by the State Government; (c) any statutory licence, permit, permission, approval or consent required to undertake coal mining operations in Schedule I coal mines if already issued to the prior allottee; (d) rights appurtenant to the approved mining plan of the prior allottee; (e) any right, entitlement or interest not specifically covered under clauses (a) to (d). (5) The nominated authority shall, in consultation with the Central Government, determine the floor price or reserve price in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed. (6) The successful bidder shall, prior to the issuance and execution of a vesting order, furnish a performance bank guarantee for an amount as notified in relation to Schedule I coal mine auctioned to such bidder within such time, form and manner as may be prescribed. (7) After the issuance of a vesting order under this section and its filing with the Central Government and with the appropriate authority designated by the respective State Governments, the successful bidder shall be entitled to take possession of the Schedule I coal mine without let or hindrance. (8) Upon the execution of the vesting order, the successful bidder of the Schedule I coal mine shall be granted 2 [prospecting licence, mining lease or prospecting licence-cum-mining lease] as applicable, by the concerned State Government in accordance with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957). (8) Upon the execution of the vesting order, the successful bidder of the Schedule I coal mine shall be granted 2 [prospecting licence, mining lease or prospecting licence-cum-mining lease] as applicable, by the concerned State Government in accordance with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957). (9) A Government company or corporation or a joint venture company formed by such company or corporation or between the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, or any other company incorporated in India, allotted a Schedule I coal mine shall be granted 2 [prospecting licence, mining lease or prospecting licence-cum-mining lease] as applicable, by the concerned State Government in accordance with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957). (10) In relation to Schedule II coal mines, the successful bidder which was a prior allottee, shall continue coal mining operations after the appointed date in terms of the approved mining plan, till the mining lease in terms of sub-section (8) is granted, upon the grant of a vesting order and to that extent, the successful bidder shall be deemed to have been granted a mining lease till the execution of the mining lease in terms of the said sub-section. (11) In relation to Schedule II coal mines, the Government company or corporation which was a prior allottee can continue coal mining operations after the appointed date in terms of the approved mining plan, till the mining lease in terms of sub-section (9) is granted, upon execution of the allotment order and to that extent, the allottee shall be deemed to have been granted a mining lease till the execution of the mining lease in terms of the said sub-section. (12) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) and sub-sections (4) to (7) (both inclusive) of this section as applicable to a vesting order, shall mutatis mutandis be also applicable to an allotment order. 47. It is evident from the aforesaid Section that once a coal mine has been successfully auctioned, the nominated authority issues a vesting order, transferring the rights and titles of the coal mine to the successful bidder. This process involves several key steps like: Vesting of rights : The successful bidder is granted all rights, titles, and interests related to the coal mine, including mining leases and statutory permits. This process involves several key steps like: Vesting of rights : The successful bidder is granted all rights, titles, and interests related to the coal mine, including mining leases and statutory permits. Payment of performance guarantee : Before the vesting order is issued, the bidder must provide a performance bank guarantee to ensure that they will meet the obligations set out in the auction terms. Transfer of mining lease : Once the vesting order is executed, the bidder is granted a mining lease or other necessary licenses to begin coal mining operations. 48. This process ensures that the successful bidder receives the necessary rights and approvals to begin mining without delays. 49. Chapter III speaks with respect to the treatment of right and obligation to of prior allottees wherein as per the provision provided under section 10 which speaks that a successful bidder or allottee in respect of coal mines, may negotiate with prior allottee to own or utilize such movable property used in coal mining operations on such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed to them. Section 11 deals with the continuity of third-party contracts that the prior allottee may have entered into for the operation of the coal mine. These could be contracts with suppliers, service providers, contractors, or any other external party. 50. Section 12 addresses the status of secured creditors who held security interests in the land or mine infrastructure of the coal mine before its reallocation. Secured creditors are typically financial institutions that provided loans secured against the assets of the coal mine. 51. Section 14 speaks with respect to the liability of the prior allottees, which reads as under: 14. Liabilities of prior allottees.