ORDER Poonam Srivastav, J. 1. The instant writ petition is preferred for issuance of appropriate writ or direction for supply of coal by the nodal agency, namely, the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., appointed by the Central Government and also for quashing the letter dated 10.12.2010 issued by the Incharge, Coal Trading Cell. 2. The grievance is that the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination. He is a small consumer and had applied with other consumers for supply of coal, but he has been singled out by means of the impugned letter whereby the petitioner's company was refused grant of coal supply. 3. Submission is that under the New Coal Distribution Policy of the Ministry of Coal, respondent No. 3- Dy. Commissioner, Palamu, issued notice inviting applications for purchase of coal of C.I.L. Collieries from JSMDC Ltd. The notice inviting application from the small and medium sector specifically mentioned that the distribution would be made through the New Coal Distribution Policy. The notice is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner applied in response to the notice, in the prescribed format on 31.12.2008 for purchase of coal and also deposited requisite fee, which was duly accepted by the State of Jharkhand. It has been elucidated on behalf of the petitioner that he desires to establish the coal briquette plant on a land taken for 10 years lease at Palamu. Subsequently, he has made huge investment on purchase of necessary machineries and other establishments for running his small industry. The application for purchase of coal was refused by means of the impugned letter. 4. Counter and rejoinder have been exchanged and the respective counsel on behalf of the petitioner, State counsel as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government have agreed that the writ petition be decided finally at this stage. 5. The argument on behalf of the petitioner, besides discrimination, is also that the State Government has to carry out a policy adopted by the Central Government and the New Coal Distribution Policy has prescribed the mode, manner and other specifications in supply of coal by means of a Notification No. 23011/4/2007-CPD, Government of India, Ministry of Coal, dated 18.10.2007, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The said policy provides at Serial No. 3.1, granting permission to the State Government to work out genuine requirement of such units in small and medium sector like smokeless fuel, brick kiln, coke oven units etc. on a transparent and scientific basis and distribute coal to them accordingly. The quantity for distribution of coal units will be granted to such units whose requirement is less than 4200 M.T. per annum and are otherwise not having access to purchase coal or process conclude Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) for coal supply to the coal companies. The petitioner contended that he fulfills all the requirement and was entitled for supply of coal, but he has been subjected to gross discrimination and refused supply of coal on the basis that his unit is involved in coal crushing/screening/briquette and, therefore, the State has decided not to supply coal to such industry. Admittedly, the National Coal Policy does not provide or lays down any bar or embargo to supply coal to any such unit. The only criteria to be fixed by the State Government, according to the national policy is that it should be small and medium sector having less than 4200 tonnes consumption per annum. The petitioner has asserted in paragraph-22 of the writ petition detailing that a number of other units have been granted supply, but he has been subjected to illegal, arbitrary discrimination by the State Level Committee. For ready reference, paragraph-22 of the writ petition is quoted below:-- That it is relevant to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that the respondent's without assigning any reasons in the impugned letter decided not to give coal to briquette plants, whereas on the other hand the same respondent's has been releasing coal to almost 25 briquette plants situated in the district of Ranchi, Latehar, Dhanbad, Bokaro and Koderma and in a most discriminatory manner informed the petitioner with regard to the illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory decision of the State Level Committee that on account of petitioner being a coal briquette plant cannot be given coal. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has placed reliance on Annexure-11, which is a High Level Committee meeting and certain decisions were taken to supply coal only to such units and grant priority who have valued addition to the raw material. The said proceedings of the meeting are annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has placed reliance on Annexure-11, which is a High Level Committee meeting and certain decisions were taken to supply coal only to such units and grant priority who have valued addition to the raw material. The said proceedings of the meeting are annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. However, the explanation regarding discrimination has been given in paragraph-19 of the counter-affidavit on behalf of the nodal agency i.e. respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The respondents have admitted that the coal is being supplied to certain briquette producing units which were selected earlier on the availability of coal at that point of time and a Fuel Supply Agreement having been executed with such units much prior to the demand made by the petitioner. It is, therefore, on account of non-availability of coal, they are unable to supply coal. This explanation cannot be accepted for the reason that in the event when supply of coal is less, then it could be distributed evenly between all the applicants, since there was no cut of date to make application or there could be any such objection raised on behalf of the State Government declining to accept the application and requisite fees. There is no such embargo laid down by the National Coal Policy. The State Government has also accepted the application and also that an inspection was conducted and there was also a recommendation in favour of the petitioner that the coal would be supplied to them. 7. I am of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioner is well founded and he has been discriminated by the State Government on the basis of certain decisions arrived at in the High Level Meeting which is admittedly beyond the permission of the National Coal Policy, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The State Government cannot take shelter behind the excuse that they are unable to supply coal on account of shortage of coal. 8. Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India is directly questioned that whether the State Government granted authority to make changes in the National Policy or not? The answer is in negative. 9. Thus, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled for supply of coal as it is done in the case of identical placed other units. 8. Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India is directly questioned that whether the State Government granted authority to make changes in the National Policy or not? The answer is in negative. 9. Thus, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled for supply of coal as it is done in the case of identical placed other units. In these circumstances, the impugned letter dated 10.12.2010 refusing supply of coal to the petitioner is apparently discrimination meted out to the petitioner and thus, is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to make arrangement for supply of coal to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of. Writ petition disposed of.