JUDGMENT: The present petition has been preferred mainly for the reasons that the petitioner is a purchaser of the properties of M/s Laxmi Ispat, which is a sole proprietorship of M/s Raj Ganga Traders Pvt. Ltd. In the month of February, 2010, the properties of M/s Laxmi Ispat has been purchased by the petitioner and the coal supply linkage has to be transferred now to the new purchaser i.e. the present petitioner which is M/s Shivam Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. This type of commercial transaction is not unknown in the commercial world. Purchase and sale of the sole proprietorship is a regular phenomenon in the developing country. This petitioner has legally purchased the properties of M/s Laxmi Ispat from the proprietorship namely M/s Raj Ganga Traders Pvt. Ltd. The necessary applications were preferred on 5.3.2010 for the change of name for Coal Linkage before the Ministry of Coal. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that thereafter series of correspondences and clarifications were sought for, and were given not only by the petitioner i.e. the purchasing party but also by the predecessor in title i.e. by M/s Laxmi Ispat (Annexure Nos.5,7,8 and 9 of the memo of this writ petition) and lastly on 18.8.2010 at Annexure-13 an order was passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India allowing the change of name of the company from M/s Shivam Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (Sponge and Power Division) for the purpose of coal linkage /coal allocation, subject to the conditions, that the project for which the long terms coal linkage (Letter of Assurance) has been given, shall remain unaltered and its location will not be changed by the purchaser of the properties (i.e. by the petitioner) and secondly on the condition that the long term coal linkage (Letter of Assurance) given under the conditions, will remain unaltered. Those conditions, upon which the coal supply was to be given to the predecessor in title i.e. M/s Laxmi Ispat, however the conditions will remain as they are of the new purchaser. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that everything was accepted by the Union of India. Those conditions, upon which the coal supply was to be given to the predecessor in title i.e. M/s Laxmi Ispat, however the conditions will remain as they are of the new purchaser. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that everything was accepted by the Union of India. A raid was carried out by the C.B.I. officers on 23.8.2010 at the offices of the Central Government, Ministry of Coal and some high ranking officers of the Ministry of Coal as well as Ministry of Commerce were caught red handed by the C.B.I. and now the case is before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), C.B.I.-II, Patiala House, New Delhi, being R.C. Case No. S-18/2010-E-0005. In this matter, the petitioner has nothing to do because the petitioner is a purchaser of the properties of M/s Laxmi Ispat. Necessary 'No Objection Certificate' has also been given by M/s Laxmi Ispat dated 1.4.2010, which is at Annexure-8 to this memo of petition and unnecessarily the petitioner has been joined as accused and the competent trial court has already given 'pardon' to the petitioner under Section 307 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, the petitioner is not concerned with the criminal case except as star witness in the pending criminal case against the officers of Coal Ministry and Commerce Ministry of Union of India, and therefore, the petitioner may be supplied the coal as per the coal linkage agreement and the order passed by the respondents Dated 26.8.2010, which is annexed with the I.A. No.3979 of 2010 may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is not going to misuse the supply of coal and there is no allegation levelled against the petitioner for misuse of supply of coal. The counsel for the respondent-Union of India has also tendered a letter dated 13.7.2011 written by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, to this Court, wherein it has been stated that with regard to the misuse of coal there is no report of misuse. The counsel for the respondent-Union of India has also tendered a letter dated 13.7.2011 written by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, to this Court, wherein it has been stated that with regard to the misuse of coal there is no report of misuse. Thus, in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Coal India Limited & Ors Versus Coal Consumers Association & Ors reported in (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 395 (Para 13 and 14 thereof), the coal may be ordered to be supplied to the petitioner as per the coal linkage after fulfilling the necessary procedures by giving certain details like Letter of Assurance to the Union of India. It appears that the whole dispute has arisen because of misunderstanding by the Union of India about the commercial transaction of purchase and sale of properties by a private ltd. company, which is not unknown in the commercial world, it may be unknown to some of the officers of the Union of India. There is no illegality in the purchase of the commercial unit by another company. The small transactions are well known under the Companies Act, 1956, and therefore, there are provisions for amalgamation etc. Only because the raid was carried out in the Coal Ministry and the Ministry of Commerce, there cannot be the reason for not supplying the coal to the petitioner. Therefore, let a writ of mandamus be issued to the Union of India for supply of coal as per the coal linkage. 2. I have heard the counsel for the Union of India who has submitted that it is true that there is no allegation against the petitioner for misuse of the coal. The counsel for the petitioner has received a letter from the Under Secretary to the Government of India dated 13.7.2011. A copy whereof is tendered to this Court and it has been stated in the Paragraph -2 of the letter that there is no report of misuse of commercial transaction by the petitioner. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent-Union of India that it is true that a letter was written by the Under Secretary to the Government of India dated 18.8.2010 whereby the change of name from M/s Laxmi Ispat to M/s Shivam Iron & Steel Co. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent-Union of India that it is true that a letter was written by the Under Secretary to the Government of India dated 18.8.2010 whereby the change of name from M/s Laxmi Ispat to M/s Shivam Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (Sponge and Power Division) was accepted by the Union of India subject to the conditions stated in that letter, the said letter is at Annexure-13 to this memo of petition. Before it was implemented, a raid was carried out by the C.B.I. on 23.8.2010 in the Ministry of Coal as well as in the Ministry of Commerce under the Prevention of Corruption Act and certain high ranking officers were made accused. The petitioner has been given 'pardon' by the competent trial court i.e. Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), C.B.I.-II, Patiala House, New Delhi, and therefore, the petitioner will be a star witness in the said criminal case but the facts remain that because of this C.B.I. raid, another letter was issued by the Union of India dated 26.8.2010 to put in abeyance the earlier order dated 18.8.2010, the said letter is annexed with the Interlocutory Application, which is already allowed and the amendment has already been carried out with main writ petition, this letter is at Annexure -14. 3. The counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the role of respondent Nos.2 and 3 will come into the picture only after the Union of India is completing the formalities of change of name for supply of coal under the coal linkage agreement. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 will complete some formalities and thereafter they will supply the coal as per the coal linkage agreement. Thus, if this Court gives direction to the Union of India for accepting the change of name of the company from M/s Laxmi Ispat to the name of present petitioner, then the role of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 will come into the picture. 4. Having heard the counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts of the case, it appears : (I) that, the original coal linkage agreement was entered into between the respondent-Union of India and M/s Laxmi Ispat (M/s Laxmi Ispat is a sole proprietorship of M/s Rajganga Traders Pvt. Ltd.). The petitioner has purchased the properties of M/s Laxmi Ispat in the month of February, 2010. The petitioner has purchased the properties of M/s Laxmi Ispat in the month of February, 2010. M/s Laxmi Ispat was having coal linkage agreement, and therefore, it is now required to be transferred to the present petitioner by completing necessary formalities. (II) it further appears from the facts and circumstance of the case, that the petitioner has applied for change of name from M/s Laxmi Ispat to the name of the present petitioner on 5.3.2010. Several queries have been made by the respondent-Union of India and time and again the petitioner has to satisfy the need and demand of supply of certain facts to the respondent-Union of India, which has resulted into the protracted correspondence between the parties, some of the letters have been referred at Annexure -5, 7, 8 and 9. (III) it appears that, after several queries and answers by the petitioner as well as by M/s Laxmi Ispat, the respondent-Union of India was satisfied and a letter was written by the Under Secretary to the Government of India dated 18.8.2010 (Annexure -13 to the memo of petition) that they have accepted the change of name from M/s Laxmi Ispat to the present petitioner i.e. M/s Shivam Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. subject to the conditions that there will not be any change in the location and the project for which the coal is to be supplied shall remain unaltered and the second condition imposed was that the conditions, upon which the coal supply was to be given to M/s Laxmi Ispat, will remain as they are, even for a new purchaser i.e. M/s Shivam Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner has accepted these two conditions. (IV) it appears that, there may be some demand of illegal gratification by the high ranking officers of the Ministry of Coal, and therefore, a raid was carried out by the C.B.I. officers and a case was registered by the C.B.I. and the same is pending before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), C.B.I.-II, Patiala House, New Delhi, being R.C. Case No.S-18/2000-E-0005, in which, one of the Directors of the petitioner's company namely Binod Kumar Agarwal was also joined as accused, now given 'pardon' under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by order dated 9.6.2011. Thus, it appears that the petitioner may be a star witness in that criminal case before the competent trial court. (V) it appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner has purchased the properties of M/s Laxmi Ispat as owned by M/s Rajganga Traders Pvt. Ltd. and necessary 'No Objection Certificate' has already been given by M/s Laxmi Ispat vide their letter dated 1.4.2010, which is at Annexure -8 to the memo of petition, and only because now the raid has been carried out by the C.B.I., the coal is not supplied to the petitioner and the letter dated 18.8.2010, which is at Annexure-13, has been kept in abeyance by letter dated 26.8.2010 at Annexure -14 for no reason. Petitioner is already given pardon under Section 307 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Now, he will be star witness of prosecution. The purchase of the properties by the petitioner from M/s Laxmi Ispat is not illegal; such type of commercial transactions are always taking place in this country. It may be a new for some of the officers of Union of India. There are also provisions for amalgamation etc under the Companies Act. The concept of web -holding may be unknown for the officers of the Union of India. This fact has been narrated at Annexure-11. This concept of web-holding has been already explained by the petitioner, and moreover, there is no allegation by the Union of India, about proposed misuse of coal to be supplied to the new purchaser i.e to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent-Union of India received a letter dated 13.7.2011 of the Union of India, a copy whereof is taken on record and it has been stated in Paragraph-2 that there is no report of the misuse of the commercial transaction by the petitioner. Paragrapher-2 of the said letter is reproduced as under : “2. Regarding point No.