ORDER
This appeal by the Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and its two other functionaries is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.11.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 2032 of 2000 (R) whereby the learned Single Judge has on the basis of certain observations made by him in the judgment under appeal, directed respondent No. 1, the writ petitioner, to appear before the appellant No. 2 (Chief General Manager, Sales, BCCL Dhanbad) along with the relevant documents in support of its assertions and the appellant No. 2, in turn was directed to decide the matter and, if necessary, to get information from other sources or agencies and take a final decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. The case before the learned Single Judge was very simple. In brief, it was the contention of the writ petitioner or before the learned Single Judge that the appellants having thereby awarded contract in favour of the respondent-the writ petitioner, stopped supplying coal to him merely on the basis of an order passed by the Superintendent of police, Dhanbad that the writ petitioner was apparently a fictitious person and that the address given by him was not in existence (inasmuch as the village Bela did not itself exist in the district of Madhubani). The learned Single Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties came to conclusion that the appellants and the respondent writ petitioner being the two contracting parties it was not open to the appellants to have acted merely on the communication of the Superintendent of Police with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the writ petitioner and only after the appellants had satisfied themselves about the writ petitioner being a fictitious person, could they have acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract executed between the parties. It was in this view of the matter that the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition passed a specific, meaningful and purposeful order directing the writ petitioner to appear before the appellant No. 2 to place all the relevant facts before him and also directed the said appellant to consider all such facts, obtain all necessary information from all quarters/sources and then to decide as to whether the writ petitioner-respondent was a genuine person or not. To say the least, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was most innocuous and it did not in any way prejudice the case or interest of the appellants at all. We, therefore, totally fail to understand and appreciate as to what prompted the appellants to come up in this appeal against the order passed in the writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length, we are also at a total loss to understand the reasons which prompted the appellants to file the present appeal. Is it the case of the appellants that the learned Single Judge was wrong in holding that the appellants being one of the contracting parties should not have acted merely on the dictates of a Police Officer, that too based on an unfounded, unconfirmed and totally uncorroborated report of the Police? Is it also the case of the appellants that despite being a contracting party, the appellants were not required to act in accordance with the contractual terms and if ever the appellants wanted to stop the supply of coal to the respondent-writ petitioner, they were under no obligation at all to act in accordance with such terms and conditions of the contract and to satisfy themselves whether the writ petitioner was a genuine person or not? To say the least, the appellants acted illegally and in violation of the terms of contract merely on the basis of an unfounded report of the Police. They also appear to have acted mechanically and without any application of mind. There is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is wholly misconceived.
4. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is dismissed in limine with costs assessed at Rs. 5000/- (rupees five thousand).
