In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
W.P.(C) No.5578 of 2007
M/s. Basic Fuels Pvt. Ltd................................Petitioner
VERSUS
Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its
Chairman-cum-Managing Director and others.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha
For the Respondent : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta
7. 16.1.09
This writ application has been filed for quashing the order as
contained in letter no. BCCL/S&M/PS/F-19 points/2409 dated
31.7.2007 as contained in Annexure 10 whereby Bharat Coking
Coal Limited has refused to allocate the coal to the petitioner’s
firm, namely, M/s. Basic Fuels Pvt. Ltd.. Further prayer is to direct
the respondents to allocate the coal to the petitioner’s unit on the
terms and conditions of the linkage.
It is the case of the petitioner that under the consultation of
CMPDI, Special Smokeless Fuel (S.S.F) plant was established at
Badgunda, District- Giridih. Thereafter the officials of CMPDI as
well as Bharat Coking Coal Limited made inspection of the plant
and when everything was found in order for commissioning of the
said plant, Coal India Limited started supplying coal to the tune of
5000 M.T under the scheme of coal linkage. While everything was
going on smoothly, Bharat Coking Coal Limited issued a notice
dated 30.11.2004, whereby detailed informations pertaining to 19
points indicated therein were sought from the consumers including
the petitioner’s unit which was complied with. Moreover, when
certain deficiencies were pointed out, those deficiencies were
removed by submitting rest of the documents. In spite of that,
petitioner was surprised to find that supply of coal has been
discontinued to 140 units including to petitioner’s unit.
2
Subsequently, when Bharat Coking Coal Limited did find that coal
supply has wrongly been stopped to the petitioner’s firm, it started
supplying coal to the petitioner’s unit. But again in the year 2007,
Bharat Coking Coal Limited stopped supplying the coal to the
petitioner’s unit. Thereupon, it was intimated to the officials of the
Bharat Coking Coal Limited that all the documents relating to
petitioner’s firm which were sought to be produced, have already
been submtted still supply of coal has been stopped. Meanwhile, it
was informed by the officials of the Central Coalfield Limited to the
Bharat Coking Coal Limited that on verification, petitioner’s unit was
found to be established. Thereupon, Bharat Coking Coal Limited
again resumed supply of coal to the petitioner’s unit.
Further case is that other day notice was published in the
newspaper whereby consumers were asked to submit documents
relating to 19 points/ 13 points in order to ascertain the working
condition of the units. Pursuant to the said notice, all the
documents relating to petitioner’s unit were submitted before the
officials of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Thereupon, General
Manager (S & M), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, vide its letter
no.2409 dated 3.8.2007 (Annexure 10) intimated that the
committee constituted by Bharat Coking Coal Limited has found
certain deficiencies in the documents pertaining to two items and
as such, status of unit has been declared as ‘not established’ and
therefore, Bharat Coking Coal Limited would not be allocating coal
to the petitioner’s unit.
Being aggrieved with that, this writ application has been
field.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
by merely finding deficiencies in some of the documents, the firm
3
cannot be said to be non-functional or not established and hence,
action of the respondents can certainly be said to be arbitrary.
It was further submitted that almost in similar nature of
case, certain direction has been given to the respondents and,
therefore, this writ application be disposed of in terms of the
direction given by this Court in W.P.(C) 5522 of 22006, W.P.(C)
No.3055 of 2007, W.P.(C) No.1228 of 2008 and several other
cases.
Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Bharat Coking
Coal Limited though submitted that when certain deficiencies were
found, supply of coal has been suspended. But agreed to the
suggestion given by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
that the writ application be disposed of in the terms of the cases
disposed of earlier.
Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of directing the
respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim by affording him
reasonable opportunity to bring on record all the documents in
support of his claim which will be considered by the authorities
along with reply already given on each points by recording findings
with reason. For that purpose, the respondents shall fix the date
and communicate the same to the petitioner in writing. In case of
doubt about the existence of the units, the respondents shall make
spot verification by fixing a date with prior notice to the petitioner
and after taking into consideration the entire matter including the
explanations submitted, documents filed and the report of
verification/inspection, if any, the respondent shall take final
decision on each points by recording reasons. The entire exercise
should be completed within a period of three months from the date
of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
ND/ (R. R. Prasad, J.)