ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘BISCOMAUN’ for the sake of brevity) for directing the respondents authorities, specially the authorities of Central Coalfields Limited (respondent nos.4 and 5) to execute the Fuel Supply Agreement (hereinafter referred to as ‘F.S.A.’ for the sake of brevity) and thereby ensure the supply of coal of 60 thousand Metric Tone (MT) to the petitioner being a State Agency of the State of Bihar for the year 2011-12 and for other ancillary reliefs. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that BISCOMAUN is a legal person conducting its coal business in the entire State of Bihar since 1975. He also stated that after supersession of BISCOMAUN in the year 1988 the coal business along with other business gradually came to an end as most of the business activities of BISCOMAUN had slowed down or stopped during the supersession period. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that by the order of this court the Board of BISCOMAUN was reconstituted in the year 2003, whereafter steps were taken up by the Board and the Government at different levels for revival of BISCOMAUN and finally steps were taken for nomination of BISCOMAUN as State Agency for coal distribution and the Coal India Limited approved to allocate coal to BISCOMAUN for being distributed to the consumers in the State of Bihar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also averred that on 21.6.2006 and 1.9.2006 complaints were sent against the petitioner and on their basis Central Coalfields Limited directed the suspension of coal supply to BISCOMAUN with immediate effect which was communicated to the petitioner through fax dated 23.9.2006 (Annexure-22). The said order was challenged by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.13991 of 2006 which was considered by a Bench of this court on 27.11.2006 (Annexure-23) and interim order was passed staying the said order of the authorities and also directing the Central Coalfields Limited to resume supply of coal to the petitioner forthwith. The Central Coalfields Limited complied the said order and resumed supply of coal to BISCOMAUN and when the earlier policy regarding coal ended in 2007, it entered into a fresh agreement with the BISCOMAUN as per new policy of 2007 (Annexure-24). 4. The Central Coalfields Limited complied the said order and resumed supply of coal to BISCOMAUN and when the earlier policy regarding coal ended in 2007, it entered into a fresh agreement with the BISCOMAUN as per new policy of 2007 (Annexure-24). 4. It was also claimed by the petitioner that since then supply of coal was regularly made to the petitioner and the agreement was renewed year after year (Annexure-25 and 31) and till 2010-11 no complaint was received against the petitioner and only on 26.2.2011 (Annexure-29) a complaint was received by the respondents authorities raising exactly the same issues which were raised in the year 2006 against the petitioner as mentioned above. Due to the said reason petitioner sent letter dated 28.4.2011 (Annexure-27) to the Central Coalfields Limited for renewal of the agreement, but when no response was received and the petitioner learnt about the complaint dated 26.02.2011 he again sent a letter to the Central Coalfields Limited on 19.5.2011 (Annexure-30) explaining the entire matter in detail but no step was taken by the authorities although the quota was only for one year nor any reason had been shown why the authorities were sleeping over the matter and were not supplying coal to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no objection had been ever raised by the State of Bihar nor any objection had been raised by the Coal India Limited and only on a compliant dated 26.2.2011 (Annexure-29) the authorities of the Central Coalfields Limited have deprived BISCOMAUN from the facility to which they were legally entitled due to which small units all over the State of Bihar are suffering. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the said objection dated 26.2.2011 (Annexure-29) had been sent by one Ranjeet Singh claiming to be the Chairman of PACS within the district of Buxar on absolutely frivolous grounds which had been raised much earlier in the year 2006 and the matter was brought to the notice of this court vide C.W.J.C. No.13991 of 2006, and on the basis of interim order passed therein supply was restored and new agreement was entered into as per the new policy of 2007 and it continued till 2010-11 without any objection having been raised by anyone. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also claimed that the aforesaid objector Sri Ranjeet Singh had contested the election for the post of Chairman of BISCOMAUN but when he lost in the said election he started raising such frivolous objections against BISCOMAUN. It was further stated that the said objector had links with private interested persons, who are to benefit from the predicament of BISCOMAUN and hence the said allegation is totally baseless, wrong and mischievous. 8. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar and the authorities of the Department of Industries (respondent nos.1 and 2) stated that they had never alleged that BISCOMAUN was a wrongdoer and the Department of Industries was not concerned with the instant matter and had nothing to do with respect to the claim of the petitioner. 9. The Joint Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna had been impleaded as respondent no.6 during the pendency of this writ petition and was represented by the State Counsel. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar submits that he had sent letter/information to respondent no.6 but in spite of that no reply has been sent by them and hence nothing can be said on his behalf. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Coal India Limited/Central Coalfields Limited and its authorities (respondent nos.3 to 5) stated that as per the new policy Department of Mines, Government of Bihar had nominated BISCOMAUN to enter into F.S.A. with Central Coalfields Limited which is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited for supply of coal. 11. Learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 5 also stated that they sent letters dated 25.4.2011 and 27.5.2011 to the Joint Secretary, Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna (respondent no.6) about the complaint sent by Sri Ranjeet Singh against BISCOMAUN regarding occurrences of 2006 seeking advice for further action, but since no response was received from the said authority, they could not consider the application of BISCOMAUN for renewal of F.S.A. for the year 2011-12. 12. 12. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that in the year 2007 fresh agreement was entered into between BISCOMAUN and the Coalfields Limited as per the new policy of 2007 and it continued after yearly renewal till 2010-11 without any objection from any quarter and without any deficiency found in the functioning of BISCOMAUN with respect to the said agreement of 2007 or thereafter. 13. It is also apparent from letter sent by Sri Ranjeet Singh dated 26.2.2011 (Annexure-29) that he had raised same plea which had been raised in the year 2006 due to which the petitioner had to file C.W.J.C. No.13991 of 2006 in which an interim order was passed, whereafter supply of coal was resumed and after coming into force of the new policy in the year 2007 fresh agreement was entered into between the parties. In the said circumstances the objection raised by Sri Ranjeet Singh in his complaint dated 26.2.2011 (Annexure-29) appears to be absolutely frivolous and misconceived and on its basis BISCOMAUN cannot be deprived of the legal consequences of its agreement with the Central Coalfields Limited. It is also apparent that there is no allegation of any breach as per Clause 4.5 of Memo No.18.11.2010. 14. It is quite strange that the Department of Mines itself wrote letter to the Coal India Limited recommending BISCOMAUN as State Agency for distribution of coal amongst small and tiny consumers for the year 2011-12 which is apparent from letter of Coal India Limited dated 20.4.2011 (Annexure-26) itself, but in spite of that the petitioner’s claim was not considered by the Coal India Limited and the Department of Mines also remained silent to the letters sent to it in that regard dated 25.4.2011 and 27.5.2011 by Coal India Limited. 15. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court finds that the petitioner has been illegally deprived of the supply to which it was legally entitled. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the Central Coalfields Limited and its authorities (respondent nos.4 and 5) to execute F.S.A. with the petitioner immediately within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and ensure supply of coal to the petitioner as required by the petitioner in accordance with law.