––(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no proceedings, orders of attachment, distress, receivership, execution or the like, suits for the recovery of money, enforcement of a security or guarantee (except as otherwise provided for under this Act), prior to the date of commencement of this Act shall lie, or be proceeded further with and no remedies shall be available against the successful bidder, or allottee, as the case may be, or against the land and mine infrastructure in respect of Schedule I coal mines. (2) The proceedings as referred to in sub-section (1), shall continue as a personal remedy against the prior allottee but shall not be maintainable or continued against the land or mine infrastructure of Schedule I coal mine or the successful bidder or allottee, pursuant to this Act. (3) Every liability of any prior allottee in relation to a Schedule I coal mine in respect of any period prior to the vesting order or allotment order, shall be the liability of such prior allottee and shall be enforceable against it and not against the successful bidder or allottee or the Central Government. (4) All unsecured loans shall continue to remain the liability of the prior allottee. (5) The additional levy imposed against the prior allottees of Schedule II coal mines shall continue to remain the liability of such prior allottees and such additional levy shall be collected by the Central Government in such manner as may be prescribed. (6) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that— (a) no claim for wages, bonus, royalty, rate, rent, taxes, provident fund, pension, gratuity or any other dues in relation to a Schedule I coal mine in respect of any period prior to the date of vesting order or allotment order, as the case may be, shall be enforceable against the Central Government or the successful bidder or the allottee, as the case may be; (b) no award, decree, attachment or order of any court, tribunal or other authority in relation to any Schedule I coal mine passed prior to the date of commencement of this Act, in relation to the land and mine infrastructure of Schedule I coal mines, shall be enforceable against the Central Government or the successful bidder or the allottee, as the case may be; (c) no liability for the contravention of any provision of law for the time being in force, relating to any act or omission prior to the date of vesting order or allotment order, as the case may be, shall be enforceable against the successful bidder or allottee or the Central Government.” 52. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the Act ensures that liabilities tied to the land or mine infrastructure before the date of the vesting order or allotment order are not enforceable against the new successful bidder or allottee. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the Act ensures that liabilities tied to the land or mine infrastructure before the date of the vesting order or allotment order are not enforceable against the new successful bidder or allottee. This means that no actions such as attachment, distress, or receivership can be pursued against the new allottees. Any such claims must be settled personally with the prior allottee. 53. Section 15 of the Act 2015, establishes the role of the Commissioner of Payments, an officer who will manage the disbursement of compensation to prior allottees. 54. Section 16 speaks about Valuation of compensation for payment to prior allottee, which reads as under: “16 . Valuation of compensation for payment to prior allottee .–– (1) The quantum of compensation for the land in relation to Schedule I coal mines shall be as per the registered sale deeds lodged with the nominated authority in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed, together with twelve per cent. simple interest from the date of such purchase or acquisition, till the date of the execution of the vesting order or the allotment order, as the case may be. (2) The quantum of compensation for the mine infrastructure in relation to Schedule I coal mines shall be determined as per the written down value reflected in the statutorily audited balance sheet of the previous financial year in accordance with such rules and in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) If the successful bidder or allottee is a prior allottee of any of the Schedule I coal mines, then, the compensation payable to such successful bidder or allottee shall be set off or adjusted against the auction sum or the allotment sum payable by such successful bidder or allottee, as the case may be, for any of the Schedule I coal mines. (4) The prior allottee shall not be entitled to compensation till the additional levy has been paid.” 55. Section 16 provides the methodology for valuing compensation to be paid to the prior allottee for their land and mine infrastructure. 56. Chapter IV of the Act 2015 deals with the powers of the central government after the appointed date. Section 17 outlines the responsibilities of the Central Government regarding Schedule II coal mines after the appointed date. Section 16 provides the methodology for valuing compensation to be paid to the prior allottee for their land and mine infrastructure. 56. Chapter IV of the Act 2015 deals with the powers of the central government after the appointed date. Section 17 outlines the responsibilities of the Central Government regarding Schedule II coal mines after the appointed date. As per mandate of Section 18 in cases where the auction or allotment of Schedule I coal mines has not been completed, the Central Government is empowered to appoint a designated custodian to manage and operate these coal mines. Section 19 delves deeper into the powers and functions of the designated custodian in relation to Schedule II coal mines. The custodian’s role is crucial in maintaining order and ensuring that mining operations continue smoothly. 