ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. I have heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties on the Interlocutory Applications being I.A. Nos. 1220 and 2065 of 2005. 2. In these writ petitions, petitioners who are the linked consumers, have challenged the Scheme as well as the notice issued by the respondents-BCCL for the sale of coal to non-core sector/consumers through a system known as "E-Auction" on the ground that the said scheme is contrary to the provisions of Colliery Control Order, 2000 and further for an order directing the respondents to release linked quantity of coal to the petitioners unit on the scheduled price of coal as approved by the Coal India Limited. 3. The writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1630 of 2005 was heard on 8.4.2005 at the admission stage and while allowing time to the counsel appearing for the respondents for filing counter-affidavit this Court passed interim order in the light of the interim order passed by the Honble Supreme Court and different High Courts. The order dated 8.4.2005 reads as under : Petitioners have prayed for quashing the scheme framed by the respondents for sale of coal to non-core sector (consumers) through the system known as reacution. Petitioners are Small Scale Industries and were granted coal linkage after making complete assessment of the Units about the requirements of coal/raw materials for the purpose of doing its manufacturing activities. I have heard Mr. R. Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondents. Learned Counsel produced before me the orders passed by the Supreme Court and different High Court in similar matters. As prayed by Mr. Mehta, put up this case after six weeks to enable the respondents to file counter affidavit. In the meantime, petitioners shall be entitled to purchase coal as per their linkage subject to the conditions that they shall file indemnity bond giving undertaking to pay difference of amount in the value of coal if they fail to substantiate the claim before this Court. 4. In LA. No. 1220 of 2005, respondent-BCCL has prayed for modification of the aforesaid order dated 8.4.2005 by directing the petitioners to deposit the difference of amount in cash instead of furnishing indemnity bonds on the price notified in terms of the Government order. 5. On the other hand, petitioners by filing LA. 4. In LA. No. 1220 of 2005, respondent-BCCL has prayed for modification of the aforesaid order dated 8.4.2005 by directing the petitioners to deposit the difference of amount in cash instead of furnishing indemnity bonds on the price notified in terms of the Government order. 5. On the other hand, petitioners by filing LA. No. 2065 of 2005 have prayed for a direction upon the respondent-BCCL to liquidate/release the entire linked quantity of coal/value paid coal till once it is booked and also not to charge any additional amount on the value paid coal on the basis of subsequent average auction price. 6. Mr. Ajit Kr. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent- BCCL, firstly, contended that interim order dated 8.4.2005 was passed by this Court in the light of the interim order passed by the Honble Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition arising from the Guwahati High Court under the special facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Counsel submitted that similar interim orders were passed by various High Courts directing the consumers to furnish indemnity bonds but those orders have been subsequently modified and a direction was issued to deposit cash instead of indemnity bond. Learned Counsel also brought to my notice the order passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court by which the interim order for furnishing indemnity bonds passed by the learned single Judge was set aside and a direction was issued for furnishing security in cash. 7. Mr. R. Krishna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that the very scheme for sale of coal through "E-Auction "system for the linked holders is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and also bad on the ground of promissory estopple, waiver and legitimate expectation. According to learned Counsel, petitioners being the linked holders and manufacturer of soft smokeless fuel, must be released linked quantity of coal used as raw-material on scheduled price and instead of compelling them to participate in auction, learned Counsel submitted that change of price of raw-material every month shall affect price of final product of an industry affecting sale leading to closure of hundred of small scale units which are established under such Industrial Policy. Learned Counsel submitted that interim order dated 8.4.2005 needs no modification at all. 8. Learned Counsel submitted that interim order dated 8.4.2005 needs no modification at all. 8. As noticed above, the interim order dated 8.4.2005 was passed by this Court in the light of a similar order passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition. 9. From perusal of the order passed by the Supreme Court, it transpires that Special Leave Petition was filed against the order passed by the Guwahati High Court directing personal appearance of the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Coal, New Delhi, Chairman, Coal India Limited, Kolkata and Regional Manager, Metal Scrap Trading Corporation Limited, Kolkata. In course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Honble Supreme Court by the Solicitor General that besides 3.4. lakhs metric tons of coal is lying in stock in open yard with the North-Eastern Coalfields. Considering the said lad, Honble Supreme Court directed to sell off those coal at the rates prevailing at that time subject to the condition that they file indemnity bond giving undertaking to pay the difference of value in the event of their claim fails before the High Court Several writ petitions were filed in different High Courts and interim orders were passed for furnishing indemnity bond but subsequently those orders were modified by directing the consumers to furnish cash security, for the difference of the amount. 10. Mr. Ajit Kr. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent- BCCL, submitted that a majority of linked units are small units, small time consumers and even seasonal units and in many cases they are not worth to be saddled with security because they are having even less than amount to be secured and upon inspection by the State Industries Department as well as Vigilance department and Officers of Coal Company, several units were found to be fake or non-existence. The total value of the money for which the indemnity bond/undertaking is sought to be given in a single company every month will be around Rs. 5 to 8 crores and by this interim arrangement huge money will be blocked leading to difficult: situation for the Coal Companies to run its day- today affairs. I find much force in the submission of the learned Counsel. It would really become difficult for the Coal Companies to recover the huge amount of money running into several crores on the basis of indemnity bonds. I find much force in the submission of the learned Counsel. It would really become difficult for the Coal Companies to recover the huge amount of money running into several crores on the basis of indemnity bonds. If the writ petitions, challenging the scheme of "E-Auction" sale, are finally disallowed and the scheme is declared legal and valid, it would occasion a very difficult situation for the Coal Companies. In my opinion, therefore, for the ends of justice and for securing recovery of the said amount, it would be just and proper to direct the petitioners to furnish bank guarantee in respect of difference of the amount instead of furnishing Indemnity bond. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, interim orders passed on 8.4.2005 and on different dates arc modified to the extent that the petitioners shall be entitled to purchase coal as per the linkage subject to the condition that they shall furnish bank guarantee of the difference of the amount in the value of the coal. Order accordingly.