ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents on the interlocutory application No. 2020/2002 filed by one of the petitioners, namely. Special Smokeless Fuel Manufacturers for modification of the judgment and order dated 28.11.97 and allowing the petitioner to lift coal from the selected Dhori colliery, Dhori area. 2. Petitioners case is that it has linkage of 5000 MT of coal per month but the respondents are supplying coal to the petitioner from the collieries where the coal is not of good quality having more than 50% wastage and the transportation cost is also very high. It is contended that the respondents are supplying coal to some of the SSF plant from their chosen collieries but in the case of the petitioner they are discriminating. According to the petitioner earlier the respondents were ready to release coal from the selected Dhori collieries and for that the petitioner-unit set up infrastructures for supply of coal from selected Dhori collieries but when the petitioner requested the authorities to release coal from the selected Dhori collieries, the respondents are not taking steps inspite of representation submitted by the petitioner on 24.10.2002. It is contended that the petitioner has spent huge amount for building up its Infra-structures to lift coal from the petitioner but now the respondents are showing their reluctance upon the request of the petitioner. 3. The respondents, in their reply to the interlocutory application, have stated that the coal shall be supplied to the petitioner from a nearby colliery as far as possible subject to availability. It is stated that the petitioner- unit is to be supplied the full linked quality of coal at the rate of 5000 M.T. per month without administering the maximum permissible quantity as per the guidelines of Coal India Limited. The quantity of coal available at Sel. Dhori will need atleast 85000 MT per month to distribute amongst the similarly placed customers. So the coal is distributed among all soft coke manufacturing units rationally after considering the sourcewise availability. 4. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release full quota of coal as promised by them for the establishment of special smokeless fuel plant sponsored by Central Mine Planning and Designing Institute. 4. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release full quota of coal as promised by them for the establishment of special smokeless fuel plant sponsored by Central Mine Planning and Designing Institute. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of the judgment dated 28.11.97 by issuing the following directions : "(i) The respondents shall henceforth issue release order and dispatch the fixed quantity (5000MT) of monthly quota of coal i.e. graded washery III/IV or equal grade of coal within 45 days from the date of deposit of value of coal and before the deposit of the amount for the subsequent month. (ii) Coal shall be released and dispatched by the respondents to the petitioners from the collieries mentioned in Annexure 14, other than Pare) East and Keribanda, so that the petitioners may not be put to extra burden of service charges and transportation charges. In case of difficulty the respondents may allot coal from any of the collieries mentioned in paragraph 6 of the reply to the counter affidavit before selling the same in open market. The petitioners shall get preference in the delivery of goal from such collieries and the respondents shall prefer to release the coal from the collieries which are nearer to the petitioners-establishment. (iii) Since the petitioners have been depositing the price of coal every month after getting finance from bank the respondents shall release and/or dispatch coal within the agreed period of 45 days, failing which the amount lying with the respondents shall carry interest at the same rate which the petitioners pay to the concerned bank." 5. The respondents aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment preferred LPA No. 618/ 97 (R) which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. The respondents then preferred Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No. 6317/98. The Supreme Court disposed of the Civil Appeal on 22-3-99 by passing the following order. "By consent of all parties, the appeal itself is taken for hearing. The impugned order to the extent that it directs the petitioners to supply coal from any specific colliery is set aside. The appel- lant, however, states that subject to availability, the direction for supply of coal shall be, as far as possible, from a nearby colliery. It is directed accordingly. The impugned order to the extent that it directs the petitioners to supply coal from any specific colliery is set aside. The appel- lant, however, states that subject to availability, the direction for supply of coal shall be, as far as possible, from a nearby colliery. It is directed accordingly. The Civil appeal is disposed of." 6. It is, therefore, clear that the judgment and order passed in the writ application was affirmed subject to modification in item No. (ii) to the extent that instead of delivery of coal from the collieries nearer to the petitioner- establishment, supply of coal shall be subject to availability from the nearby collieries as far as possible. 7. The respondents then filed an application on 21-12-99 for modification of the judgment dated 28-11-97 for adding one more condition i.e. if the petitioner fail to lift the fixed quantity of coal within the stipulated date then the respondents will be entitled to deduct the quantity of coal or forfeit the money lying with the respondents. The said application was heard by this Court and was rejected in terms of the order dated 16-3-2000. 