G. N. RAY, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge on Feb. 28, 1985 disposing of the five writ petitions concerning C. R. Nos. 14809 (W) to 140812 (W) of 1983 and C. O. No. 19444 (W) of 1984. Against the said judgment disposing of the writ petitions by the learned trial Judge, Shree Jagadamba Coke Manufacturing Enterprises, Sree Shyam Industries, Bajarangbali Coal Co. Ltd. , Tentulia Coke Plant. G. N. Coke Manufacturing Co. Private Limited and Premium Fuels preferred appeal and such appeals have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this judgment because in all these appeals a common question of law and fact is involved. ( 2 ) IT appears that Premium Fuels did not move any writ petition but they made application for being added as parties in the pending writ petition and it appears that Premium Fuels were allowed to intervene in the pending writ proceedings and make submission. ( 3 ) IT appears that there are about 100 coke oven plants operating in Bihar and West Bengal out of which only one coke oven plant viz. Premium Fuels is situated in West Bengal and the rest are in Bihar. For manufacturing hard coke, these coke oven plants require coking coal and such coking coal is supplied by the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (B. C. C. L.) which own the collieries containing coking coal in the area. B. C. C. L. and other subsidiaries of Coal India Limited (hereinafter referred to as CIL) distribute diverse quantities of coal every month from various collieries to these coke oven plants. The entire coal supplied to these oven plants come from CIL and/or its subsidiaries. The quality and/or grade of coal varies from colliery to colliery. It is an admitted position that the total quantity of suitable quality or grades of coal for manufacturing hard coke by the coke oven plants in question is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the said coke oven plants. Because of the scarcity of the availability of the suitable coking coal to meet the demands of all the coke oven plants, disputes and differences arose in the matter of supply of such coal to the different coke oven plants in Bihar and West Bengal. Because of the scarcity of the availability of the suitable coking coal to meet the demands of all the coke oven plants, disputes and differences arose in the matter of supply of such coal to the different coke oven plants in Bihar and West Bengal. It appears that being dissatisfied with the policy and/ or orders and/or directions passed by the CIL and BCCL to supply different grades of coal to the said coke oven plants, some of the said coke oven plants had moved writ petitions before this Court, inter alia, alleging that they had been discriminated against in the matter of supply of suitable grade of coal to such coke oven plants and direction and/or policy decision of CIL and/or BCCL had caused serious prejudice to them. It also appears that on such writ petitions interim orders had been passed by this Court from time to time and the court of Appeal had also passed interlocutory orders in connection with such writ proceedings. It also appears that some of the coke oven plants had entered into an agreement with the CIL, or BCCL for supply of specified grades of coal of specified amount and in the writ petitions some of the writ petitioners contended that because of such agreements made by CIL or BCCL with some of the coke oven plants and in view of the policy decision made by CIL or BCCL to supply different grades of coal from different collieries to the said coke oven plants, some of the coke oven plants had been suffering serious prejudice. Accordingly, in the writ petitions, such agreements entered into between the BCCL and CIL with other coke oven plants and/or the decision taken by the BCCL or CIL to supply different grades of coal from different collieries to the coke oven plants in question were sought to be challenged on the ground that the said arrangements had resulted in hostile discrimination and such agreements and/for directions were unjust, unfair and arbitrary. It may be noted that collieries of CIL and BCCL are all nationalised collieries. It may be noted that collieries of CIL and BCCL are all nationalised collieries. ( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge in his judgment has put much industry and has endeavoured to analyse the facts and circumstances relating to the writ petitions and various orders passed by this Court from time to time by which directions to supply particular grades of coal from particular collieries had been given by this Court in such writ proceedings or appeals arising out of the same. The learned trial Judge has also analysed the requirement of the coke oven plants and the grades of coal and the quantity thereof supplied by different collieries of BCCL and CIL. It appears that the learned trial Judge in his ultimate analysis has come to the finding that there was no reasonable or rational logic or factual justification demonstrated for preferential treatment