ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order/letter dated 4.8.1999 (Annexure 3) insofar as it relates to the petitioner whereby and whereunder the authorities suspended coal supply to the petitioner-Unit along with other units. The petitioner also prays for a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to treat the linkage of the petitioner as a valid linkage and accordingly release the full quantity of coal. They have further made a prayer for a command upon the respondents to comply with the directions of Coal India Limited passed on 23.5.2000 (Annexure 6). 2. The petitioners case is that it has established a Unit at Varanasi (U.P.) for production of raw sodium silicate and accordingly the Unit became registered on 3.2.1999 whereafter it became ready for production. Subsequently, it applied for linkage before Coal India Limited and after necessary verification and inspection, such a linkage was granted by a letter dated 20.4.1999 (Annexure 1) allowing 964 M.T. each month. 3. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Coal Companies for release of coal, but for some reason or the other, not a single tonne of coal was ever released, right from the date of the order of linkage on the ground that the petitioner-Unit was not functional. In the meantime, the Deputy Commissioner, Varanasi made enquiries and by an order dated 31.7.1999, communicated his decision to the effect that the permanent registrations of 33 units which were involved in the misuse of coal, were being cancelled. The petitioner was enlisted at Sl. No. 18 thereof. 4. Thereafter, a Wireless Message was issued from the Office of the Sales Manager, Central Coalfields Limited informing the concerned officials of the Collieries to suspend supply of coal to these units. The petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 18 along-with one M/s. Mayur Lime Industries and M/s. Sadhu Lime Industries, both the Kariaon, Varanasi. This Wireless Message is said to be the impugned order and it has been brought on record vide Annexure 3. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Industries Department and also the Deputy Collector and brought all facts to their notice to the effect that there was no question of misusing coal, because they had never been supplied as per the linkage. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Industries Department and also the Deputy Collector and brought all facts to their notice to the effect that there was no question of misusing coal, because they had never been supplied as per the linkage. Consequently and as has been stated at paragraph 10, an order was passed on 8.5.2000 from the Office of the General Manager, District Industry Centre, Varanasi as also on 14.4.2000 issued by the said authority (Annexures 4 and 5) whereby and whereunder, the General Manager (Sales and Marketing) as also the Sales Manager were informed that the District Magistrate had passed orders approving sponsorship in relation to the petitioner and the other two units, namely, Mayur Lime Industries and Sadhu Lime Industries. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the aforementioned subsequent orders, the respondents did not supply coal which compelled the petitioner to approach M/s. Coal India Limited and by letter dated 23/24.5.2000 (Annexure 6), the Sales Manager (Linkage) of Coal India Limited issued a direction upon the Chief General Manager (S & M), B.C.C.L., Dhanbad and the Chief General Manager (S & M), C.C.L., Ranchi informing them about the aforementioned subsequent developments and directed that upon reconsideration of the matter, it had been decided to effect supply of coal as per advise of the Assistant Director of Industries, U.P. Consequently it was requested that the concerned Officers be advised to resume despatches of coal in relation to the five units named therein as per CIL guidelines. The five units mentioned therein included the petitioner and other two industries, namely, M/s. Mayur Lime Industries and M/s. Sadhu Lime Industries. , 7. Notwithstanding the aforementioned facts, no coal was supplied nor released but by wireless message dated 2.6.2000, the Senior Sales Officer of Central Coalfields Limited sent a Wireless Message to all Officers of the concerned Collieries advising resumption of coal supply to the other two units namely, M/s. Mayur Lime Industries and M/s. Sadhu Lime Industries, but did not pass any order in relation to the petitioner. 8. Consequently, the petitioner has alleged and pleaded discrimination and has also pleaded violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 8. Consequently, the petitioner has alleged and pleaded discrimination and has also pleaded violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner filed various representations, one of which has been brought on record vide Annexure 8, but according to the petitioner, the respondents have done nothing in the matter, although the petitioner, on its part, is always ready and willing to lift coal, but the C.C.L. Authorities have refused to supply. 9. A counter affidavit in this case has been filed on behalf of all the respondents and which has been sworn by one Yeluri Venkata Satya Prasad (Sales Manager) posted in S & M Department, C.C.L. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that by letter dated 31.7.1999 (Annexure A which is equivalent to Annexure 2 of the writ application), the registration of a large number of units enlisted therein were cancelled and the unit of the petitioner was also one of them. These respondents have further stated that thereafter on 31.8.1999 (by Annexure B), a letter was received from the Sales Manager (Linkage), Coal India Limited requesting stoppage of supply of coal to all those enlisted units. Thereafter by Wireless Message dated 4.8.1999 (Annexure C which is equivalent to Annexure 3 of the writ application), coal supplies to the petitioner-Unit and others were suspended. 