57. Section 20 allows for the Central Government’s approval of certain arrangements between successful bidders, allottees, and coal linkage holders. 58. Chapter VI provides that the miscellaneous provision on acquisition of land as under section 21, realization of addition levy as under section 22, penalty for certain offences as under section 23, penalty for non-compliance of the direction of the Central Government, as per section 24, the offences as provided under section 25 and cognizance of the offences under section 26, and dispute settlement and bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court under section 27, for ready reference the said provisions are being referred hereinbelow as: 21. Acquisition of land .––(1) All existing land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), in relation to Schedule I coal mines, shall continue in respect of such areas of land in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. (2) All such areas of land which are not subject matter of land acquisition proceedings, in relation to the coal mines, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), may be proceeded with by the Central Government in terms of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957). (3) The State Governments which have initiated land acquisition proceedings under provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), and all such lands which are also subject matter of the said Act in respect of Schedule I coal mines, shall— (a) not transfer any land to the prior allottees which have been acquired under the said Act; (b) continue the land acquisition proceedings till the appointed date; (c) for such Schedule I coal mines which have not vested in the successful bidder or the allottee, as the case may be, by the appointed date, continue the land acquisition proceedings for and on behalf of the Central Government; (d) upon the vesting or the allotment, as the case may be, after the appointed date, continue such land acquisition proceedings on behalf of the successful bidder or the allottee. 22. Realisation of additional levy .––If a prior allottee of Schedule II coal mine fails to deposit the additional levy with the Central Government within the specified time, then, such additional levy shall be realised as the arrears of land revenue. 23. Penalties for certain offences .––If any person (a) obstructs or causes any impediment in taking possession or in the management and operation of the Schedule I coal mines by the Central Government or the designated custodian; or (b) fails to deliver to the designated custodian any books of account, registers or any other document in his custody relating to Schedule I coal mines and coal mining operations in respect of the management of which the designated custodian has been appointed; or (c) destroys or misuses any mine infrastructure or coal stock; or (d) retains any property of such coal mine or removes or destroys it, he and any officer-in-default of the company shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with the minimum fine of one lakh rupees per day and in the case of continuing failure, with a maximum fine of two lakh rupees for every day during which the failure continues or with both, depending upon the nature of the offence. 24. Penalty for failure to comply with directions of Central Government. 24. Penalty for failure to comply with directions of Central Government. ––If any person fails to comply, without reasonable cause, with a direction given by the Central Government or nominated authority or the designated custodian, he shall be punishable with a fine of one lakh rupees and in the case of continuing failure with a maximum fine of two lakh rupees for every day during which the failure continues, depending upon the nature of the offence. 25. Offences by companies .––(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. 26. Cognizance of offences .––No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or nominated authority or the designated custodian. 27. Dispute settlement and Bar of Jurisdiction of civil courts. –– ( 1) Any dispute arising out of any action of the Central Government, nominated authority or Commissioner of payment or designated custodian, or any dispute between the successful bidder or allottee and prior allottee arising out of any issue connected with the Act shall be adjudicated by the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957). 59. 59. The Chapter VI of the Act 2105 is important herein in order to decide the present lis as the question of jurisdiction has been raised on the ground that the demand has been issued by the executive functionary under section 24 and as per the petitioner, the provision as contained under section 23 to section 26 are to be read out together. 60. While, on the other hand, the learned ASGI appearing for the respondents has submitted that the power under section 24 is to be invoked by the executive functionary and, therefore, section 23, 25 and 26 speak about the power conferred upon the competent Court to impose punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. While section 24 confers power upon the competent authority/Nominated Authority in case where a person fails to comply without reasonable cause, he will be punishable with Rs. One lakh fine and in case of continue failure Rs. Two lakhs every day during which the failure continues depending upon the nature of offence. 