JUDGMENT : Petitioner has challenged the Wireless message dated 24.09.2005 (Annexure-1), issued by the Respondents by which the supply of coal to the petitioner’s unit has been kept in abeyance. Prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to release the full linked quantity of coal in favour of the petitioner’s unit in the light of the same and similar issued decided by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2006, passed in W.P. (C) No. 4870 of 2005 and also, for commanding upon the Respondents to release the back logs of linked quantity of coal since the date of stoppage of supply in the month of September, 2005. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents. 4. The petitioner is an established Industry and a manufacturer of the special smokeless fuels. The Industry of the petitioner has been granted permanent Registration No. 030905169, dated 18.12.1995 and in confirmation of the fact that the petitioner is an established Industry and manufacturer of special smokeless fuels, the State Government of Jharkhand had also issued a certificate on 12.11.2003. 5. The petitioner used to get regular supply of linked quantity of coal from the Respondents. Later, by a letter No. 631, dated 05.02.2005, the Respondents had directed the petitioner to furnish a declaration on affidavit, that the coal received by its unit in the past has been fully consumed. The Respondents had also directed the petitioner to submit documents linked to the 19 points demands as enclosed by the Respondents in the aforesaid letter. In response, the petitioner had deposited all the required documents alongwith a covering letter dated 15.02.2005, which was duly received in the office of the Respondent-C.C.L. 6. Later, the Respondents-C.C.L. had itself deleted its requirements against five out of the 19 points of demand. The petitioner’s grievance is that despite the submissions of all the relevant informations to the various points demanded by the Respondent-C.C.L., no decision on the same was communicated to the petitioner and on the other hand, by virtue of the impugned wireless message, the Respondents have suspended the supply of linked quantity of coal to the petitioner’s unit. 7. Mr. The petitioner’s grievance is that despite the submissions of all the relevant informations to the various points demanded by the Respondent-C.C.L., no decision on the same was communicated to the petitioner and on the other hand, by virtue of the impugned wireless message, the Respondents have suspended the supply of linked quantity of coal to the petitioner’s unit. 7. Mr. M. S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that once linkage of coal in favour of a consumer is allowed to continue, the Respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to stay the supply of linked quantity of coal. Learned counsel refers in this context to the judgment of this Court, passed in the case of Babul Smokeless Fuels Industry Pvt. Ltd.-versus-C.C.L. & Others in W.P. (C) No. 4870 of 2005 vide order dated 02.02.2006. 8. In the counter affidavit of the Respondents, the stand taken is that the petitioner had filed a writ application before the Kolkata High Court vide W.P. No. 903 of 2006 involving similar set of facts and relief’s, and in which an interim order dated 21.08.2006 was passed by the Court directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the linkage and since on the date of issuance of the interim order, the supply of coal to the petitioners unit was under suspension, the same state continues, pursuant to the interim order and the petitioner cannot be allowed to prosecute similar applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would inform that the aforesaid writ petition has been withdrawn by the petitioner. The further stand taken by the Respondents is that the petitioner did not submit the Coal Stock Position, Receipt/Consumption Report, Labour Registration Certificate, State/Central Excise Records, Power/Diesel Bill and Details of Raw Materials for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Since the petitioner having failed to supply the requisite informations on the 19 points documents within the stipulated period of 15 days, the supply of coal was suspended with effect from 24.09.2005. It is however acknowledged that as appearing from Annexure-4 to the writ application, the petitioner had submitted its response to only 15 points documents vide its letter dated 15.02.2005 and not to all the demanded points. 9. Mr. It is however acknowledged that as appearing from Annexure-4 to the writ application, the petitioner had submitted its response to only 15 points documents vide its letter dated 15.02.2005 and not to all the demanded points. 9. Mr. M. S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, would advert to an order passed by this Court in a similar matter in the case of Kalawati Coal Private Ltd., Ranchi-versus-B.C.C.L & Others vide W.P. (C) No. 3228 of 2008 and submits that after considering all the relevant issues, relating to the suspension of supply of linked coal to the various other units, this Court had disposed of the aforesaid writ application with a direction to the Respondents to consider the writ petitioner’s claim by affording him a reasonable opportunity to bring on record all the relevant documents, and to record its finding on each points with cogent reasons. 10. It appears from the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, that whereas, the petitioner’s definite and specific claim is that though initially information on 19 points documents was demanded by the Respondents but later, five out of the 19, were omitted and the unit was required to give information only on the remaining 14 points, which, the petitioner did, as would be confirmed by Annexure-4. The fact that the petitioner had submitted its response to the demand for information against the 15 points, has not been denied by the Respondents. If that be so, then there is no reason as to why the Respondents should not consider the informations furnished by the petitioner and take an appropriate decision on the same. 11. In the light of the above facts, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim by affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to bring on record all the relevant documents in respect of the petitioner’s claim and reply made against the points and record their finding on each point with cogent reasons. The Respondents shall fix a date and communicate the petitioner in writing and after having satisfied that there was sufficient service of notice to the petitioner, the Respondents shall permit the petitioner to explain their documents in support of their claim. The Respondents shall fix a date and communicate the petitioner in writing and after having satisfied that there was sufficient service of notice to the petitioner, the Respondents shall permit the petitioner to explain their documents in support of their claim. If, even after submission of all the documents and explanation offered by the petitioner, any doubt persists regarding the existence of the petitioner’s unit, the Respondents may make spot verification by fixing a date with prior notice to the petitioner and after taking into consideration the overall assessment of the explanation, documents and findings on spot inspection/verification, the Respondents shall take a final decision on each point by recording speaking reasons. Since the petitioner’s unit is claimed to be based on linkage of coal, the entire exercise must be completed within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. There is no order as to cost.