Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 176 (JHR)

Jai Maa Vesno Fuels v. B. C. C. L.

2001-03-05

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhyaya, J. 1. The case relates to coal linkage and supply of coal, which the respondents have refused in the present case. 2. Earlier, the case was taken up on 24.1.2001 when one of the questions was raised as to whether in absence of any regularity order, it is necessary to obtain coal linkage for lifting coal or not. 3. The Coal India Limited was im-pleaded as party respondent and both the respondents were asked to file reply in respect to the aforesaid issue. 4. According to CIL, after declaration of Colliery Control Order, 2000, all grades of coal is at present deregulated and it has not come out with the new sales and distribution policy as the matter is pending consideration before the concerned Ministry. The mater was discussed and it was decided that the existing sales and distribution policy will continue till the new policy is declared by its decision as contained in Annexure B. 5. The authorities of BCCL in their counter-affidavit have taken plea that unless the product is available in stock, question of effecting supply of such product does not arise. The system of linkage was evolved keeping in mind the ensured supply of need based quantity of coal to the party concerned for self consumption in its industrial unit. Such linkage of coal is subject to condition as laid down in the over-leaf of the linkage advise letter which amongst other stipulates consumption of coal by the linked party in its unit and failure their to call for suspension/cancellation of linkage. Similarly, clause No. 3 applies in the case the party fails to book the linkage coal within stipulated period. 6. It is stated that the linkage facility has been made for supply of coal to non-core sectors. Such linkage quota of coal is for self consumption and not for trading. In absence of such linkage, there may be change that more coal is being supplied to non-core sector than the core sector. 7. From the fact aforesaid, it will be evident that the coal is no more regulated in absence of regularity order but the authorities to assess the need based supply of coal, which is raw material in many cases, and in respect of private parties to assess their need of consumption is continuing with the system of coal linkage. 7. From the fact aforesaid, it will be evident that the coal is no more regulated in absence of regularity order but the authorities to assess the need based supply of coal, which is raw material in many cases, and in respect of private parties to assess their need of consumption is continuing with the system of coal linkage. The system to supply coal on the basis of need of self consumption; to keep track of genuine consumers and to determine the quantity of coal as may be supplied to core and non-core sectors, which is based on availability of coal in a month, the system of coal linkage can be accepted as rational. 8. So far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 9.1.2001, whereby and where-under, the respondents have refused to accept the bank draft as against the coal linkage and thereby refused to release the coal in favour of petitioner. 9. The stand of the respondents is that the bank draft was submitted beyond the period of 12 months from the date of issuance of coal linkage and in terms with linkage, it stood lapsed. Counsel for the respondents submitted that only if any application is made by the petitioner, the respondents may consider the question of restoration of linkage. 10. Admittedly, the permanent coal linkage was issued in favour of petitioner on 13.12.1999. Immediately thereafter, the District Industry Centre, Rohtas which was the body competent to assess, stated inspection of the petitioners unit. For the said reason, the petitioner could not request the authorities of BCCL for release of coal but after final report submitted by the DIC, Rohtas vide letter, dated 30.11.2000, the petitioner approached the BCCL authorities for release of coal vide letter, dated 11.12.2000. However, the draft amount having deposited after 13.12.2000, the prayer to supply coal was rejected vide impugned order, dated 9.1.2001. 11. In the present case, admittedly, there was no laches on the part of the petitioner, who awaited the inspection as was made by DIC, Rohtas. For the said reason, the request was made on 11.12.2000 for release of coal, after report was submitted. In the aforesaid circumstances, the request being bonafide and there being no laches on the part of petitioner, the respondents should not have rejected the claim. 12. For the said reason, the request was made on 11.12.2000 for release of coal, after report was submitted. In the aforesaid circumstances, the request being bonafide and there being no laches on the part of petitioner, the respondents should not have rejected the claim. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, the order, dated 9.1.2001 is set-aside with direction to the respondents to release the coal in favour of petitioner, in accordance with linkage on an early date, if requisite draft is deposited by the petitioner by 31st March, 2001. The question of release of coal will be effective from prospective month of March, 2001 onwards. The writ petition is allowed, with the aforesaid observations and directions. 13. Writ petition allowed.