61. We, on consideration of the rival submissions is now proceeding to extract the underlying scope of Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 as quoted and referred hereinabove. 62. It needs to refer herein that Section 21 discusses how land acquisition proceedings are handled in relation to Schedule I coal mines. This is crucial for ensuring that land required for coal mining is properly acquired and compensated. Further, Section 22 deals with the realization of additional levy imposed on prior allottees, particularly in the context of Schedule II coal mines. As per mandate of the Section 22 if a prior allottee of a Schedule II coal mine fails to deposit the additional levy within the specified timeframe, the Central Government is authorised to recover this levy as arrears of land revenue. This measure ensures that the levy is collected efficiently and that there are no delays in the financial obligations of the prior allottees. 63. Section 23 outlines penalties for various offences that could obstruct the effective management of coal mines under the Act. These penalties ensure that all stakeholders comply with the law and maintain the integrity of coal mining operations. As per the mandate of this Section if any person obstructs the Central Government or the designated custodian from taking possession or managing Schedule I coal mines, they can be penalised. These penalties ensure that all stakeholders comply with the law and maintain the integrity of coal mining operations. As per the mandate of this Section if any person obstructs the Central Government or the designated custodian from taking possession or managing Schedule I coal mines, they can be penalised. This includes obstructing the transfer or management of the coal mine infrastructure. 64. Further, if a person fails to deliver books of accounts, registers, or any other documents relating to Schedule I coal mines, they face penalties. This ensures transparency and accountability in coal mining operations. Further if any person who destroys or misuses mine infrastructure, coal stocks, or retains property of the coal mine can be penalised. This provision prevents the mismanagement or wastage of resources in the coal mining sector. 65. The penalties for such offences include imprisonment for up to two years, or a fine of at least one lakh rupees per day. For continuing offences, the fine may increase to two lakh rupees per day. 66. As per mandate of Section 24 of the Act 2015 if a person fails to comply with a direction without reasonable cause, they are subject to a fine of one lakh rupees. If the failure continues, the fine increases to two lakh rupees per day. This ensures that the instructions and orders related to coal mine management are followed promptly. 67. Section 25 deals with the Offences by Companies wherein it has been stipulated that if a company commits an offence under the Act, the directors, managers, or any officers responsible for the conduct of the company’s business at the time of the offence are deemed to be guilty. They will be held liable and prosecuted accordingly. However, they may be absolved of responsibility if they can prove that the offence was committed without their knowledge and that they had exercised due diligence to prevent it. 68. Section 26 of the Act 2015 provides a mechanism for taking cognizance of offences under the Act. It has been stipulated therein that no court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act, unless a written complaint is made by a person authorised by the Central Government, nominated authority, or designated custodian. This ensures that only authorised individuals or bodies initiate legal proceedings related to offences under the Act. 69. It has been stipulated therein that no court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act, unless a written complaint is made by a person authorised by the Central Government, nominated authority, or designated custodian. This ensures that only authorised individuals or bodies initiate legal proceedings related to offences under the Act. 69. Section 27 focuses on how disputes related to the Act are resolved and limits the jurisdiction of civil courts. It has been stipulated therein that Any dispute arising from the actions of the Central Government, nominated authority, Commissioner of payment, or designated custodian or any dispute between the successful bidder or allottee and prior allottee is to be adjudicated by the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. This tribunal is empowered to handle disputes regarding the implementation of the Act. The jurisdiction of civil courts is limited in matters related to this Act. Only the Supreme Court and High Courts are allowed to hear appeals or cases under this Act, providing a specialised legal framework for handling coal mine-related disputes. 70. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position we are now adverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent wherein the argument has been advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petitioner has already approached before the Tribunal under section 27 and, as such, it is not available for the writ petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 71. This Court, therefore, is to consider as to whether in a situation where the writ petitioner itself has approached the Tribunal under section 27 of the Act of 2015 by raising the same lis which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, is it available for the writ petitioner to approach this Court for same cause of action on the ground of jurisdiction? 72. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that in the case of “ K.S. Rashid and Sons v. Income Tax Investigation Commission ” , AIR 1954 SC 207 , a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue that when the remedy under Section 8(5) of the Taxation of Income Tax (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 has been pending, whether the High Court could entertain the writ petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that a person may choose/effect where it will proceed with the alternative remedy or with the writ petition, but both cannot be pursued simultaneously. It would be advantageous to reproduce paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment hereunder: 4.----. So far as the present case is concerned, it has been brought to our notice that the appellants before-us have already availed themselves of the remedy provided for in Section 8(5) of the Investigation Commission Act and that a reference has been made to the High Court of Allahabad in terms of that provision which is awaiting decision. In these circumstances, we think that, it would not be proper to allow the appellants to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at the present stage, and on this ground alone, we would refuse to interfere with the orders made by the High Court . --- 73. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “ A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani ” , AIR 1961 SC 1506 held that where the petitioner has already approached the alternative forum for appropriate relief, it is not appropriate that the writ petition should be entertained. The rule is based on public policy and motivating factor is that of existence of the parallel jurisdiction in another Court. 74. In the case of “ Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay v. Gokak Volkart Ltd. ” , (1995) 1 SCC 642 the petitioner therein had filed a writ petition during the pendency of the appeal before the Statutory Authority. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that such a writ was not maintainable. 75. Thus, from the aforementioned enunciation of law, it is clear that a person may have a right to choose the forum for redressal of his grievance, but he/she cannot be permitted to choose two forums in respect of the same subject-matter for the same relief. If parallel proceedings are allowed, they may give rise to forum hunting, wherein, a party who filed a suit and was not able to get the interim relief abandons the remedy before the civil Court and approaches the remedy of filing the writ petition, it will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 76. If parallel proceedings are allowed, they may give rise to forum hunting, wherein, a party who filed a suit and was not able to get the interim relief abandons the remedy before the civil Court and approaches the remedy of filing the writ petition, it will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 76. Herein it is admitted case of the writ petitioner that the Tribunal has already been approached under section 27 of the Act 2015 wherein the case is at the stage of evidence. 77. But even in such circumstances and in such situation, the present writ petition has been filed after lapse of about more than a year from the date of approaching the Tribunal under section 27 of the Act of 2015. 78. The fact about the jurisdiction which has been raised itself is clarified from the conduct of the writ petitioner that the demand which has been issued under section 24 by the Nominated Authority giving rise to a dispute between the successful bidder and allottees and prior allottees arising out of any issue connected with the Act shall be adjudicated by the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition And Development) Act, 1957. 79. By approaching the Forum under section 27 of the Act of 2015 by the petitioner, the issue of jurisdiction of the issuance of demand notice under section 24 itself has been admitted otherwise there was no occasion available to the writ petitioner to approach the Forum by questioning the demand. 80. The contention on behalf of the writ petitioner that the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction is to be approached in view of the provision as contained under section 23 of the Act of 2015 is not fit to be accepted. 81. The writ petitioner since has chosen the Forum under section 27 of the Act of 2015 which itself clarifies that the competent authority, under section 24, is having jurisdiction to issue the said demand otherwise the writ petitioner would not have approached the Tribunal rather would have awaited for the prosecution to be launched by the competent authority in the light of the provision under section 23. 82. 82. Moreover, the issue of jurisdiction since has been raised and, as such, this Court will fail in its duty if the same will not be answered and, therefore, the question which has been raised regarding implication of section 23 and section 24 the same is being answered herein. 