10. Thus, most of the documents which these respondents have brought on record, are also the same documents which have been relied upon by the petitioner. However, from a perusal of the pleadings made in the writ application, the following facts emerge and they are as follows : (a) 20.4.1999, CIL granted linkage to the petitioner, but no coal was supplied to them. (b) 31.7.1999, Permanent registration cancelled both to the petitioner as also to M/s. Mayur Lime Industries and Sadhu Lime Industries. (c) 4.8.1999, Wireless Message suspending coal supply, both to the petitioner as also to M/s. Mayur Lime Industries and Sadhu Lime Industries. (d) 8.5.2000, Director of Industries communicated approval of the District Magistrate and informed that sponsorship for coal during the year 2000 has been allowed both to the petitioner as also to M/s, Mayur Lime Industries and Sadhu Lime Industries. (e) 14.4.2000, District Industries Centre Varanasi requested General Manager (Sales and Marketing), Coal India Limited to continue supply of coal as per sponsorship. (e) 14.4.2000, District Industries Centre Varanasi requested General Manager (Sales and Marketing), Coal India Limited to continue supply of coal as per sponsorship. (f) 23/25.4.2000, The CIL directed C.G.M. (S&M), B.C.C.L., Dhanbad and C.G.M. (S&M), Ranchi to instruct and resume despatches of coal in favour of the petitioner and also to M/s. Mayur Lime Industries and Sadhu Lime Industries. 11. From a perusal of the aforementioned sequence of events it is evident that right from the date of grant of linkage not a single tonne of coal was ever supplied to the petitioner as has been stated in paragraph 7 of the writ application. Instead of coming out with a valid explanation in relation to this paragraph, the respondents have stated that the petitioner failed to resume coal supplies within twelve months from the date of linkage and therefore violated the guidelines issued by Coal India Limited vide Annexure D. This Court does not understand as to how the petitioner can be said to have committed a violation of the Clause of the CIL guidelines for not taking supply within twelve months because not a single tonne of coal was supplied to them after grant of the linkage and within 101 days thereafter, the authorities suspended their permanent registration which was followed by suspension of coal supply. If the respondent authorities themselves did not supply any coal to the petitioner then how can the petitioner lift coal as per the CIL guidelines ? To that effect therefore, the stand of the respondents appear to be a stand which virtually means that the petitioner was required to perform an impossibility. But this Court, being a Court of equity, must protect the petitioner because from the pleadings made it is apparent that not only a right was created in the petitioner to receive coal but at the same time a duty was cast upon the respondents to honour that right by making supply of coal. By their own action, they disabled the petitioner not only from performing its rights but subjected it to a position which rendered its performance not only impossible but beyond its control. The law therefore, must excuse him on the principles of (ex non cogit ad impossibilia. 12. By their own action, they disabled the petitioner not only from performing its rights but subjected it to a position which rendered its performance not only impossible but beyond its control. The law therefore, must excuse him on the principles of (ex non cogit ad impossibilia. 12. The other argument in relation to discrimination and which has been specially pleaded by the petitioner at paragraph 12 to the effect that they supplied coal only to the two industries mentioned above, all that the respondents have stated is at paragraph 10. Their answer is that those two units had started taking coal prior to suspension of the unit while the petitioner had not done so and therefore, supply of coal was resumed by Wireless Message dated 2.6.2000 (Annexure F which is equivalent to Annexure 7) only to them. According to Mrs. Banani Verma, learned counsel for the respondents the petitioner had failed to lift coal within twelve months from the date of linkage and therefore, supply to it was not allowed to be resumed. 13. Twelve months period, means a lull one year. The linkage was granted on 20.4.1999 and therefore, the period should be counted upto 19.4.2000. Consequently, the argument of the respondents io the effect that coal was allowed to be resumed only to those who had taken supply prior to suspension of the unit and not to those who had not taken supply prior to such suspension is a clear misconception of law and runs counter to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, when the authorities themselves took a decision to withdraw the order of suspension and thereafter to supply coal as would be apparent from the letter dated 8.5.2000, then such criteria becomes wholly redundant. It will be evident that the decision to continue sponsoring the petitioner and the other two units was initiated on the basis of the letter dated 4.4.2000. After such a letter, the respondents fell in error in making the aforementioned criteria as a yardstick for purposes of resumption of supply of coal. 14. Clearly therefore, the respondents have acted not only in an arbitrary manner, but have also acted in a manner which is not only discriminatory but amounts to a total and complete non- application of mind throwing to the winds all reasons and laws in relation to people. 15. 14. Clearly therefore, the respondents have acted not only in an arbitrary manner, but have also acted in a manner which is not only discriminatory but amounts to a total and complete non- application of mind throwing to the winds all reasons and laws in relation to people. 15. For the reasons stated therefore and for the analysis resorted to by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs, the action of the respondents is held to be illegal and the impugned order/letter is quashed. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to them to take a final decision in accordance with law after taking into consideration the observations made herein. Such final decision must be take within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed off. There shall however, be no order as to costs.