Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding upon the respondents to release full quota of coal by changing the linkage from Bharat Coking Coal, Ltd. to Central Coalfield Ltd. as per their promise made and approved by the Respondent No. 1 by its resolution. 2. Petitioners case is that it is a Pvt. Limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No. 1, namely, Coal India Limited came out with an advertisement in the newspaper some times in the year, 1986 for establishment of Smokeless Fuel Plant which is used in domestic purposes. The petitioner became ready to invest more than crores of rupees from the establishment of the said industry and for that purpose, it purchased a project report which was supplied by the Central Mining Planning and Design Institute, a subsidiary of respondent No. 1. One of the Clauses of the said project report was that the plant being heat intensive in nature requires to be kept in operation for all 365 days of the year and for running the industry regular supply of coal is required which is the only material used for the same. It is stated that after the project report was prepared the petitioner applied for coal linkage to respondent No. 1 and, accordingly, a meeting was held on 17-11-1993 at Calcutta in which the representative of Coal India Ltd. and all its subsidiaries duly participated including the Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation (shortly the BICICO). According to the resolution, the BICICO was required to give clearance for coal linkage from C.C.L. and accordingly by letter dated 10-1-1994 addressed to the authorities of respondent No. J. the BICICO duly recommended the nearest source of coal linkage for the said unit, i.e. C.C.L. Petitioners further case is that the petitioner made a representation to the authorities of respondent No. 1 for change of coal linkage from BCCL. to CCL. so that the plant can be established without any further delay. The Director of the Industry Department, Government of Bihar also highly recommended for charge of coal linkage from BCCL to CCL in favour of the petitioner. to CCL. so that the plant can be established without any further delay. The Director of the Industry Department, Government of Bihar also highly recommended for charge of coal linkage from BCCL to CCL in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1, however, issued a letter dated 6-7-1998 to the authorities of CCL seeking clearance from CIL for transfer of coal linkage and the CCL, in terms of the letter dated 17-5-1998, gave consent for supply of coal to the petitioner from CIL and no objection letter was issued. The petitioners case is that on assurance given by the respondents, petitioners plant came in production from 2-2-1998 but despite the assurance and promises given by respondent No. 1, a letter dated 9-10-1998 was issued arbitrarily allotting 50% of monthly quota of coal from BCCL and 50% of monthly quote from CCL. A copy of the impugned office order dated 9-10-1998, has been filed and annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ application. It is stated by the petitioner that respondent No. 1, the C.C.L. is bound by its promise made from time to time for permanent linkage of the petitioners plant from CCL and for which the C.L.L. authorities have given no objection but still on temporary basis coal is being released to the petitioner 50% from BCCL and 50% from CCL and, as such, the petitioner is suffering huge loss and it has come at the stage of winding up of the Plant. The petitioner is said to have filed several representations to the respondents but nothing has been done till date. 3. By filling a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has made out a case of discrimination by stating, inter alia, that the petitioner-Company and also another Company, namely, M/s Pushpanjali Coal and Coke Pvt. Ltd. Aurangabad made similar applications for transfer of coal linkage from BCCL to CCL and in the case of M/s Pushpanjali Coal also the CCL has given no objection in regard to shifting of linkage of CCL. It is stated that during the pendency of the writ application the representation of M/s Pushpanjali Coal was considered by Coal India Ltd. in its meeting dated 12-3-1999 and a decision has been taken in favour of said M/s Pushpanjali Coal but the case of the petitioners was not considered. It is alleged that the decision of the respondent-C.I.L. is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. 