Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 366 (JHR)

Mahabir Prasad Rungta v. Coal India Limited

2003-03-24

VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD

body2003
ORDER Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ for command upon the respondents to grant permanent linkage to the petitioner for lifting slurry from Kathara washery at the rate of 60,000 M.T. per year and also for a direction that the petitioner is entitled to permanent linkage with effect from 11.12.1994, the date on which M/s. Bharat Coal Products, respondent No. 8, was granted linkage and consequential benefits of such declaration, with damage and also restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners right to lift slurry as a linked consumer. 3. The petitioner carries on a business of manufacturing of coke briquettes since year 1989, under the name and style of M/s. Goyal Trading Company, which has been registered with the State Government as a small scale industrial unit. Near Kathara Coal Wassery of C.C.L., which according to the petitioner went on applying for supply of linkage for lifting slurry from Kathara Washery as raw material as the unit is a small scale industrial unit and despite Courts order and, the inspection report etc, which was favourable to the petitioner the petitioner has not been given linkage for lifting slurry and in a similarly situated circumstance the respondent No. 8, was given the linkage. 4. By Annexure-4 it is found that the unit of the petitioner was inspected and the report was submitted. By Annexure-5 the writ filed in the Calcutta High Court was disposed of whereby the respondent was directed to consider the ease of the petitioner for lifting the coal and to pass reasoned order. Thereafter it appears that the representation of the petitioner was rejected, reasoned order was passed and communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-6. The petitioner gave point to point reply and reiterating its demand for linkage of coal vide Annexure-7, with damage thereto. Thereafter, vide Annexure-10 on 3.3.1994 the Calcutta High Court directed the Coal controller respondent to pass reasoned order within a period of 3 weeks. In the meantime the respondent No. 8, which is allegedly similarly situated with the petitioner, had approached the Court and got the same relief. By Annexure-11 the Coal Controller passed a common order with respect to this petitioner and also respondent No. 9, holding that both were eligible and, thus directed to grant quota at the rate of 60,000/ M.T. per annum, from the respective Wassery, namely, Kathara. By Annexure-11 the Coal Controller passed a common order with respect to this petitioner and also respondent No. 9, holding that both were eligible and, thus directed to grant quota at the rate of 60,000/ M.T. per annum, from the respective Wassery, namely, Kathara. Thereafter the Sales Manager, C.C.L. wrote a letter dated 21.7.1994, to the General Manager (K.T.A.) CCL, Kathara for release of 60,000 M.T. slurry from Kathara. Thereafter vide Annexure 19 on 11.12.1994 the linkage advice letter was issued in favour of Bharat Coal Products without considering the case of the petitioner. The petitioner went on requesting the respondent No. 2, to release the slurry to him but he was asked to withdraw the case, which was filed before the Calcutta High Court and asked the petitioner to come through tender, which according to the petitioner is arbitrary and malicious. In 110th meeting of the linkage committee held on 18.5.2001, although M/s. Bharat Coal Products got the linkage but despite the Coal Controller orders the petitioners case has not been processed and the matter was duly referred to C.C.L. Then on 20.6.2001 vide Annexure-24, it was found that there was availability of stocked slurry in C.C.L. and this was communicated to the General Manager (Sales), C.C.L. Thereafter the petitioner again made a representation to the Chief General Manager (WS), BCW Area , C.C.L. Kathara (Bokaro) on 30.11.2001 and he was informed by Annexure-28, that the petitioners case had been forwarded to C.G.M. (WS)/BCW for examination and for further action. Despite all these the petitioner was not granted linkage. Therefore, the petitioner has come to this Court for the relief aforesaid. 5. The respondents have appeared and filed counter affidavit. In paragraph 7 of the Counter Afidavit it has been stated that in terms of the decision taken by Coal India in its 196th Board meeting held on 6.6.2001, there is no provision/scope either by Coal India Limited or Subsidiary Companies for issuance of linkage Sale of coal to non-core section consumers through linkage/sponsorship which is dispensed with. The coal companies are authorized to formulate their own procedure and system for sale of coal non-core sector consumers. Hence, question of granting linkage by Coal India Limited does not arise. The coal companies are authorized to formulate their own procedure and system for sale of coal non-core sector consumers. Hence, question of granting linkage by Coal India Limited does not arise. In paragraph 9 of the counter afidavit it has been averred by the respondents that units including that of M/s. Bharat Coal Products were given linkage during 1997 by non-core sector linkage committee of coal India Limited for coal and were allowed to lift stacked slurry subject to availability. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit it has been admitted that the case of the petitioner is being dealt with directly by the Chief General Manager (BCW). Kathara. 6. In the aforesaid circumstance, the following facts do emerge (1) the case of M/s. Bharat Coal Products, respondent No. 8, and that of the petitioner are exactly on similar footing (2) the respondents in compliance of the order of the Calcutta High Court granted linkage to M/s. Bharat Coal Products and in case of the petitioner the Calcutta High Courts order was not given effect to (3) There is availability of linkage slurry with the C.C.L., which is evident from Annexure 24. vide this Annexure dated 20.6.2001 the Deputy Chief Manager (Linkage) addressed to the General Manager (Sales), C.C.L. has categorically stated that there is availability of stacked slurry in C.C.L. and M/s. Bharat Coal Products got the linkage but the petitioners case has not been processed. 7. It is found from the documents as stated above that the petitioner has all along been pursuing the matter before the competent authority but his representation has not been disposed of in a proper manner without any fault of the petitioner. Therefore, It cannot be said that the writ has become stale. So far discrimination is concerned, on the facts appearing on the record it is found that the case of the petitioner and respondent No. 8, was found to be quite equal by the Calcutta High Court but inspite of that the case of respondent No. 8, was considered where as the case of this petitioner was rejected. So even if now in the counter affidavit the respondents speak of non availability of slurry then why by Annexure-4, the Deputy Chief Manager (Linkage) wrote a letter addressed to the General Manager (Sales), C.C.L. Ranchi about the availability of stacked slurry. So even if now in the counter affidavit the respondents speak of non availability of slurry then why by Annexure-4, the Deputy Chief Manager (Linkage) wrote a letter addressed to the General Manager (Sales), C.C.L. Ranchi about the availability of stacked slurry. Then in that circumstance the C.C.L. in all fairness should have come with an order to grant some relief which had been granted to the respondent No. 8, to the petitioner. If they did not grant that benefit to the petitioner as they had granted to respondent No. 8, then it speaks itself of something behind it. Therefore, the petitioner has been definitely discriminated with respondent No. 8. Now the question is whether in view of the statement made before this Court that there is no availability of slurry in face of the argument of, learned counsel for the respondents that a new sales scheme which is likely to come into effect within one month and the petitioner will be dealt with under this scheme the writ is dismissed. The availability status has come vide Annexure-24, prior to June, 2001 and the petitioner has come before this Court in the year 2002. Therefore, if the petitioner would have come in June, 2001 then a direction could have been given that if the slurry is available he should be granted linkage but now as the position has changed then this Court cannot direct that the petitioner be remedied by lifting linkage slurry. 8. In the aforesaid circumstance, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that still as per own admission of the respondents the slurry is being provided to other linked consumers and therefore there is availability of slurry, consequently he should also be provided at least same relief subject to availability of slurry. Even if such a direction is given then also the respondents may say that since no linkage is granted to any other consumer therefore. that benefit cannot be given to this petitioner. Even if such a direction is given then also the respondents may say that since no linkage is granted to any other consumer therefore. that benefit cannot be given to this petitioner. The argument is that if other linked consumers are provided that should also be provided to the petitioner In the entire circumstance, it is directed that new sales policy when comes into force, the petitioner should be given first preference and if it does not come in force within a period of one month as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, then the petitioner will be entitled to damages because the policy is a creation of the authority of the C.C.L. themselves and it has resulted in discrimination and the petitioner was not treated on equal footing with the respondent No. 8. If the C.C.L. wants to escape this liability then the C.C.L. will provide slurry to the petitioner within 10 days on the terms and condition on which it has been made available to the respondent No. 8. 9. This writ is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.