ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. Banani Verma, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the instant case has made a prayer, inter alia, for a direction upon the respondents to release the linked quantity of coal, which according to it, has been illegally withheld on the ground that the Department of Industry has not sponsored the case of petitioner for release of coal. 3. According to the petitioner it made an application for grant of linkage and by order dated 19.4.1999, a linkage order vide Annexure 2 was issued under the signature of the Chief General Manager, Coal India Limited. According to the petitioner, the total assessment of capacity for the petitioner has been assessed as 630 Metric Ton per month and the petitioner was getting the coal pursuant to Annexure 2 as well as the aforementioned assessment but, subsequently, the said supply was stopped. Although, the petitioner had deposited the required money but inspite thereof, full quantity had not been released and the petitioner could lift only small quantities of coal and the rest are still lying with the respondent authority tor which they have received the entire amount. 4. According to the respondents who have filed the Counter affidavit in the instant case, it has been stated that the coal is a consumable mineral which needs to be exploited in an equitable and judicious manner in order to balance the entire industrial growth of the nation and proper vigil is to be kept for its distribution so as to ensure that the commodity reaches its declared destination. They have further stated at paragraph 10 that the coal companies themselves do not have any infrastructure for making assessment in relation to certain aspects of the industrial units and therefore depend upon the State Government and under the Directorate of Industry of every State, there is a network of District Industrial Offices which assess the requirement and utilization of not only coal but all other raw materials. These respondents have further stated that the General Manager, District Industries Center, Aurangabad has issued a letter on 3,6.2000 in which the status of this Unit was shown to be closed. However, Annexure B appended to the Counter Affidavit is not legible and therefore, this Court is not in a position to make any comments in relation thereto. These respondents have further stated that the General Manager, District Industries Center, Aurangabad has issued a letter on 3,6.2000 in which the status of this Unit was shown to be closed. However, Annexure B appended to the Counter Affidavit is not legible and therefore, this Court is not in a position to make any comments in relation thereto. However, even if the said document had been legible, it is of not much relevance because after de-control of coal, the State authorities are divested of their authority to monitor a Unit and they cannot make recommendations to make the coal companies to either stop supply of coal or supply coal. Reference for the aforementioned contention may be made to the case of Ma Chhinmastika Coke Ind. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Blhar, 2001 (1) JLJR 80 : 2001 (1) JCR 63 (Jhr). In that view of the matter and as agreed by the parties, this Writ Petition is being disposed off with the following directions :-- (i) the petitioner shall now approach the respondent No. 3 i.e. General Manager (Sales), C.C.L., Darbhanga House, Ranchi for supply of coal; (ii) if all other pre-requisites in relation to such supply are in order, then the respondent No. 3 shall depute one of his officers to make an on the spot Inquiry in relation to the viability of the petitioners unit as to whether it should be given a chance to survive or not. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though an Interim order was passed as early as on 4.5.2001 to the effect that the pendency of the case shall not stand in the way of the respondents in releasing coal in terms of the linkage, no such coal has in fact ever been released as a result whereof the petitioner has not been able to start production. 6. However, taking into consideration the aforesaid factors and specially with regard to the fact as to whether the petitioner, which claims to be genuine, should be given an oppprtunity to survive and taking into consideration the de-control of coal and also taking into consideration the linkage that was granted, the Petitioner is given liberty to approach the respondent No. 3 and file representation within a period of three weeks from today. Upon receipt of the said representation, the authority indicated above shall do the needful within a period of three months thereafter, in accordance with law and after taking into consideration the observations made herein. 7. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this Writ petition stands disposed off.