(1) relating to misuse in commercial transaction, it is intimated that there is no report of misuse in commercial transaction by the petitioner as per the records available with us.” 5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Coal India Limited & Ors Versus Coal Consumers Association & Ors reported in (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 395, Paragraph Nos.13, 14 and 15 of which, is as under : “13. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Coal India Limited & Ors Versus Coal Consumers Association & Ors reported in (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 395, Paragraph Nos.13, 14 and 15 of which, is as under : “13. We have today delivered judgments in Coal India Ltd. v. Alok Fuels (P) Ltd. and also in Sushila Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in which we have held that the petitioner 2 has the right to suspend supplies of coal to the purchaser of coal where it has doubts that the purchaser may misutilise the alloted coal and divert or sell in open market because, as it was clear from Clause 4.4 of FSA and the New Coal Distribution Policy dated 18-10-2007, the very object of FSA as well as policy decision of the Government is to allot coal to the purchasers for utilization in their plants and not for any other purpose. 14. In the two judgments delivered today, we have also held that the FIR lodged by CBI, which is a premier investigation agency of the Central Government, created serious doubts that the alloted coal may have been diverted or sold in the open market instead of being utilized in the plants of the purchasers and hence petitioner 2 was within its rights to suspend the supplies of coal to the purchasers in these cases till the doubts were cleared in appropriate proceedings. 15. In the facts of these cases, however, we find that no FIR as such has been lodged by CBI alleging that the supplies of coal made to the 45 industrial consumers have not been utilized in their respective industrial units. Moreover, Para 3.1 of the New Coal Distribution Policy dated 18.10.2007 of the Government of India, Ministry of Coal, clearly states that the State Governments may take appropriate steps to evaluate the genuine consumption and monitor the use of coal supplied to units in small and medium sector like smokeless fuel, brick kiln, coke oven units, etc.” 6. Moreover, Para 3.1 of the New Coal Distribution Policy dated 18.10.2007 of the Government of India, Ministry of Coal, clearly states that the State Governments may take appropriate steps to evaluate the genuine consumption and monitor the use of coal supplied to units in small and medium sector like smokeless fuel, brick kiln, coke oven units, etc.” 6. In view of the aforesaid decision also, once there is no allegation of misuse of the coal supplied to the petitioner and once there is no FIR filed by C.B.I. for misuse of coal by petitioner, and the petitioner has purchased the properties of M/s Laxmi Ispat, and also looking to the order dated 18.8.2010 passed by the Union of India, at Annexure-13, there is no reason for the Union of India, not to supply, the coal to the petitioner only on the ground that some C.B.I. case is pending and some high ranking officers of the Ministry of Coal and the Ministry of Commerce were made accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act. I, therefore, hereby, quash and set aside the letter dated 26.8.2010 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, which is at Annexure-14 to the memo of petition (Annexure -14 to the Interlocutory Application), and, I, hereby, direct the Union of India to accept the change of name from M/s Laxmi Ispat to M/s Shivam Iron & Steel Co. Limited (Sponge and Power Division) for the purpose of supply of coal linkage/ coal allocation subject to the conditions referred to in letter dated 18.8.2010. The counsel for the petitioner is agreeing with the two conditions which are referred in a letter dated 18.8.2010 (Annexure-13 to the memo of petition). The petitioner assures that they will not alter the factory premises of earlier owned company i.e. M/s Laxmi Ispat nor they will be going to change the purpose for which the coal was to be supplied to M/s Laxmi Ispat. The petition is allowed and disposed of. 7. As this Court has already quashed the letter dated 26.8.2010 issued by the Union of India, I, hereby, direct the respondent Nos. The petition is allowed and disposed of. 7. As this Court has already quashed the letter dated 26.8.2010 issued by the Union of India, I, hereby, direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Coal India Limited and Mahanadi Coalfields Limited respectively to complete the necessary formalities like entering into the Letter of Assurance followed by Supply Agreement and such other requirements for supply of coal as per the Coal Linkage Agreement, which is in existence with M/s Laxmi Ispat. 8. Now, the parties in this writ petition are directed to complete the necessary formalities for supply of coal to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order of this court. 9. Liberty is reserved with Union of India to check the premises of petitioner, to verify whether the coal supplied is properly used or not. Reasonable cost of checking will be paid by petitioner. This checking may be carried out with more frequency during initial period of one year. Counsel for the petitioner is agreeable to deposit reasonable cost of checking with designated officer of Union of India or as per direction given by respondents, the amount will be deposited. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and disposed of, and the aforesaid Interlocutory Application is also disposed of.