Order After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The petitioner M/s. Basudha Yudyog, owned by Basudha Construction (India) Pvt. Limited, having its registered unit under the Small Scale Industries, which is engaged in production of special quantity of hard coke and for that purpose getting supply of S.T.L.- II coking coal from the respondent Bharat Coking Coal Limited, in short (B.C.C.L.), pursuant to the release order issued by the Coal Controller, Calcutta, has prayed for a direction to the respondent B.C.C.L. either to refund the excess amount paid against the supply of S.T.L - II coking coal by the respondents at the higher rate till March, 1996 and/or to adjust the said excess amount against future supply of the coal to the petitioner. 2. Shortly stated the case of the petitioner is that the said quality of coal was being supplied to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.895/- per metric tonnes besides other taxes till 10th January, 1996, as it appears from the Sale Order dated 10.1.96, copy of which is made Annexure3 to this writ application. It is alleged that from February, 1996 onwards the respondents have stopped the supply of the coal, in question, to the petitioner. The reason for non-supply of the said quality of coal to the petitioner was due to increase of the price from Rs. 895/- to Rs. 1400/- per metric tonnes and, accordingly, the coal was supplied to the petitioner at the increased rate of Rs. 1400/- per metric tonnes besides other taxes till March, 1996, which is evident from the various documents as Annexure-4 series to the writ application. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the said quality of coal is being supplied to other consumer, namely, Kalinga Iron Works, at the basic rate of Rs. 895/- per metric tonnes. It is alleged that the respondents could not have charged the increased rate from the petitioner till 31st May, 1996 when the price of the coal was increased by the competent authority, prior to that, the respondent B.C.C.L., has no authority to charge the increased price and, as such, the petitioner is entitled for refund of the excess amount paid by it and/or to be adjusted against the supply of coal in future. 3. 3. The respondents have appeared and a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1, 3 & 4, wherein it has not been denied that the coal, in question, was supplied to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 895/- per metric tonnes prior to January, 1996. However, it is stated that, thereafter, price was increased by the respondent B.C.C.L. vide Sale Order dated 23.2.96. It is alleged that different category of coal, being processed Prime Coking Coal, was being supplied to the petitioner at the basic price of Rs. 1400/- per tonne. Since the processed prime coking coal and the Steel II ROM coal, which were being supplied to the petitioner, are of two different grades and, as such, the increased price of processed prime coking coal was charged from the petitioner. It is denied that the petitioner was supplied S.T.L.- II coal on all occasions. It is alleged that processed prime coking coal was supplied to the petitioner from January, 1996 and onwards at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per metric tonnes. It is further alleged that the same price has been charged from other consumer, namely, Kalinga Iron Works. It is further alleged that the increased price, which has been charged from the petitioner, is also being levied against the despatches made to the other consumers, namely, M/s. Vishakhapattanam Steel Plant, which comes under the priority sector. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent B.C.C.L. has no authority to increase the price of coal ignoring the price fixed by the Central Government in the Ministry of Coal. No separate price has been fixed by the Central Government for coal, namely, processed prime coking coal. Such quality of coal is processed by the B.C.C.L. itself and supplied to the various consumers at the increased price raised by the B.C.C.L. itself without prior permission from the Central Government, which is the competent authority under the Colliery Control Order. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the coal which has been supplied to the petitioner from the month of January, 1996 and onwards was of better quality known as processed prime coking coal and the coal supplied to the petitioner, namely, Steel II ROM, is of inferior quality in comparison with the processed prime coking coal. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the coal which has been supplied to the petitioner from the month of January, 1996 and onwards was of better quality known as processed prime coking coal and the coal supplied to the petitioner, namely, Steel II ROM, is of inferior quality in comparison with the processed prime coking coal. It is submitted that once the coal is processed and benefication is done, it gives uniformity in size and reduces ash range and the said coal is commonly known as processed prime coking coal, the price of which had been increased by the respondent B.C.C.L. at the rate of Rs.1400/- per metric tonnes. According to the learned counsel the petitioner is not being discriminated in supply of coal at the increased rate, inasmuch as, the other consumers are charged the same increased rate of supply of the processed prime coking coal. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the pleadings of the parties, the only question falls for consideration in this writ application is as to whether the respondent B.C.C.L. can fix its own rate of coal ignoring the rate fixed by the Central Government in the Ministry of Coal. The Colliery Control Order, which is the Central Order, empowers the Central Government amongst others to fix the rate of different categories of coal and, admittedly, the price of coal which was being supplied to the petitioner prior to January, 1996 at the rate of Rs. 895/- per metric tonnes was the price fixed by the Central Government. From the Gazette Notification dated 22.3.96, copy of which is made Annexure-1 to this writ application, it appears that the Central Government issued a notification in its extraordinary gazette dated 22.3.96 through the Ministry of Coal by which Table III relating to coking coal and Table IV relating to steam coking coal has been omitted w.e.f. 1.4.96, prior thereto in December, 1995, the Central Government has issued gazette notification through which rate of different quality of coal under different Tables has been fixed at Rs. 895/- per metric tonnes besides other taxes, which is apparent from Gazette Notification dated 28.12.95 as contained in Annexure-2 to this writ application, and, accordingly, coal was being supplied to the petitioner prior to January, 1996 at the same rate fixed by the Central Government, which is evident from the Sale Order dated 10.1.96 copy of which is made Annexure-3 to this writ application. It has not been brought to the notice of this Court that the Central Government at any point has increased the rate of different quality of coal. It is the B.C.C.L. which has increased the rate of coal merely on the ground that the said coal is processed in order to reduce the ash range for effective use in the Iron Industries. As stated above, the Central Government has fixed the rate of kinds of coal at the rate of Rs. 895/- per metric tonnes. The coal, namely, processed prime coking coal, which is alleged to have been supplied to the petitioner, has not been categorised in any of the notifications issued by the Central Government fixing higher price. Admittedly, the price of such coal, namely, processed prime coking coal, has neither been fixed separately by the Central Government nor the respondent B.C.C.L. has obtained prior permission from the Central Government before increasing the rate of such coal. The Central Government, as stated above, is the only competent authority under the Colliery Control Order to fix the price of different categories of coal, which, in fact, admittedly has been fixed by the Central Government through gazette notification, referred to above, the respondent B.C.C.L. cannot charge the higher rate from the consumers against the supply of coal ignoring the price fixed by the Central Government. Before increasing the price of such processed coal, the respondent B.C.C.L. ougnt to have obtained prior permission from the Central Government but without doing so, unilaterally increased the price, which is per se illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, I am of the view that the respondent B.C.C.L. has no authority to increase the price of coal unilaterally ignoring the price fixed by the Central Government and/or without taking prior permission from the Central Government. 7. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, I am of the view that the respondent B.C.C.L. has no authority to increase the price of coal unilaterally ignoring the price fixed by the Central Government and/or without taking prior permission from the Central Government. 7. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the respondents are directed either to refund the amount charged from the petitioner and/or to adjust the same against the future supply of coal that may be effected to the petitioner.