Judgment 1. In so far as the impugned order is concerned all that has happened is that the respondents-appellants have been required to give liberty and opportunity to the petitioners-respondents to explain before disruption of the supply of coal. The respondents carry on business for manufacturing smokeless fuel under a licence. The grant of licence for a particular grade of the coal is under a scheme known as Linkage Scheme. 2. Arguments raised before this Court are that it is not the job of the appellant Central Coal Fields Ltd. to comply with the direction of the court as this job is of the industries department. 3. Any business which the respondents do under a licence is under a scheme. The scheme has not been placed before the court. On the other hand, it is contended that the appellant Central Coal Fields Ltd. does not have any machinery to carry out the inspections. 4. It is being contended on the basis of Annexure-A/3, a circular of the Coal India Limited, that the direction will need to be carried out by the sponsoring authority and the appellants are not the sponsoring authority. What the appellants have failed to show to the court are conditions of the Linkage Scheme on the reverse of this annexure which contains ten conditions. The court reads clauses 6 & 7 wherein certain obligations are put on the persons who hold a licence as also on Coal India Ltd. or any of its subsidiary company(s). The latter will have the right of visitation at any time to witness the trial or the operations of the plants of those who utilise the coal so supplied. This apparently is about a Linkage Scheme. Clause 10 refers to a competent authority. 5. When the court made an inquiry that the power apparently is of Coal India Ltd. or its subsidiary company, the argument of learned counsel was that this power has been delegated. 6. When the appellants were asked to show to the court where be the powers by which this delegation has been made to the industries department as then the question would still arise whether a principal may delegate and abdicate his obligation to his agent and say he has nothing to do with the matter. The powers of the delegated agent could not be beyond the principal. Nothing was shown to the court. 7. The powers of the delegated agent could not be beyond the principal. Nothing was shown to the court. 7. In the circumstances, the court does not find any error in the order of the learned Judge allowing the writ applications of the petitioners-respondents. 8. Dismissed.