8. The respondents again moved the Supreme Court in SLP No. 12317 of 2000 which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 566 of 2001. The said Civil Appeal was disposed of by passing the following order. "Delay in filing rejoinder affidavit is condoned. Leave Granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. We dispose of this appeal with the clarification that the orders made by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 6317 of 1998 on March 22, 1999 shall not come in the was of either party to seek appropriate relief from the High Court should there be any change of circumstances. Thus whether there is any justification for modification of the judgment and order dated 28-11-97 passed in CWJC No. 2750 of 1997, in the light of what we have said above, shall have to be decided by the High Court uninfluenced by the orders made by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 6317 of 1998 on March 22, 1999. The impugned order dated 16-3-2000 is accordingly set aside. The application seeking modification is remanded to High Court for is fresh disposal in the light of what we have said above. The impugned order dated 16-3-2000 is accordingly set aside. The application seeking modification is remanded to High Court for is fresh disposal in the light of what we have said above. It shall be open to the respondent to raise all such objections in the High Court as are permissible in law, including the preliminary objection to maintainability of the application." 9. The modification application was again heard by this Court and rejected on 16-10-2001. The operative portion of the order is quoted herein below. "As noticed above, it is not a case where petitioners established their industries at their own, rather it is only after the decision taken by the Coal Ministry, Govt. Of India and the Project Report and Technical know-how provided by the CMPDI, the petitioners established Special Smokeless Fuel Plant for the purpose of manufacturing domestic coal and on the commitment of the respondents- coal companies to supply 5000 M.T. i.e. required quantity of coal. If the petitioners fail to deposit the price for the supply of full quantity of coal, respondents would be at liberty not to supply full quantity of coal. There is no dispute that the supply of required quantity of coal to the petitioners is subject to deposit of price of the coal and in that view of the matter, question of reducing of quantity of coal does not arise. Having regards to the facts and law discussed herein above, I do not find any reason to modify the judgment and order passed in this writ petition. Accordingly the modification application dated 21-12-99 at flag-B is rejected." 10. In the instant application the petitioner wants modification of the judgment dated 28-11-97 by directing the respondents to release coal from a particular colliery, namely, selected Dhori colliery as the petitioner has shifted its infrastructure nearer to Dhori colliery. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment but set aside the direction given by this Court to the respondents to supply coal from specified colliery, question of issuing such direction does not rise in as much as it will amount to circumventing the order passed by the Supreme Court. 11. Prima facie, the petitioner has made out a case that when the other SSF units which are not established pursuant to the decisions taken by Coal Ministry Govt. 11. Prima facie, the petitioner has made out a case that when the other SSF units which are not established pursuant to the decisions taken by Coal Ministry Govt. of India, have been getting coal from Selected Dhori colliery pursuant to the order passed by the Calcutta High Court, then there is no justification in not releasing coal to the petitioner from selected Dhori colliery. The respondents in their reply to the interlocutory application have stated in paragraph 13 that when there are other collieries situated in the same area, why the petitioner is insisting for the release of coal from Sel. Dhori colliery only, paragraph 13 of the reply is quoted herein below. "That with reference to the statement made in paragraph 9 of the interlocutory application of the petitioner, I say that the allegations made by the petitioner is very sketchy and not based on any scientific documentation. So it is very adequate to asses the losses incurred by the petitioner. However, it is to state that coal allocated to the petitioner are from all good sources which are having higher grade coal varying between W-II to W-IV as per the linkages of the petitioner, it is not understood why repeatedly the petitioner is demanding coal from Sel. Dhori Colliery only as there are other collieries situated in the same area are Amlo, New Sel. Dhori, Karo, Khasmahal, Jarangdih which are also having almost equal distance of Sel. Dhori. The petitioner units are allocated coal from those sources mostly. Hence, it is evident that the petitioner wants to establish a monopoly on the coal of a particular colliery and grab it for their own benefits only." 12. Having regard to the statement made in paragraph 13 of the reply and also regard being had to the fact that the respondents are releasing coal to other SSF Units from Dhori Colliery because of the order passed by the Calcutta High Court, I am of the opinion, that the respondents should consider the grievance of the petitioner and release coal from Amlo, New Sel, Dhori, Karo, Khasmahal, Jarangdih and Sel. Dhori Colliery as agreed by them. 13. With the aforesaid direction the interlocutory application at flag X is disposed of.