4. It is alleged that the decision of the respondent-C.I.L. is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents starting, inter alia, that the unit of the petitioner was commenced with effect from 3-2-1998 and coal was released from BCCL, the available source at that time. It is further stated that the petitioner continued to make request for transfer of their linkage from BCCL to CCL on temporary basis instead of temporary transfer of allocation on quarterly basis. This was allowed and the petitioner availed the said facility. Meanwhile, the respondents have taken a decision in the meeting held on 3-9-1998 that the linkage once accorded by the respondents will be permanent in nature and there will be no change in the same. A copy of the decision has been filed and annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. Lastly, it is stated that in view of the decision taken by the respondents the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. 5. 1 have heard Mr, A.K. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. Admittedly, B.C.L. and C.C.L. are the subsidiaries of Coal India Limited. It is also not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner-unit was established on the basis of the Project report supplied by the Coal Mining Planning and Design Institute which is also under C.I.L. It is also admitted fact that the nearest source of coal linkage for the said unit is CCL inasmuch as all the collieries of CCL are nearest to the Plant. Taking all these facts into consideration the BICICO also recommended for the supply of coal from the nearest colliery fide its letter dated 10-1-1994 (Annexure-2). The letter dated 10-1-1994 of BICICO addressed to C.I.L. reads as under: Sri T.P. Balakrishnana, Executive Director (Marketing) Coal India Ltd. Block B (5th Floor). Calcutta-700061. Dear Sir, Kindly refer, to the discussion and decision taken in the meeting held on 17-11-1993 at Calcutta in regard to various problems faced by SSF units financed by BICICO in Bihar. One of the matter is related to source of coal Linkage. Calcutta-700061. Dear Sir, Kindly refer, to the discussion and decision taken in the meeting held on 17-11-1993 at Calcutta in regard to various problems faced by SSF units financed by BICICO in Bihar. One of the matter is related to source of coal Linkage. It was decided that the linkage of SSF Plants will be reviewed by CIL for rationalisation of linkage keeping in view the present availability of coal suitable for SSF so that the unit get their supplies from the nearest suitable source. In the above context enclosed please find a photo copy of the letter received from M/s Domco Smokeless Fuels (P) Ltd., Aurangabad and M/s Shiv Domestic Coke Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Area, Fatuha, Patna (both are BICICO assisted units). The nearest source of coal linkage for the said units would be Central Coal Fields. The units have been given coal linkage for getting their supplies from BCCL. It is, therefore, requested that the request of the units may please be considered favourably and suitable linkage from the nearest source in CCL may be given. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, sd/ (P.R. Roy) Managing Director. 7. It further appears from the letter dated 17-7-1998 that the Director of Industries, Government of Bihar also strongly recommended the case of the petitioner for supply of coal from the nearest colliery of CCL. Ultimately the respondent-CIL realised the difficulty faced by the petitioner-unit and issued a letter dated 6-7-1998 (Annexure-7) to C.I.L. requesting it to accept the request of the petitioner. The C.C.L. by letter dated 17-7-1998 gave consent for supply of coal to the petitioner-unit and one M/s Pushpanjali Coal and Coke Pvt. Ltd. A copy of the letter dated 17-7-1998 (Annexure-8) has been annexed which reads as under: To, The CGM (S&M), CIL, Calcutta. Dear Sir, This has for reference to the following letters of Shri U.K. Sinha, Sales Manager (Linkage) CIL, Calcutta, regarding transfer of linkage from BCCL to CCL for some of the units: 1. Confidential letter No. CIL/C4A/48912/843-45 dated 23-6-1998 regarding transfer of linkage permanently from BCCL to CCL in respect of M/s Pushpanjali Coal & Coke Pvt. Ltd. Aurangabad (Bihar), a SSF unit and M/s Kala Coke & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Gidha (Bhojpur), a hard coke production unit. 2. Confidential letter No. CIL/C4A/48912/843-45 dated 23-6-1998 regarding transfer of linkage permanently from BCCL to CCL in respect of M/s Pushpanjali Coal & Coke Pvt. Ltd. Aurangabad (Bihar), a SSF unit and M/s Kala Coke & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Gidha (Bhojpur), a hard coke production unit. 2. Letter No. CIL/C4A/44555 (SSF)/927 dated 6/7-7-1998 regarding granting of permanent linkage on CCL instead of CCL in respect of M/s Domco Smokeless Fuels (P) Ltd. Aurangabad, an SSF Unit. The subject-matter was put up to competent authority for approval and this isto confirm that CCL has no objection in regard to shifting of linkage on CCL, AS requested by the units. Yours faithfully, sd/ (Chief General Manager (S&M). 