JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhyaya, J. 1. In all the cases, as common point of law involved, and common orders, dated 23rd July, 2000 and 26th July, 2000 are under challenge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The brief fact of the cases, as admitted, shows that the petitioners are manufacturer of special smokeless fuel and bye-products for which they use coal as its raw material. They are registered with District Industries Centre, Hazari-bagh as small scale industries and have been granted linkage for supply of certain quantity of coal, per month by Coal India Limited (CIL) on the recommendation of Linkage Committee. 3. The petitioners were supplied coal by Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL) till July 2000. Since August 2000, supply of coal in favour of petitioners having suspended by impugned wireless message dated lst/2nd August, 2000, they have challenged the same. 4. It appears that certain raid was conducted by S.P., Hazaribagh in June 2000, whereinafter, FIRs were lodged against the petitioners and some report was submitted by the S.P., Hazaribagh. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh giving reference of the FIRs lodged against the petitioners and report of S.P., requested respondent-General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh to cancel their registration. Apart from petitioners, name of ten other industries/factories were also shown. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh, in his turn, wrote and issued impugned letter on 26th July, 2000 and asked the General Manager, Sales & Marketing Division, CCL, Ranchi to stop supply of coal to petitioners and ten others, giving reference of letter, dated 23rd July, 2000 and the FIRs as were lodged. The Sales Manager, CCL, in his turn, issued wireless message on lst/2nd August, 2000 directing its officials to suspend the despatches of coal to petitioners and ten others. 5. The petitioners mainly alleged non-application of mind on the part of the Deputy Sales Manager, CCL, Ranchi. They have also challenged and raised question of jurisdiction of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh in directing the CCL to suspend supply of coal. Reliance was placed on one or other unreported decisions of High Courts, which will be discussed at appropriate stage. 6. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for CCL and CIL submitted that the wireless message was issued on the request of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh. Similar plea taken by such respondents in their counter-affidavits. Reliance was placed on one or other unreported decisions of High Courts, which will be discussed at appropriate stage. 6. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for CCL and CIL submitted that the wireless message was issued on the request of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh. Similar plea taken by such respondents in their counter-affidavits. It is specifically stated that the coal is released for the subsequent month on submission and receipt of monthly return of preceding month wherein the parties give details of coal consumption, production, sale of product and closing stock as in the end of the month. No allegation levelled by CCL authorities against any one or other petitioner. 7. According to the counsel for the State, there are allegations against all the petitioners. On confidential information. petitioners units were raided and huge quantity of unexplained coal was found lying with the units premises. They were seized in presence of independent witnesses and criminal cases were lodged under Sections 414 and 120B, IPC; Section 30(ii) of Coal Mines Act and Section 33 of Indian Forest Act. On inspection of Unit(s), many of them were found closed and it came in the light that the unit(s) premises were used for dumping coal brought from closed Mines in collusion with others. They are indulged in clandestine coal business after criminal conspiracy. Learned GP II requested the Court not to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of public interest involved. However, aforesaid plea cannot be accepted, the writ petition being not a public interest litigation and State itself being party and stated to have taken appropriate step against individuals by lodging one or other FIR. 8. The main question to be determined as to whether General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh or the State has jurisdiction to direct CCL to suspend the supply of coal, (sic) 9. The regulatory provision in respect of sale, purchase, storage or consumption of coal was, in effect, in the State of Bihar (including the present State of Jharkhand), in view of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences) Unification Order, 1984, but "coal" was deleted from said 1984 order on 29th April, 1992 *nd since then there is no regulatory provision in respect of coal. 10. Similar question fell for consideration before Ranchi Bench of Pama High Court in Mis. 10. Similar question fell for consideration before Ranchi Bench of Pama High Court in Mis. Associated Coke Plant Private Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors., CWJC No. 3568 of 1993(R), disposed of on 13th December, 1993. Taking into consideration the fact that in the State of Bihar, there was no regulatory provision in respect of sale, purchase, storage or consumption of coal, held that neither the consumer of coal nor the dealer can be subjected to any regulatory provision. In law, the Industries like petitioners Company are entitled as a matter of right, to purchase and acquire coal to the extent the same is required for their consumption as per their own assessment, from the Colliery. Even no coal linkage was required, as the system was prevalent prior to delicence of the coal in the State. The Coal Companies even cannot insist on production of any such order from any authority. 11. Somewhat similar judgment delivered and order passed by learned single Judge of Patna High Court in Jha Briquette Unit and Ors. v. M/s. BCCL and Ors., in CWJC No. 2032 of 2000(R). M/s. BCCL challenged the said order (dated, 8th November, 2000) in LPA No. 443 of 2000. A Division Bench bf this Court dismissed the LPA aforesaid by order, dated 3rd January, 2001 and held that the appellant, BCCL acted illegally and in violation of the terms of contract, merely on the basis of an unfounded report of the Police, and further held such action as mechanical, without application of mind. 12. Thereby, it can be safely stated that the raw material "coal" having deregulated, the State authorities have divested of any authority to monitor the operation of petitioners units and have no jurisdiction to ask the CCL to suspend supply of coal to one or other party. The question is thus, answered in negative, against the State and in, favour of petitioners. 13. In the result/the suggestion, as made and direction as given in the letter dated 23rd July, 2000 and 26th of July, 2000 are set aside, as also the consequential wireless message dated lst/2nd August, 2000 being based on illegal letters/orders aforesaid. 14. However, it is open to CCL authorities to decide applications of petitioners for supply of coal in terms with linkage granted. 15. All the writ petitions are allowed and stand disposed of in terms, as indicated above. 14. However, it is open to CCL authorities to decide applications of petitioners for supply of coal in terms with linkage granted. 15. All the writ petitions are allowed and stand disposed of in terms, as indicated above. However, there shall be no order, as to costs. 16. Writ petitions allowed.