ORDER
By the Court
1. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondents to charge the price of coal as per its grading and further for a direction to refund the excess amount realised from the petitioners against the supply of lower grade coal.
2. The petitioners’ case is that the coal of any seam or section of a seam occurring in colliery has been categorised into grades in terms of the provisions of Section 3-A of the Colliery Control order. The Coal Controller has also laid down the standard and method of sampling of the coal in the matter of declaration of grades or size of coal. According to the petitioners, in Tapin South and Tapin North collieries the grade of coal has been categorised as washery grade IV and washery grade III respectively. In spite of that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily realised the price from the petitioners against the supply of coal in excess of the grade of coal fixed in the aforementioned two collieries.
3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that the petitioners’ unit booked the benefitting coal from the Road Sales Centre by employing manual loaders/ picking and have ample opportunities for selective loading and hence their claim for supply of inferior grade of coal is not tenable. It is stated that the petitioners are getting coal from the Road Sales Centre and not from the Coal face. It is stated that the prevailing practice of charging service charge was known to the petitioners prior to the booking and lifting of coal and. therefore, they cannot be allowed to make a claim for refund of any amount whatsoever.
4. I have heard Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mrs. Banani Verma, learned counsel appearing for the C.C.L.
5. The first question, which falls for consideration, is whether the respondent-CCL is entitled to charge the price higher other than the price fixed for the accepted grade of coal in different collieries. It has not been disputed that the price of different grade
of coal has been fixed by the respondents and, therefore, there is no question of charging price higher other than the price fixed. So far the instant case is concerned, it has been categorically stated by the respondents that respondent-CCL allotted coal to the cokeries including the petitioners’ unit on the basis of grade declared under the provisions of Colliery Control Order. It is further stated that the petitioners’ unit booked the benefitting coal from the Road Sales Centre by employing manual loaders/picking and they got the opportunity of selective loading and, therefore, the claim for supply of inferior grade of coal does not arise.
Be that as it may, in my opinion, the respondent-CCL is not entitled to charge the price of coal in excess of the price fixed for different grades of coal. However, this price will not be inclusive of other charges that is permissible under the law.
6. So far refund of excess amount, if any, claimed by the petitioners. I do not find any specific pleading in the writ petition with regard to quantity of coal supplied to the petitioners against which excess amount has been charged by the respondents. There is also no pleading as to how-much amount is refundable by the respondents to the petitioners. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever for refund of alleged excess amount.
7. This writ application is, therefore, allowed in part but without any costs.
8. Writ application partly allowed.