either to Premium Fuels or other four writ petitioners mentioned in the judgment. It has been held by the learned trial Judge that distribution of raw materials owned by the State must be based on equitable and fair considerations. It is the actual requirement of the raw materials, by the consuming units which must form the basis of fair and equitable scheme of distribution. The learned trial Judge has further held that the decision of the BCCL and CIL in the context of scarcity of suitable coal to supply the entire coal to Premium Fuels from Damagoria Colliery was prima facie discriminatory in favour of the said Premium Fuels. The learned Judge has further held that GIL and BCCL had no justification to enter into an agreement on the basis of a clause containing an order of this Court in earlier writ proceedings in view of the fact that such order stood vacated and could not form any basis of arbitration agreement. The learned trial Judge has also held that even assuming that the BCCL had entered into such arbitration agreement and thereby created rights in favour of some of the coke oven plants to obtain coal from nine specified collieries, the question requires seniors consideration as to whether or not any agency of the State can allocate more suitable quality of coal in favour of a few selected consumers when the general policy is undoubtedly to make a pro rata distribution. The learned trial Judge has come to the finding that although the other consumers had also obtained coal from the nine collieries specified for the writ petitioners, the quantities renewed by such other consumers were extremely meagre and it was therefore manifest that there was no uniform pro rata allocation. The learned trial Judge inter alia held that it is incumbent on the respondents to make equitable distribution of coal to all the cokeries, and each cokery should get fair and equitable share of coal available for distribution to the cokeries. The learned Judge did not accept the contention made by the five cokeries that unless particular grades of coal are made available to them, they cannot manufacture particular quality of hard coke which was being manufactured by them. The learned trial Judge has pointed out that some of the cokeries are using coke of inferior grade having more than 24% ash content for the manufacture of the hard coke. The learned trial Judge has further held that as no legal right has been established by any of the parties for favourable, discriminatory and differential treatment the agreement and/or direction or order to supply different grades of coal from various collieries to such coke oven plants should be set aside. In such view of the matter, the learned trial Judge disposed of the writ petitions, inter alia giving various directions as to how and in what manner the distribution of various grades of coal from various collieries should be made to all coke oven plants in Bihar and West Bengal. The learned trial Judge has also directed that the CIL and/or its subsidiaries shall not act on the basis of any arbitration agreement or any other agreement or any order of states quo passed by the CIL and/or its subsidiaries. ( 5 ) ON behalf of Shri Jagadamba Coke Manufacturing Enterprises and Anr. , being appellants in F. M. A. T. No. 1081 of 1985, Mr. S. K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that there is an association called Indian Colliery Owners Association now known as Industrial and Commercial Association which at all material times controlled and still controls the distribution of coal to all the coke oven plants in and around the coalfields of Ranigunj and Jharia. S. K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that there is an association called Indian Colliery Owners Association now known as Industrial and Commercial Association which at all material times controlled and still controls the distribution of coal to all the coke oven plants in and around the coalfields of Ranigunj and Jharia. The said Association at all material times was controlled by one Sri P. K. Agarwalla and his group and year after year the said Agarwala and/or his nominees and/or his family members got themselves elected as President, Secretary and Office bearers of the said Association. The appellant Sri Jagadamba Coke Manufacturing Enterprises along with other three appellants viz. Shree Shyam Industries, Bajrangbali Coal Co. and Tetulia Coke Plant were once members of the said Association but in view of the disputes and difference between the appellants and the said Agarwalla Group representing the said Association, discontinued to be the members of the said Association and they made application for allotment of coal to them separately. The appellant Sri Jagadamba Coke Manufacturing Enterprises was allotted 3000 MT of coal and other three appellants were allotted coal to the extent of 3500 M. T. It is the allegation of the appellants that due to the intervention of the said Agarwala Group the quota of the appellants was reduced by more than 50% but there was no reduction of coal to the said Agarwala Group or any other members of the said Association. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the BCCL, the appellants filed writ petitions before this Court and obtained interim order containing directions of supply of coal to the said writ petitioners an interim measure. Contempt petitions were also initiated on behalf of the said writ petitioners against alleged violation of the interim directions of this Court in the said writ proceedings. Ultimately, the disputes between the parties were settled by agreeing to refer the same to the arbitration of Chief Mining Adviser of the Railway Board, Government of India and it was also agreed that pending the arbitration proceedings, the BCCL would continue to supply coal of the quality and quantity in terms of the order passed in the interlocutory application as contained in the order dt. 9th Aug. , 1979. 9th Aug. , 1979. In view of such agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration, the writ petitions were ultimately withdrawn and four several arbitration agreements in writing were executed by and between the BCCL and CIL on one hand and the appellants on the other hand, inter alia, providing for reference of all disputes between the parties to the Chief Mining Adviser, Railway Board and it was one of the conditions in the said arbitration agreement that until the disputes were finally disposed of by the Arbitrator supply of coal of the quantity and quality in terms of the order dt. 9th Aug. , 1979 of this Court should be made. After such agreements were entered between the appellants and the CIL and BCCL to refer the disputes to the arbitration, five of the members of the said Association including one Akash Coke Industries and Pawan Hard Coke Industries filed five several writ petitions in this Court, inter alia, contending that BCCL and CIL had been discriminating against the said writ petitioners and the members of the Association and in order to give a favourable treatment to the appellants the said arbitration agreement had been entered into. Later on several other writ petitions were also filed including one of Industrial Engineering Company. By the impugned judgment of the trial Judge dt. 28th Feb. , 1985 which is the subject-matter of the instant appeals, the learned trial Judge dealt and disposed of the following proceedings :-" (I) Five main writ applications (four of the appellants and one of the Industrial Engineering Co.) (ii) Three applications of Premium Fuels for addition of parties and for variation of interim orders, (iii) Interim applications of the appellants and of Industrial Engineering Co. ( 6 ) THE appellants Sri Jagadamba Coke Manufacturing Enterprises and three other appellants (Shyam Industries, Bajrangbali Coal Co. and Tentulia Coke Plant) have sought to challenge the impugned order of the learned trial Judge principally on five grounds viz. ( 6 ) THE appellants Sri Jagadamba Coke Manufacturing Enterprises and three other appellants (Shyam Industries, Bajrangbali Coal Co. and Tentulia Coke Plant) have sought to challenge the impugned order of the learned trial Judge principally on five grounds viz. (a) Although none of the writ petitions were filed in representative capacity, the learned trial Judge has given directions and/or orders which cover not only the writ petitioners or the respondents in such writ proceedings but a large number of coke oven owners and consumers of coal spread over through West Bengal, Bihar Madhya Pradesh and other parts of India without giving such coke oven plants and other interested persons any opportunity of being heard. (b) Power to lay down a policy of distribution of coal lies solely with the Central Government and/or through its agency viz. Coal Controller and the learned trial Judge has gone wrong in usurping such functions of the Central Government and/or its agency and the Court should not have taken upon itself the burden of laying down the policy of the distribution as has been done by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment. (c) There has been violation of principle of natural justice and the learned trial Judge based his judgment principally upon the facts alleged in an affidavit dt. 20th Sept. , 1984 filed by BCCL in one of the writ proceedings in respect of which no copy was ever supplied to the appellants. (d) The learned trial Judge has erred in setting aside the arbitration agreement entered into by the appellants and the CIL and BCCL under the Arbitration Act, 1940 and such arbitration agreement could only beset aside under the special provisions of the Arbitration Act and in exercising of the writ jurisdiction the learned trial Judge should not have set aside the said arbitration agreement without taking recourse to the special provisions of the Arbitration Act. (e) The orders and directions given by the learned trial Judge for distribution of coal are wholly inconsistent and completely unworkable and should not have been so given. ( 7 ) MR. (e) The orders and