83. It is evident from the provision of section 23 which speaks with respect to penalty for certain offences, if any person, (a) obstructs or causes any impediment in taking possession or in the management and operation of the Schedule I coal mines by the Central Government or the designated custodian; or (b) fails to deliver to the designated custodian any books of account, registers or any other document in his custody relating to Schedule I coal mines and coal mining operations in respect of the management of which the designated custodian has been appointed; (c) destroys or misuses any mine infrastructure or coal stock; or (d) retains any property of such coal mine or removes or destroys it, he and any officer- in-default of the company shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with the minimum fine of one lakh rupees per day and in the case of continuing failure, with a maximum fine of two lakh rupees for every day during which the failure continues or with both, depending upon the nature of the offence. 84. It is evident from the provision of section 23 that the offences have been categorized in four categories that is evident from sub-section 23 (a), (b), (c) and (d) and, in such circumstances, the prosecution is to be lodged for the purpose of punishing the imprisonment for a term which extends upto two years or with minimum fine of Rs. One lakh per day and in the case of continued failure the maximum fine of Rs. Two lakhs per day or both depending upon the nature of offences which clarifies that if any person have been found to commit the aforesaid offences either 23 (a), or (b), or (c) or (d) as referred above, then the prosecution is to be lodged for the purpose of imprisonment of a term of which extends upto two years or with minimum fine of Rs. One lakh per day and in the case of continued failure the maximum fine of Rs. One lakh per day and in the case of continued failure the maximum fine of Rs. Two lakhs per day or both depending upon the nature of offences. Section 24 also speaks with respect to penalty to failure to comply with direction of Central Government wherein it has been provided that if any person fails to comply with such direction given by the Central Government or its Nominated Authority or the Designate Custodian, he shall be punishable with a fine of Rs. One lakh and in a case of continue failure with a maximum fine of Rs. Two lakhs per day during which the failure continues, depending upon the nature of offences. 85. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the word bearing with reasonable cause is to be taken into consideration and thus, the insertion of the said word clarifies that the penalty by way of fine of Rs. One lakh and in a case of continue failure with a maximum fine of Rs. Two lakhs per day during which the failure continues, depending upon the nature of offences is to be inflicted by the executive functionary. 86. If the said conclusion is being arrived that without reasonable cause, is not the parameter for the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction to punish the person in case of commission of offence either section 23 (a), or (b), or (c) or (d), rather the moment the prosecution will be launched before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction the same is to be carried out by the principle of proving the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. 87. The principle of proving the charge beyond all reasonable doubt is the parameter which is only to be adopted by the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction and the criminal Court cannot go on the basis of satisfaction based upon the reasonable cause. Then, why is the difference in between the accusation said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the reasonable cause, if shown by the party. 88. Then, why is the difference in between the accusation said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the reasonable cause, if shown by the party. 88. The moment the reasonable cause is the parameter for inflicting punishment, the same denotes the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned and if such authority will not be satisfied on the basis of the cause not shown to be reasonable, then in such circumstances the punishment can be inflicted under section 24 of the Act of 2015 but that parameter can be adopted by the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction, since, the criminal trial does not based upon the subjective satisfaction of the Presiding Judge, rather it is based upon the proving of the charge beyond all reasonable doubt on appreciation of the evidences put forth in course of the trial. 89. This Court, in view of the aforesaid parameter, is of the view that section 23 and section 24 are on two different parameters, section 23 is to be proceeded by the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction while section 24 confers power upon the executive functionary. 90. Therefore, aforesaid interpretation coupled with the conduct of the writ petitioner that he himself has approached to the Tribunal clarifies the position that the decision so taken by the competent authority under section 24 has correctly been exercised by the executive functionary. 91. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the contention which has been raised that the impugned order suffers from an error due to want of jurisdiction is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the present writ petition stand dismissed. 92. Before parting with the order, we hereby clarify that since the dispute lying pending before the Tribunal under section 27 of the Act of 2015, the same is to be decided strictly in accordance with law without being prejudiced of the dismissal of the present writ petition. 93. Consequently, the interim order dated 02.12.2024 stands vacated. 94. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. I Agree. Arun Kumar Rai, J.