ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith release the monthly allocation quota of coal to the tune of 2,400 M.T. of coking coal each month, as fixed by the respondents themselves. 2. Further, prayer has been made for direction tin respondents to consider the petitioners representation for resumption of the monthly quota of coal supply as per new Industrial Policy and not to treat the petitioners linkage as snapped on the ground that the petitioner has not lifted its monthly quota for more than 36 months. 3. The case of petitioner is that it is a registered Small Scale Industrial Unit having registration No. 1/IND/DI/1973-3344 dated 16th February, 1973. After establishment of Unit a joint inspection was made by the competent authority of the respondent-company which decided that a monthly quota of 2,400 M.T. of coal required every month for running the factories smoothly, which is also carried the linkage quota. Since 2nd November, 1978, the petitioners Unit came into production having granted sales tax registration and NOC from the Bihar State Pollution Control Board. Right from the year 1973 till 30th March, 1998 the Unit lifted its monthly quota of coal from M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL, for short) and manufactured high quality behie hard coke. 4. Further case of petitioner is that it could not lift coal from M/s. BCCL after March, 1998 the Unit being closed for major repairing and there being labour unrest in the unit. All these disputes and repairing work being completed, the petitioner filed application for restoration of monthly quota on 15th February, 2001 i.e. well within specified period of 36 months and as such a question of snappage of the linkage quota does not arise. 5. Counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer no separate linkage having enclosed by petitioner as enclosure to the writ petition. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, counsel for the petitioner relied on a letter No. BCCL/S & M/JG/78/3691 dated 2nd November, 1978 issued by the Deputy Sales Manager, BCCL, Dhanbad and on an unaffidavit copy of letter No. MC/COK/ICA/90 dated 22nd November, 1990 issued on behalf of Coal Controller, Government of India, Calcutta 1, to suggest that a coal linkage order allotting 2,400 M.T. coal has been issued in favour of petitioner. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Tewari also relied on Annexure 11, which is stated to be present policy regarding coal linkage and submitted that for the Cokeries no formal linkage for coal allocation is made. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Non-core Sector Industries. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the respondents fixed any monthly quota/or issued any linkage allowing the petitioner to lift 2,400 M.T. coal from M/s. BCCL. The letter dated 2nd November, 1978 issued by the Deputy Sales Manager, BCCL, Dhanbad (Annexure 2) has been addressed to the Secretary, Industries & Commercial Association, Dhanbad. It is not a coal allotment order nor a linkage granted to the petitioner. It merely suggests that there was a quota of 1400 M.T. fixed which was reassessed but curiously the petitioner has not enclosed such linkage/or coal order. On the other hand, one may doubt the quota, if any, fixed as in the letter dated 2nd November, 1978 1400 M.T. has been shown but in the unaffidavit letter dated 22nd November, 1990 it has been shown as 2000 M.T. 8. In the case of Sankar Gul Udyog v. C.C.L. and Ors., WP (C) No.1136/2002 and analogous cases disposed of on 16th August, 2002, this Court considered the question of snappage of linkage and its determination. The Court noticed that snappage of linkage is one of the condition mentioned in coal linkage which reads as follows : "After final linkage is granted by CIL, the unit should regularly lift coal on the basis of linkage. In the event of failure by the unit to lift coal/coke for consecutive 12 months or more (but less than 36 months) the linkage will be treated as lapsed/snapped. However, if any consumer desires to draw coal after the linkage of coal is lapsed/snapped, he will have to first apply for restoration of linkage and only after restoration of linkage is granted by CIL, the consumer will be entitled to draw coal against the linkage." 9. The stand of the petitioner is that he had lifted coal within the specified period of 36 months or represented within the period as completed shows that the petitioner has knowledge of terms and conditions of the linkage but for the reasons best known to it, has not enclosed such coal order/coal linkage. 10. The stand of the petitioner is that he had lifted coal within the specified period of 36 months or represented within the period as completed shows that the petitioner has knowledge of terms and conditions of the linkage but for the reasons best known to it, has not enclosed such coal order/coal linkage. 10. In the aforesaid background, in the absence of any coal order/coal linkage, the petitioner cannot claim a right to lift 2,400 M.T. of coal from M/s. BCCL. 11. I have also noticed the enclosures attached to the writ petition. The sale order dated 9th March, 1998, 19th March, 1998 and 20th March, 1998 show that the petitioner was allowed to lift 1QO M.T. of coal on the three occasions. There is nothing on the record to suggest that it was allowed or lifted 2,400 M.T. of coal in any particular month. 12. The present policy regarding coal linkage is not authenticated nor the memo or the date/year of the policy shown therein. From the said policy it appears that no formal coal linkage is granted to a Cokeries. On the basis of coke ovens as verified by inspection from time to time the coal company, release coal to such private Cokeries. 13. The aforesaid fact also suggests that the petitioner has no right to lift 2,400 M.T. of coal nor the respondents have duty to supply. It is only if the competent authority of M/s. BCCL is satisfied on due verification, that the unit is found functioning and requires coal, shall determine quota and supply coal. The prayer of petitioner for supply of 2,400 M.T. is accordingly rejected. 14. In respect of 2nd prayer of petitioner for consideration of its representation and resumption/determination of the monthly quota of coal supply, the matter is remitted to the Chief General Manager (S & M) BCCL, Dhanbad, who after necessary enquiry will determine whether the coal to be supplied to the petitioner or not and if so what quantity of coal it requires per month within two months from the date/production of the copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation.