Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Calcutta, (hereinafter referred to as the B.C.C.L.) and its other officers are the appellants and they have challenged the judgment dated 19-11-2001, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court directing the B.C.C.L. to supply the promised quantity of coal to the writ petitioner-respondents as per the procedure prescribed by the impugned notice dated 25-6-2001 (Annexure-1) for the quarter July 2001 to September, 2001, after deducting the supply already made for the part of the period. 2. The writ petitioner-respondents filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 11262 of 2001 for quashing the notice dated 25-6-2001 (Annexure-1), which was affixed on the Notice Board in the office of the B.C.G.L., Calcutta, by which the writ petitioner-respondents, which are registered small scale Industries engaged in manufacturing of Special Smokeless Fuel (Soft Coke) for domestic need, were asked to make advance payment of Rs. 10 lacs for each rake for booking of coal to the S.S.F. Units for the quarter months of July to September, 2001, and for directing them to accept the booking programme against Bank Guarantee, which was prevalent prior to the issuance of the notice and, in the alternative, to direct the B.C.C.L. and its officials (the appellants) to grant fifteen days time more for acceptance of programme of booking of coal for the aforesaid-quarter in terms of the contents of the notice. 3. The factual matrix for disposal of the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-respondents are registered as small scale industries for manufacturing Special Smokeless Full (Saft Coke) (hereinafter referred to as the S.S.F,) for domestic need. On 7-5-1986, the B.C.C.L. issued and advertisement assuring to provide both coal and manufacturing technology, if it is not available, with enthusiastic entrepreneurs for manufacturing S.S.F. for cooking purposes. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, the writ petitioner-respondents and others approached the Coal India Limited and consulted the C.M.P.D.I., which is one of the subsidiaries of the Coal India Limited, to provide technical know how. The C.M.P.D.I. prepared a project report and under the supervision of its Engineers and Technicians, writ petitioner-respondent-units were established and the C.M.P.D.I. recommended to the Coal India Limited to supply 5000 M.T. of steam coal per month to the unit for operation of its plant. The C.M.P.D.I. prepared a project report and under the supervision of its Engineers and Technicians, writ petitioner-respondent-units were established and the C.M.P.D.I. recommended to the Coal India Limited to supply 5000 M.T. of steam coal per month to the unit for operation of its plant. It appears that thereafter the Goal India Limited issued a linkage order for supply of 5000 M.T. steam coal to the unit, which was to be supplied by the subsidiary B.C.C.L. It appears that the quantity of steam coal was reduced on pro-rata basis or maximum permissible quantity (M.P.Q.) system. The said decision taken by the B.C.C.L. -appellant was challenged by the Small Scale Units engaged in the manufacture of special smokeless fuel and the matter was finally disposed of in L.P.A. No. 86 of 2001 on 13-8-2001 and after considering the matter it was held that the decision to supply coal on pro-rate basis to the unit was rational and not arbitrary and it was also held that the coal is to be supplied to them after supply of coal to the core sector in terms of the policy decision taken by the competent authority. 4. The mode of supply of coal prior to issuance of notice dated 25-6-2001 was that it was supplied to the consumers under 100% financial coverage in the form of bank guarantee. In other words, supply of coal was made under Bank guarantee and after the supply the payment was made to the B.C.C.L. By the aforesaid notice dated 25-6-2001, the mode of payment has been changed for supply of coal through Railway and it has been provided that the application from linked industrial consumers for both restricted and non-restricted destinations would be accepted in the office with effect from 4-7-2001 to 5-7-2001 for registration of pilotwise demand as per quarterly MPQ and 5% of monthly linkage for newly linked units, for the quarter ending September, 20001, on the pilots mentioned in the notice. It was further provided that on the basis of the demand registered and the availability as indicated above, pilotwise consents would be issued in July 2001 on first-come-first serve basis against advance payment of Rs. 10 lacs for each rake, irrespective of the rake size. The balance amount of financial coverage would be against Bank guarantee and the above advance payment would be adjusted against the bill at the time of payment of bill. 10 lacs for each rake, irrespective of the rake size. The balance amount of financial coverage would be against Bank guarantee and the above advance payment would be adjusted against the bill at the time of payment of bill. The pilotwise percentage allocation would be displayed on Notice Board in the office on 9-7-2001. Programmes completed in all respect would be accepted in the office from 10-7-2001 to 11-7-2001. It was reiterated that the programmes would be processed only on receipt of advance payment as stated above. 5. The grievance of the writ petitioner-respondents was that as they have established the unit on the basis of the assurance given by the B.C.C.L. and knowhow supplied by one of its subsidiaries and the coal was supplied to them under the coverage of 100% Bank-guarantee, the B.C.C.L. and its officers as well as subsidiaries of Coal India Limited cannot change its, policy detriment to the writ petitioner-respondents. Their further grievance is that in any view of the matter notice itself was affixed on the Notice Board in the office at Calcutta and no sufficient opportunity was given to deposit the money. 