8. In spite of the aforesaid recommendations and clearance from all authorities the respondent-CIL only made temporary arrangement for supply of 50% of coal from CCL and 50% from BCCL to the petitioner and other units mentioned in its letter dated 9-10-1998. The petitioner, aggrieved by the aforesaid arrangement, filed this writ petition and challenged the action of CIL as arbitrary. Surprisingly, after filing of the writ petition the petitioner learnt that the Linkage Committee of CIL considered the representation of another unit M/s Pushpanjali Coal and Coke Pvt. Ltd. and took a decision to transfer the linkage of that unit from BCCL to CCL, but the case of the petitioner was not even considered. Now the respondents-CIL came out with a case in the counter-affidavit that the officers of the CIL in its meeting held on 21-9-1998 took a policy decision that linkage once granted, cannot be transferred from one subsidiary to another subsidiary of CIL. 9. After going through the entire facts of the case and the documents referred to hereinabove, it is manifest that non-acceptance of the request of the petitioner by CIL is arbitrary and not reasonable particularly when no valid reason has been assigned for not accepting the request of the petitioner, more so, when the case of M/s Pushpanjali Coal & Coke Pvt. Ltd. was considered and his linkage was transferred from BCCL to CCL. Nowhere in the counter-affidavit the respondent-CIL has denied the difficulty that the petitioner-unit is facing and will have to face and the loss which the petitioner-unit will sustain in procuring coal from BCCL which is far away from the place where the Plant has been established. Nowhere in the counter-affidavit the respondent-CIL has denied the difficulty that the petitioner-unit is facing and will have to face and the loss which the petitioner-unit will sustain in procuring coal from BCCL which is far away from the place where the Plant has been established. Moreover, after considering the recommendations from the State Government and the BICICO and after obtaining no objection from the C.C.L., there is no reason for the respondents to ignore the request of the petitioner. It is well settled that when the industries are established the Central Government or the State Government and its instrumentalities while framing industrial policies and taking policy decisions in the matter of supply of raw materials or granting different incentives, the objective must be to encourage the unit. At this stage, it is worth to refer the passage of the Division Bench judgment in the case of M/s Shiv Domestic Coke Put. Ltd. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. CWJC No. 10160/95 where their Lordships held: In view of the facts stated in the order, we do not find any error therein. However, having regard to the objects underlying the Industrial Policy, which is to provide incentive and concession to industrial units in order to accelerate the pace of industrialisation in the State, we think that the Director should have gone into the merits of the matter rather than rejected the option at the very threshold as being time barred. 10. As noticed above, when on the representation of the petitioner the BICICO and Director of industries, Govt. of Bihar strongly recommended the case of the petitioner and the C.C.L. gave no objection in favour of the petitioner to take delivery of raw material from the collieries of C.C.L., then the authority of the respondent C.I.L. should have taken a liberal and positive approach and should have allowed the request of the petitioner particularly when in similar facts and circumstances another unit, namely, M/s Pushpanjali Coal & Coke Pvt. Ltd. has been allowed the same facility of getting supply of coal by transfer of its linkage from B.C.L. to C.C.L. It is well settled that the Executive authority should exercise its power bona fide for the purpose for which they have been conferred and not for any ulterior purpose. Any decision of administrative authority tainted with secrecy, partiality and lack of rationality, the same could be challenged on the ground of failure of the authority concerned to act fairly or with fairness. It is, therefore, a fit case where the authority of the respondent-C.I.L, should act fairly and with a fairness having regard to the policy of the Government to accelerate and encourage the industrial units. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made hereinabove, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the authority of the respondent-C.l.L. to take a liberal and positive decision in the case of the petitioner also in the light of the direction and observation made above. Such decision must be taken within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.