directions given by the learned trial Judge for distribution of coal are wholly inconsistent and completely unworkable and should not have been so given. ( 7 ) MR. S. K. Gupta has contended that it was sought to be contended on behalf of the Industrial Engineering Company that for challenging a policy decision of the Government, it is not necessary to implead all the persons who may be affected by such policy decision and in support of such contention, a reference to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 1969 Andh Pra 204 since upheld by the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1974 SC 1755 and AIR 1981 SC 1041 were relied on. Mr. Gupta has contended that the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. There was no challenge to the policy of the BCCL as such but certain acts of the BCCL were challenged on the ground of discrimination. Mr. Gupta has contended that if the writ petitioner does not challenge the policy of the decision as such but only challenges its action on the ground that the same is wrongful and discriminatory such application on the part of the writ petitioner cannot be said to be a representative action and as such notice to the persons who may be affected by the adjudication need be given. Mr. Gupta has contended that in the aforesaid circumstances, the learned trial Judge should not have given guidelines as a general policy decision to be followed by the BCCL and CIL in regard to all the owners of the coke oven plants. Such laying down of an all India Policy affecting large number of persons who were not parties before this Court was not warranted and on that score alone, the impugned judgment should be set aside. Mr. S. K. Gupta has further submitted that power to lay down the policy of distribution of coal lies on the Central Government and/or the Coal Controller under the Colliery Control Order, 1945. Mr. Mr. S. K. Gupta has further submitted that power to lay down the policy of distribution of coal lies on the Central Government and/or the Coal Controller under the Colliery Control Order, 1945. Mr. Gupta has contended that the impugned judgment dated 28th February, 1985 is not limited to any particular period of time namely one year, two years or three years and it also does not not indicate that if the situation improves and/or the circumstances warrant, the Central Government will be at liberty to supersede the judgment and lay down a policy of its own by making the Colliery Control Order, 1945 applicable for the distribution of the grade of coal required by the coke oven plants. It has been contended by Mr. Gupta that the working of the distribution policy of coal throughout India is of such a vast magnitude that it will involve year to year week to week and even day today supervision by a very large body of high executive officers and staff spread throughout India. There will arise necessities and emergent situations for variation and/or adjustment of the distribution policy from time to time and it is inconceivable that such a situation can be controlled and/or managed by any Court of law. He has, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Judge should not have embarked upon laying down a general policy for distribution of coal to the coke oven plants throughout the country. Mr. Gupta has contended that the impugned judgment of the learned trial Judge is based on facts contained in the affidavit-in-opposition of B. C. C. I. affirmed on 20th Sept. , 1984. No copy of such affidavit-in-opposition had been supplied to the appellants. B. C. C. L. had not admittedly filed any affidavit-in-opposition in the writ applications of the appellants and the learned trial Judge himself recorded the said fact in his judgment (Para 3. 27 ). The said affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 20th Sept. , 1984 was filed by the B. C. C. L. in the writ petition of Industrial Engineering Co. (C. O. No. 19444 (W) of 1983) and such fact has been noted by the learned trial Judge in para 7. 2 of the judgment. 27 ). The said affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 20th Sept. , 1984 was filed by the B. C. C. L. in the writ petition of Industrial Engineering Co. (C. O. No. 19444 (W) of 1983) and such fact has been noted by the learned trial Judge in para 7. 