ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order, contained in letter dated 16th/17th July, 1999, whereby and whereunder the respondents informed the petitioner that the amount which is tying with the respondents has been adjusted towards the loss suffered by the respondents. By the said letter, the petitioner has also been debarred from doing trade or business with the respondents.
2. The main plea taken by the petitioner is that the action on the part of the respondents is mala fide as the order has been passed without a detailed enquiry. There was no such terms and conditions laid down by the respondents that the respondents can adjust any amount on account of loss, if any caused by the petitioner who have a right to lift the stack slurry, on payment of requisite amount.
3. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is indulged in mal practices in the removal of superior quality of slurry In place of one allotted at lessor price. The petitioner was given a show cause notice as to why action be not taken against it and reply being unsatisfactory, appropriate action has been taken.
4. A show cause notice issued by the Chief General Manager (M & QC) of B.C.C.I… Coal Bhavan. Dhanbad dated 12th June. 1999 is on record. In the show cause, the respondents while stated that on surprise check. It was found that the petitioner was lifting slurry from the slurry pond, instead of stack slurry from earmarked area duly mentioned in the sale order issued for Moonidih Washery. The respondents have not stated as to how the said act prejudices the interest of the Company or render any loss. It was also not mentioned that the authorities intended to impound any amount or to adjust the same against any one or other loss.
5. In the circumstances, the respondents having not opened their mind that they are going to adjust or impound any amount of petitioner, the impugned order cannot be held to be in accordance with the rules of natural justice.
6. In the circumstances, the case is remitted to the respondents with liberty to give a fresh notice to petitioner relating to adjustment/impounding any amount of petitioner lying with the authority.
7. The respondents may give such show cause notice to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the petitioner may reply within a month thereof. If the petitioner fails to give reply to the show cause notice, the authorities may proceed ex parte in accordance with law. However, if the Respondents fail to take any final decision relating to adjustment or impounding the amount of the petitioner lying with them within four months, the impugned order dated 16th/ 17th July, 1999 so far as it relates to adjustment/impounding of the amount of petitioner, shall stand quashed.
8. So far as the decision of respondents communicated, vide letter dated 16th/17th July, 1999 debarring the petitioner from doing business with respondents is concerned, the petitioner will file a fresh representation before the Chief General Managers (S&M) of M/s. B.C.C.L.. Dhanbad who will enquire into the matter and take appropriate decision on such representation within two months thereof.
9. It is needless to say that if the authorities have not incurred any loss for any act of omission or commission on the part of the petitioner, they will not debar the petitioner from doing business with them.
10. The writ petition stands disposed
of.