JUDGMENT SATYESHWAR ROY, J. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that all the seven writ petitions are verbatim copies of statement or facts stated in C.W.J.C. No. 606 of 1985(R). The question of law involved in these petitioners and pressed on behalf of the petitioners are similar. These applications, therefore, were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. All the petitioners (companies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. partnership firm and individuals) carry on business of manufacturing briquettes from slurry or sludge. The petitioners collect slurry or sludge from the surface of the land. Some of the petitioners have obtained right to collect slurry sludge from the surface of the land by iudentnres executed by the State of Bihar and some of the petitioners purchasd slurry or sludge from the settlees of the state of Bihar or from the raiyats. From the slurry or sludge, the petitioners manufacture briquette which is sold in the market, According to the petitioners, slurry sludge and briquettes are not coal within the moaning of definition of coal in the Bihar Trade Articles (Licencees Unification) Order, 1984 (the Unification Order). Consequently these are not essential commodities and neither Unification order nor the Bihar Essential Article. (Display of Price and Stock) Order, 1971 (the Display Order) has any application. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have also contended that they are governed by the Colliery Control order 1945 and the Unification older and Display Order shall have no application to them. So far the Colliery Control Order is concerned, it applies to colliery which includes plants for manufacturing coke, Since the specific case of the petitioner is that they manufacture briquettes, it can straight as may be held that Colliery Control Order has no application so far slurry or manufacture of briquettes are concerned. 3. The question that required to be decided is whether slurry, sludge or briquettes is coal within the definition of coal as given in unification order. Coal in Unification Order means "Coal coke and other derivatives and includes soft coke, hard coke of various grades." 4. There is no dispute between the parties that slurry is creation of (industrial affluent consisting of mud ash) only substances, water and carbonacious ingredients. In the definition of coal in the Unification order not only coal but also coke come within the meaning of the Unification order. There is no dispute between the parties that slurry is creation of (industrial affluent consisting of mud ash) only substances, water and carbonacious ingredients. In the definition of coal in the Unification order not only coal but also coke come within the meaning of the Unification order. With reference to that definition it was urged by the learned Government pleader no. 1 that as slurry is derived from coal, it comes within the mischief of the Unification order and display order. According to Mr. Sinha. learned counsel for the petitioners, athough slurry is obtained after washing of coal, it cannot be said to be a derivative of coal. The Short question, therefore, is whether slurry can be held to be a derivative of coal. The word 'derivative' has not been defined in the Unification order. "Derivative" according to Black's Law Dictionary means "coming from another taken from something preceding : secondary that which has not its origin in itself, but owes its existence to something foregoing any thing obtained or reduced from another." Therefore, it is held that slurry is obtained from coal then only it can be said that it is derivative of coal and shall be Coal within the moaning of the definition of the Unification order. 5. A Full Bench of this Court in 1986 B.B.C.J. 280 L.F.B.) C.W.J.C. No. 1530 of 1983(R) and analogous cases (disposed of on 28th December, 1985) dealt in detail the process by which slurry is formed. It is therefore, not necessary to go into those details for the purposes of these cages and it will suffice-to notice relevant paragraph of that Judgment. While noticing how slurry is created, the full Bench held in paragraphs 6 : "Inevitably what first calls for pointed notice is the larger process which leads to the creation of the industrial affluent of slurry. This may be noticed in non-technical language from the virtually admitted pleadings of the parties, In the coal washery the raw coal mineral from the colliery is first brought and broken into graded place and thereafter under goes a wide variety of processes with the principal object of reducing its ash content to the minimum. In the West Bokaro coal washery this chemical process, on the petitioner's own showing; is what is called the croath floatation process". In the West Bokaro coal washery this chemical process, on the petitioner's own showing; is what is called the croath floatation process". This inter alia, involves that the graded coal is mixed with the diesel oil, pine oil and many other chemical ingredients and is thereafter washed with lacs or gallons of Water. The end product is the washed coal with minimal reduced quentity of aash content fit for high graded matelurgical process including the manufacture of steel". In paragraph-7 it held that : "The residual waste of the aforesaid process contituted of water, mud only and chemical substances, fine particles of coal and carbonacious materials, which is then put into a series of slurry pulps within the colliery promises. Nevertheless the surplus waste in the form of sludge slurry is thereafter discharged as an affluent from the washery into the Bokaro river. Depending upon the weather conditions and where the river is not in high flood or otherwise this slurry would get deposited in the dry bed of the river or is then carried down on to the land or raiyati owner down steam, when the sludge or slurry comes into contact with the sand of soil. The water content or other material gets soaked and absorbed in the same, leaving on the top a fine carbonaceous product or film on the soil. In these cases, the parties did not contend that coal is washed by a process other then that noticed by the Full Bench. They also did not dispute that the end product is washed coal and the residual waste is called slurry. 6. It will thus appear that the industrial effluent which comes out of coal washery doing the process of washing of coal consisting of water, oily mud chemical substances, fine particles of coal and carbonsceous materials in commonly called slurry. But this is not collected for the purpose of converting into briqettes, that is collected has also been stated in paragraph 7 of the judgment quoted above, and that is the fine carbonaceous product or film on the soil which remains after water contents and/or other materials get socked and absorbed in the land or dry bed or river. Relevant portion of paragraph 11 of the judgment can be gainfully quoted. Relevant portion of paragraph 11 of the judgment can be gainfully quoted. "In order to truely appreciate the rival arguments, it is necessary to focus on the true nature and the essence of the product commonly known as slurry. As a matter of history, it is not in dispute that in the earlier decades slurry has been allowed to go waste and has a pollutant which had to be painstakingly thrown in the rivers or stream in order to be washed away. It is common ground that some of the old coal washeries go back to the forties and fifties (indeed, it is the petitioners claim that one of the coal washeries in the present case is the oldest in the country when slurry had no commercial value and was a mere polluting waste or a reject material. Undoubtedly, inflation and abnormal rile in the prices of coal and fuel have rendered slurry deposit to be of substantial commercial value, for which rival claims are now being raised. This by itself however, cannot alter the basic nature of slurry as an industrial waste. It, thus, seems plain that the true nature of slurry is that it is a residue, reject or waste of an industrial process consisting of mud, ash oily substances, Water and corbonanceous ingredients." That being the position, it will be absurd to hold that slurry is a derivative of coal. As slurry is not coal or derivative of coal, it is not covered by the definition of coal under the Unification Order. Schedule I of the unification Order does not apply to slurry, be held that Unification Order does not apply to Slurry. 7. Coal bas not been defined in Display Order. But in schedule I to that Order, trade article mentioned is "coal including soft-coke". Sorely slurry is not coal nor it is soft coke. Display order, therefore, shall also have no application to the business in slurry. 8. The validity of the unification order and the Display order was also challenged by the petitioners that is not competent to pass the orders. In the circumstances of these cases and the findings recorded above, that question need not be gone into. 9. In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed. 8. The validity of the unification order and the Display order was also challenged by the petitioners that is not competent to pass the orders. In the circumstances of these cases and the findings recorded above, that question need not be gone into. 9. In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed. Let a writ of prohibition be issued prohibiting the respondents, their men, agents, officers and subordinates from applying the provisions of the unification order and Display order, So far the business of the petitioners in slurry is concerned, there shall be no older as to costs. Sandhiwalia Chief Justice : I agree.