2 of the judgment. The facts and/or contentions alleged in the said affidavit-in-opposition are not correct and if opportunity had been given to the appellants to deal with the said affidavit-in-opposition, the appellants could have placed relevant facts for which there would have been no occasion for the learned trial Judge to base his decision on the facts stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition of B. C. C. L. Mr. Gupta has contended that for such reliance on the said affidavit-in-opposition, the appellants have been seriously prejudiced and on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice in basing the decision on facts not disclosed to the appellants, the impugned judgment of the learned trial Judge should be set aside. Mr. Gupta has also contended that the decision of the learned trial Judge is based on surmises, conjectures and probabilities and not on facts. ( 8 ) MR. Gupta has further submitted that in para eight of the judgment, the learned trial Judge has been pleased to observe "that the case of the appellant and its associates was no better than that of Premium Fuels and that was a case where B. C. C. L. had acted in a manner which was not only unwarranted but also spelt out collusion". Mr. Gupta has submitted that a party pleading fraud or collusion is under an obligation to prove such collusion. In the absence of giving any particulars, the Court should not have proceeded that there was any collusion and the said sweeping remark of collusion by the learned trial Judge was wholly unwarranted. Mr. Gupta has submitted that the learned trial Judge in paragraph 8. 20 of the judgment has been pleased to observe that "the entering into of the arbitration agreement between B. C. C. L. and the appellants was a novel way of getting indirectly what could not be obtained directly inasmuch as the order dt. 9th Aug. , 1979 of T. K. Basu, J. had spent its force. " Mr. 20 of the judgment has been pleased to observe that "the entering into of the arbitration agreement between B. C. C. L. and the appellants was a novel way of getting indirectly what could not be obtained directly inasmuch as the order dt. 9th Aug. , 1979 of T. K. Basu, J. had spent its force. " Mr. Gupta has contended that the order of T. K. Basu, J. dated 9th August, 1979 was not vacated on merits in a contested hearing. Such order was vacated at the express request of the appellant by mentioning before the Court that disputes between the parties had been resolved and as such they did not wish to proceed further with the writ petitions and other pending applications. Mr. Gupta has contended that arbitration agreement was entered between the parties lawfully for settling the disputes and the Chief Mining Adviser of the Railway Board was chosen to be the Arbitrator. The interim order dt. 9th Aug. , 1979 would have remained in force even if the parties had not entered into arbitration agreement. No application was made by any of the parties for writ proceedings for vacating the said order dt. 9th Aug. , 1979 passed by T. K. Basu, J. and as such the said order was expected to continue. There was nothing illegal and unjust in providing for continuance of the interim arrangement as contained in the order dt. 9th Aug. , 1979 until the dispute is settled by the award made in the arbitration proceedings. Mr. Gupta has contended that the orders and/or directions contained in the impugned judgment of the learned trial Judge are unworkable and/or inconsistent. As an illustration for the said contention, Mr. Gupta has submitted that according to Cl. (c) of the direction contained in the judgment, in case of coke oven plants which are already working, coal will be allotted to them on the basis of their performance of last three years but in case of newly installed coke oven plants, coal will be allotted to them on the basis of their installed capacity. Such direction, according Mr. Gupta, is wholly unreasonable and unworkable. Such direction, according Mr. Gupta, is wholly unreasonable and unworkable. Under such direction, a new coke oven plant having a capacity of consuming 4000 tonnes of coal will always get 4000 tonnes of coal and will show its performance on the basis of consumption of 4000 tonnes of coal, but the coke oven plants which are in existence and have their quota curtailed to 50% or 40% can never show their performance according to their capacity. Moreover, requirement of each coke oven plant cannot be the same. The learned trial Judge by the impugned order has put all unequals into an equal category and has provided that the coal will be allotted on pro rata basis. As a result, some of the coke oven plants have been undoubtedly benefited and some of the coke oven plants including the appellants have suffered prejudice. ( 9 ) MR. Anindya Kumar Mitra, the learned counsel appearing for M/s. G. N. Coke Manufacturing Company Private Limited has supported Mr. Gupta. Mr. Mitra has submitted that Coke oven plant of G. N. Coke is situated in Mugma Coalfields and the coke ovens of Mugma Coalfields used to get supplies of coal partly from BCCL or partly from ECL. The coal of ECL is of better quality and suitable for manufacturing coke. The coke ovens of Mugma Coalfields were lifting the entire quota of coal from the collieries of ECL and hardly they lifted any coal from collieries of BCCL Mr. Mitra has contended that the learned trial Judge has passed the impugned judgment containing direction for such supplies of coal from different Coalfields to various coke oven plants spread over a vast area but such direction has been passed by the learned trial Judge without hearing G. N. Coke Manufacturing Co. Ovt. Ltd. and the said G. N. Coke Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. has been seriously prejudiced