Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1031 (JHR)

Maharani Fuels Pvt. Ltd. v. Coal India Ltd.

2004-10-14

TAPEN SEN

body2004
ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the Wireless Message dated 6.5.2002, suspending supply of coal to it, filed the instant Writ Petition. 3. The stand of the respondents in the counter-affidavit was, principally, that from 6.5.2002 coal supplies had been kept in abeyance in view of the letter of the Managing Director of Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. (BICICO) dated 22.4.2002 (Annexure A appended to the counter-affidavit). Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta submits that even the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Muzaffarpur, by his letter dated 30.4.2002, had informed the Coal Company that the State Sales Tax Registration and Central Sales Tax Registration of the petitioner had been cancelled. The specific stand of the Coal Company at paragraph 4(g) of the counter-affidavit was that coal supplied cannot be resumed as BICICO had taken over the assets of the Coal Company on 20.4.2003. The stand of the Coal Company was replied to through a Supplementary Affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner in which it has been stated at paragraphs 6 and 7 that BICICO has returned the assets and that the Commercial Taxes Department has also lifted/recalled/cancelled its earlier orders. In support of the aforesaid contention, Mr. Ajit Kumar relies upon letters dated 21.9.2004 and 11.9.2004 as contained in Annexures 11 and 12. By Annexure 11, it is evident that the Manager and Legal Incharge has written to the Chief General Manager (Sales) informing him that it had been decided to hand over the assests back to the promoters since they have made part payment of the dues and had undertaken to clear the entire dues of BICICO. They, accordingly, requested that coal linkage be restored so that they can have no excuse in repayment of the dues of BICICO. The other letter dated 11.9,2004 (Annexure 12) is a letter of the Deputy Commissioner Incharge Commercial Taxes, Muzaffarpur addressed to the General Manager (Sales) of Central Coalfields Limited informing, interalia, that the decision to cancel the State Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax Registration have been ordered to be kept in abeyance. 4. The other letter dated 11.9,2004 (Annexure 12) is a letter of the Deputy Commissioner Incharge Commercial Taxes, Muzaffarpur addressed to the General Manager (Sales) of Central Coalfields Limited informing, interalia, that the decision to cancel the State Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax Registration have been ordered to be kept in abeyance. 4. In reply to the aforesaid, the respondents have filed a Rejoinder wherein they have stated that the linkage of the petitioner stood snapped as per the terms and conditions of the earlier order of linkage since the petitioner had not lifted coal for more than 12 (twelve) months continuously. 5. From the pleadings made in the instant Writ Petition, it is evident that there was no deliberate failure on the part of the petitioner to lift coal as per the terms contained in Clause 3 of the linkage which has been brought on record vide Annexure A appended to the Reply to the rejoinder filed on 14.10.2004. It is also seen that it was not the petitioner who stopped taking coal but it was on the basis of the Wireless Message of the respondents due to which it was compelled not to lift coal. 6. The changed scenario coming to the forefront on the basis of Annexures 11 and 12, referred to above, do go in favour of the petitioner so as to entitle them to claim resumption of supply of coal. The unit is to survive and it has also to pay back its dues to BICICO. Technical objections such as the ones taken in this case, should not be allowed to come in the way of the petitioner to make its attempt to repay the dues of BICICO. 7. Consequently, a writ of mandamus is issued mandating the respondent- authorities to issue supply orders as per linkage treating the same not to have snapped, as the period during which the petitioner could not lift coal was not a deliberate act of the petitioner, but it was on account of an embargo imposed upon it. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed off. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.