6. The stand of the respondent-appellants is that by notice dated 25-6-2001 all rail consumers were advised for registration on pilotwise demand with respondent-appellant No. 3 with effect from 4-7-2001 to 5-7-2001. Based on the demand registered and the availability as indicated in the notice, pilotwise consent was to be issued in July, 2001, on first-come-first serve basis against the advance payment of Rs. 10 lacs for each rake, irrespective of the rank size. Balance amount of financial coverage was to be covered against Bank guarantee and the advance payment to be adjusted against the bill at the time of payment of bill. The programmes completed in all respect was to be accepted in B.C.C.L. office at Calcutta from 10-7-2001 to 11-7-2001, along with advance payment of Rs. 10 lacs for each rake as stated above. Enough time was given to the writ petitioner-respondents from 25-6-2001 to 11-7-2001 i.e. 17 days for depositing Rs. 10 lacs for acceptance of their programme to book coal by rail, which is more than fifteen days. 10 lacs for each rake as stated above. Enough time was given to the writ petitioner-respondents from 25-6-2001 to 11-7-2001 i.e. 17 days for depositing Rs. 10 lacs for acceptance of their programme to book coal by rail, which is more than fifteen days. Earlier seven days notice was being given by the appellants, whereas, in the present case seventeen days notice has been given and that was applicable to all the rail linked consumers and, accordingly, there was no discrimination made by it. Notice was being affixed on the Notice Board at Calcutta office since the inception of the B.C.C.L. in 1973 and it was not a new system introduced. It was further stated that the appellants have 838 linked consumers, who draw supply through the rail and for the month of July, 2001, although a number of consumers, including the writ petitioner-respondents had registered their demand against the notice dated 25-6-2001, but they did not book the coal and as such their prayer cannot be allowed at this stage. The Ministry of Coal has strictly prohibited any allotment on sponsorship of coal after the end of the relevant quarter. It is further stated that by notice of the same date i.e. 25-6-2001, annexed as Annexure R-2 to the counter-affidavit in the writ petition, a provision was also made and liberty was given to the entrepreneurs to book the coal by road in order to avoid the deposit of the aforesaid money. The B.C.C.L. is having a financial crunch and direction for deposit of Rs. 10.00 lacs each per rake comes to only 33% of the price of the coal. The writ petitioner-respondents, admittedly, applied for supply of coal by road for the month of September, 2001 and the coal for the month of September, 2001, has been supplied to them and they deliberately did not apply for supply of coal for the months of July and August, 2001. 7. Two submissions were advanced before the learned Single Judge, one was that once policy decision was taken to supply coal against 100% Bank guarantee, that cannot be changed to the detriment of the writ petitioner-respondents and the other was that no sufficient time was given to deposit the money. The first submission was negatived by the learned Single Judge. 7. Two submissions were advanced before the learned Single Judge, one was that once policy decision was taken to supply coal against 100% Bank guarantee, that cannot be changed to the detriment of the writ petitioner-respondents and the other was that no sufficient time was given to deposit the money. The first submission was negatived by the learned Single Judge. However, he allowed the second submission and ordered for supply of coal on deposit of money in terms of the impugned notice for two months only, namely, July and August, 2001, as the supply has already been made for September, 2001 to the writ petitioner-respondents on payment of money. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in this appeal has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing for supply of coal for two months in terms of the impugned notice on the ground that sufficient time was not given to them. In this connection, it was submitted that according to the own assertion of the writ petitioner-respondents, they have appointed Aadani Exports Limited as their service agent/middle man at Calcutta. The writ petitioner-respondents have applied for registration in terms of the notice dated 25-6-2001, but did not deposit the necessary programme and the amount within the period of 17 days and as such there was laches on their part. Seventeen days time was given, which was more than the time earlier used to be granted i.e. seven days. 9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondents, on the other hand, submitted that as there was change of policy regarding supply of coal, sufficient time should have been given to the writ petitioner-respondents to deposit the money and the period of seventeen days was not sufficient. 10. So far as the change of policy regarding supply of coal to the writ petitioner-respondents and other similarly situated units is concerned, the said policy has been held to be valid by the learned Single Judge and that was not assailed by them and as a matter of fact, no appeal was filed challenging the aforesaid finding by he writ petitioner-respondents. Only question for consideration is as to whether sufficient time was given to the writ petitioner-respondents to take steps in terms of the notice dated 25-6-2001 or not. 11. Only question for consideration is as to whether sufficient time was given to the writ petitioner-respondents to take steps in terms of the notice dated 25-6-2001 or not. 11. The assertion made by the appellants in paragraph 4 of the supplementary counter-affidavit that a number of consumers, including the writ petitioner-respondents had registered their demands against the impugned, notice, has not been denied anywhere and as such from the same it is clear that they had knowledge of the notice dated 25-6-2001. It is also admitted position that the notice was always issued at Calcutta office and the petitioner-respondents have their service agent as stated above at Calcutta. Thus, once they have knowledge and in pursuance of that they have registered their demands, sufficient time of about 17 days was given from the notice to deposit the money in terms of the notice as indicated above. The said period cannot be said to be a short one. In our view, enough time was given to the writ petitioner-respondents to deposit the money and as such the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that enough time was not given to the writ petitioner-respondents to deposit the money. 12. Admittedly, the writ petitioner-respondents applied to deposit the money and took supply of the month of September, 2001. At this stage, no direction can be issued for supply of coal for a period, which has already expired, specially when their assertion of not affording sufficient time to deposit money is not acceptable. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent of issuing direction to the appellants for supply of coal for the aforesaid two months to the writ petitioner-respondents is set aside.