by the direction given by the learned trial Judge for distribution of coal to various coke oven plants. Mr. Mitra has supported the contention of Mr. Gupta appearing for the other appellants that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to pass any order affecting strangers to the applications when the writ petitions had not been made in a representative character. Mr. Mr. Mitra has supported the contention of Mr. Gupta appearing for the other appellants that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to pass any order affecting strangers to the applications when the writ petitions had not been made in a representative character. Mr. Mitra has contended that if the order passed by the learned trial Judge is made applicable to the parties to the writ proceedings then the very purpose of the judgment will become frustrated and the same will loose all its significance. But in the facts of the case such direction need be passed by the Appeal Court and/ or the impugned judgment is required to be set aside. ( 10 ) MR. Shakti Nath Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing for Premium Fuels has contended that the writ petitioners in all the five matters out of which the impugned judgment was passed by the learned trial Judge have their coke oven plants in the State of Bihar and they were claiming relief against BCCL which has its registered office as well as Sales office at Dhanbad. Simply on the ground that the said writ petitioners have their registered office at Calcutta, the writ petitions were moved before this Court, although reliefs were really claimed against the respondents in the activities in the territory of Bihar. In such circumstances, the writ petitions should not have been entertained by the learned trial Judge. It has also been contended by Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the Premium Fuels that Premium Fuels admittedly moved the writ petition against CIL and BCCL and obtained Rule being C. R. No. 12803 (W) of 1983 together with an interim order directing inter alia maintenance of status quo with regard to supply of coal to Premium Fuels. The said facts were disclosed in para 17 of the affidavit-in-opposition of Premium Fuels in the matter of writ petition of Shyam Industries and the learned trial Judge has noted the same in para 3. 19 of the said judgment. The said facts were disclosed in para 17 of the affidavit-in-opposition of Premium Fuels in the matter of writ petition of Shyam Industries and the learned trial Judge has noted the same in para 3. 19 of the said judgment. The interim order obtained by Premium Fuels in its writ application concerning C. R. No. 12803 (W) of 1983 is still in force and was not one of the matters which was placed for hearing before the learned trial Judge and accordingly the learned trial Judge in exercise of his co-ordinate jurisdiction could not pass any order which would affect the operation of the interim order passed by this Court in another writ proceeding. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order passed by the learned trial Judge cannot affect the operation of the earlier order dt. 23rd Dec. , 1983 passed in C. R. No. 12803 (W) of 1983 in so far as the right of the said Premium Fules to get supply of coal under the said interim order is concerned. Mr. Mukherjee has also supported Mr. Gupta and Mr. Mitra that the impugned judgment cannot affect persons who are not parties in the proceedings before the learned trial Judge. Admittedly there are other proceedings initiated by other parties in other Courts including the proceeding before the Hon'ble Supreme Court since referred to in para 8. 13 of the judgment. Accordingly, the learned Judge could not lay down a general principle of distribution of coal to the owners of various coke oven plants although they were not parties in the proceedings before the learned trial Judge since disposed of by the impugned judgment. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that Sri Shyam Industries, Jagadamba Coke Mfg. Enterprises and Tetulia Coke Plant were seeking to enforce their alleged right of getting supply of coal from the specified collieries including Damagoria Colliery (East Ramnagar Section ). In the writ application, there was no allegation against Premium Fuels nor any allegations against B. C. C. L. for making supply to Premium Fuels from Damagoria Colliery (East Ram Nagar Section ). In the writ application by Industrial Engineering Co. , there was, however, an allegation of preferential treatment of B. C. C. L. in favour of six coke oven plant owners including Premium Fuels. Mr. In the writ application by Industrial Engineering Co. , there was, however, an allegation of preferential treatment of B. C. C. L. in favour of six coke oven plant owners including Premium Fuels. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that the Premium Fuels is concerned only with the maintenance of supply of coal from Damagoria Colliery (East Ramnagar Section) and only to that extent the Premium Fuels is opposing the prayer of Shyam Industries, Jagadamba Coke Mfg. Enterprises and Tetulia Coke Plant. The Premium Fuels have no objection if after maintaining supplies from the Damagoria Colliery as in the past, any excess can be supplied to other coke oven plants. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that Premium Fuels was objecting to the policy of pro rata distribution to Premium Fuels and was seeking to establish its claim for preferential supplies from Damagoria on the ground that such special arrangement was just and reasonable because such supply from Damagoria Colliery is essentially necessary for its existence and the decision taken by the C. I. L. or B. C. C. L. to supply coal from Damagoria Colliery as per the requirement of Premium Fuels is based on just and reasonable grounds and such decision is not arbitrary or unreasonable as alleged by the writ petitioners and found by the learned trial Judge. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that two basic questions are involved in the claim of Premium Fuels : (a) Whether or not Premium Fuels can justifiably claim any preference with regard to the supplies from Damagoria Colliery, and (b) Whether or not facilities and preference extended to Premium Fuels by CIL/bccl were just and reasonable. ( 11 ) MR. Mukherjee has submitted that Industrial Engineering Co. in its writ application has not taken any stand that no special preference or facilities can at all be extended to any manufacturer. On the other hand, the stand taken by the Industrial Engineering Co. is that special preference or facilities are being extended to some manufacturers without any justification. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that some of the facts which do not seem to be disputed or cannot be seriously disputed may be set out hereunder : (a) Damagoria Colliery was not even regarded by the authorities as containing coking coal and it was in fact not nationalised under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation Act, 1972 ). Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that some of the facts which do not seem to be disputed or cannot be seriously disputed may be set out hereunder : (a) Damagoria Colliery was not even regarded by the authorities as containing coking coal and it was in fact not nationalised under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation Act, 1972 ). It was nationalised under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 which provided for nationalisation of non-coking coal mines. (b) Premium Fuels is the first coke oven plant in West Bengal being established in 1974 at a distance of about 2 K. M. from Damagoria Colliery (East Ramnagar Section) and registered with the Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale Industries, Government of West Bengal and approved by Small Industries Service Institute, Government of India. (c) Damagoria Colliery (East Ramnagar Section) is the only Colliery in West Bengal from which supplies of suitable quality of coal can be had for production of Low Volatile Fuel (hard coke) and there is no other Colliery in close proximity of Premium Fuel and there was no other plant in close proximity of Damagoria Colliery. (d) There are about 110 coke oven plants in the State of Bihar drawing the bulk of their supplies from about 50 collieries situated in the State of Bihar. Most of these coke oven plants in Bihar were established immediately after the nationalisation of the Coal Mines and during the period of 1973-74. (e) The coke oven plants in the State of Bihar were never dependent upon the supply of coal from Collieries in other States, particularly in West Bengal and drawing of coal by the coke oven plants of Bihar from Collieries in other States were negligible. (f) Premium Fuels in 1974 made an application for fixation of quota of supply of coal to BCCL and BCCL agreed to supply such ceal from Damagoria Colliery (East Ramnagar Section to Premium Fuels. No other coke oven plants made any demand from Damagoria Colliery and it was only Premium Fuels which at that time was taking regular supply from the Damagoria Colliery. No other coke oven plants made any demand from Damagoria Colliery and it was only Premium Fuels which at that time was taking regular supply from the Damagoria Colliery. (g) At the point of time when Premium Fuels was established at its present site, there was sufficient stock of coal at Damagoria Colliery and the despatches were poor and BCCL entered into an agreement with Premium Fuels on 12-11-77 for supply of 2000 tonnes of coal per month with a clause that in the event of failure on the part of the Premium Fuels to lift the said quantity per month, a penalty would be imposed at a certain rate on the short fall. (h) The supply of suitable coal for coke making from some of the collieries in Jharia Coalfields dwindled and it was also then a clamour for supply of coal from Damagoria Colliery. (i) In order to obtain regular supply of coal from Damagoria Colliery, the Premium Fuels moved a writ petition and obtained an interim order from this Court on 27-7-79 for ensuring such supply of coal from Damagoria Colliery. Premium Fuels had also entered into negotiation and obtained assurance of an agreement for maintaining such supplies at the rate of 2000 MT per month from Damagoria Colliery on condition that the petitioner will withdraw the writ petition and acting on such assurance the Premium Fuels withdrew the writ petition and such fact of withdrawal of the writ petition was noted in the order of the Court dt. 16-1-81. In September, 1980, an agreement was entered into between the Premium Fuels and the BCCL for obtaining supply of coal from Damagoria (East Ramnagar Section) initially for a period of four months and Premium Fuels thereafter negotiated with the authority and was given to understand that the supplies would be maintained. CIL had taken a decision on 30-8-82 for maintenance of status quo after careful consideration of the question at the highest level and in its affidavit BCCL also admitted that such agreement was continuing. The Coal Controller in its affidavit before the learned trial Court had stated that the BCCL by its letter informed the Coal Controller that there was arrangement of supply of coal required by the Premium Fuels from Damagoria (East Ramnagar Section ). ( 12 ) MR. The Coal Controller in its affidavit before the learned trial Court had stated that the BCCL by its letter informed the Coal Controller that there was arrangement of supply of coal required by the Premium Fuels from Damagoria (East Ramnagar Section ). ( 12 ) MR. Mukherjee has contended that Damagoria Colliery (East Ramnagar Section) is not only a colliery just adjacent to Premium Fuels but it is the only colliery situate within a reasonable distance. The other collieries from which coking coal can be made available are situated at a distance of about 60 K. Ms. and above and the said fact will appear in a chart incorporated in the judgment by the learned trial Judge under para 4. 2. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that it will be evident from the said chart that other coke oven plants have several alternative sources of supply more or less at a comparable short distance, but Premium Fuels is the only coke oven plant which apart from Damagoria Colliery has no other alternative source of supply within a reasonable distance. ( 13 ) MR. Mukherjee has submitted that the coke oven plant of Premium Fuels is situated in the State of West Bengal and if on the basis of the principle laid down by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment, Premium Fuels is to get supply coal from the Coalfields in Bihar not only the Premium Fuels had to carry such coal from a distance of 60 K. Ms. and above but will have to pay sales tax at a higher rate because sales-tax rate in Bihar is more than the State of West Bengal. That apart, there will be various other difficulties, namely, there will be necessity of obtaining road permits for the movement of coal across inter state border. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that in the event the judgment of the learned trial Judge is implemented, 97% of the supply of Premium Fuels would be from distant collieries and only 3% from Damagoria Colliery (East Ram Nagar Section ). Mr. Mukherjee has contended that in the event the judgment of the learned trial Judge is implemented, 97% of the supply of Premium Fuels would be from distant collieries and only 3% from Damagoria Colliery (East Ram Nagar Section ). When most of the collieries supplying coal for coke oven plants are situated in Bihar and such collieries are in close proximity of the most of the coke oven plants, there cannot be any question of discrimination or special favour shown to Premium Fuels by supplying coal from Damagoria Colliery, in view of the fact that Damagoria is the only Colliery from which the required grade of coal can be supplied to the Premium Fuels which is only 2 K. Ms. away from such colliery and all other collieries supplying coal for the coke oven plants are at a considerable distance. If the order of the learned trial Judge is given effect to, all the coke oven plants situated in Bihar will continue the benefit of enjoying local supply or supply from the collieries near about the plants, but the Premium Fuels would be deprived of the main source of supply and would have to depend upon a distant source of raw materials, the cost of transportation and extra taxes would be such as to make it impossible for the Premium Fuels to compete with the other manufacturer. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that as a matter of fact after the decision of the learned trial Judge, the BCCL has stopped supplying the required coal from the Damagoria Colliery and is offering coal from distant coal fields for which the coke oven plants of Premium Fuels had to be closed. ( 14 ) MR. Mukherjee has contended that the Coal Controller who is the competent authority under the Colliery Control Order, 1945, after proper scrutiny and