ORDER All the aforesaid three M.J.C. cases were heard together and are being decided by this common order as the opposite parties in all the three cases as well as the points involved therein are exactly the same and the order said to have been violated in all the three cases is the same common order by which three writ petitions were decided. 2. The aforesaid M.J.C. cases were filed by the petitioners for a common object for getting proceeding of contempt initiated against opposite party nos.1 to 3, namely the Chairman of Coal India Limited, Kolkata, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Jharkhand and the Chief General Manager (S & M), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad for punishing them due to disobedience and contempt of common order of this court dated 12.07.2011 by which all the writ petitions filed by the petitioners bearing CWJC No.4460 of 2011, CWJC No.6754 of 2011 and CWJC No.7436 of 2011 were allowed in the following manner: “Considering the entire facts and circumstances of these cases as well as the materials on record and the documents of the parties, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited dated 09.11.2010 is quashed. However, the respondents Bharat Coking Coal Limited and its authorities will be at liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law as well as in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court after giving liberty to the petitioners to place their cases and documents. Petitioners are directed to submit their reply before the Chief General Manager (S & M) Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad (respondent no.3) within fifteen days from today. If the respondents-authorities require the petitioners to supply any additional paper/reply, they shall intimate the petitioners with respect to the same in writing within two weeks thereafter in response to which the petitioners may submit such additional documents/reply within fifteen days thereafter. The respondent concern, namely respondent no.3, the Chief General Manager (S&M), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law especially the law settled by the Supreme Court after considering the replies and materials produced by the petitioners within ten weeks of the completion of pleadings. 3. The respondent concern, namely respondent no.3, the Chief General Manager (S&M), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law especially the law settled by the Supreme Court after considering the replies and materials produced by the petitioners within ten weeks of the completion of pleadings. 3. The aforesaid three writ petitions were filed by three petitioners against order dated 09.11.2010 by which the authorities of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited terminated their Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) dated 30.06.2008 with reference to Clause 4.4 of the said agreement. The petitioners had also sought striking down of Clause 4.4. of FSA dated 30.06.2008 claiming that it was hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India read with section 23 of the Contract Act because it restrained the petitioners from exercising lawful trade or business. 4. The petitioners’ units were registered under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and were allocated certain quantity of ROM Coal per month from BCCL on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months and the time was extended from time to time on verification. However by letter dated 08.06.2010, the respondent –Chief General Manager of Bharat Coking Coal Limited requested the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Rohtas to issue utilization certificate with reference to petitioners’ units and also issued notices to the petitioners for producing documents. 5. Thereafter the supply of the petitioners were suspended by the respondents authorities vide letter dated 01.07.2010 against which the petitioner Bandana Fuel Industries & anr., filed CWJC No.14714 of 2010 and as an interim measure this court vide order dated 08.09.2010 stayed the suspension. The respondents moved the Apex Court, but the Apex Court affirmed the order of the High Court which is reported in (2010) 10 SCC 395 . In the meantime, the respondents-authorities withdrew the suspension on 24.09.2010 and accordingly the aforesaid writ petition bearing CWJC No.14714 of 2010 was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 11.10.2010. However, by the impugned order dated 09.11.2010, the respondents-authorities terminated the Fuel Supply Agreement dated 30.06.2008 with reference to Clause 4.4 of FSA. The petitioners had specifically stated that no notice or information or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before passing the said order. 6. However, by the impugned order dated 09.11.2010, the respondents-authorities terminated the Fuel Supply Agreement dated 30.06.2008 with reference to Clause 4.4 of FSA. The petitioners had specifically stated that no notice or information or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before passing the said order. 6. In the said circumstances the impugned order of Bharat Coking Coal Limited dated 09.11.2010 was quashed by this court vide common order dated 12.07.2011 passed in the above mentioned three writ petitions giving liberty to its authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with law as well as in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court after giving liberty to the petitioners to place their cases and documents. It was also directed that thereafter the Chief General Manager (S&M), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law specially the law settled by the Supreme Court after considering replies and materials produced by the petitioners within 10 weeks of completion of the pleadings. 7. The claim of all the three petitioners was that the direction given by this court in the aforesaid order dated 12.07.2011 was intentionally violated by the respondents as no opportunity was given to the petitioners for placing their case and a fresh order dated 01.10.2011 was passed by the said authority totally relying upon its earlier order dated 09.11.2010, although the said order had already been quashed by this court vide order dated 12.07.2011. 8. It was further claimed by learned counsel for the petitioners that after order of the authorities dated 09.11.2010 was quashed by this court vide order dated 12.07.2011, it was incumbent upon the authorities to restore the position of the petitioners, which was existing prior to the quashed order dated 09.11.2010, but the respondents tried to restore the quashed order dated 09.11.2010 by passing fresh order dated 01.10.2011 without even considering the points raised by the petitioners in their affidavit dated 05.05.2011. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party nos.1 to 3 in all the aforesaid three M.J.C. cases claimed that they had not committed any contempt rather they had passed the order in question dated 01.10.2011 as per the directions of the High Court given in order dated 12.07.2011 passed in the aforesaid three writ petitions. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party nos.1 to 3 in all the aforesaid three M.J.C. cases claimed that they had not committed any contempt rather they had passed the order in question dated 01.10.2011 as per the directions of the High Court given in order dated 12.07.2011 passed in the aforesaid three writ petitions. It was further claimed by learned counsel for the said opposite parties that there was no direction for personal hearing of the petitioners in order dated 12.07.2011 and the only direction to the authorities was to consider the reply of the petitioners and hence in the representation/reply of the petitioners no prayer was made for any independent hearing. 10. Learned counsel for the aforesaid opposite parties relied upon order dated 08.04.2011 passed by the Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.8514 of 2011, but by the said order only a direction was given to Bharat Coking Coal Limited to dispose of the matter within four weeks from that date, hence the said decision did not cut any ice in the instant case. 11. Learned counsel for the aforesaid opposite parties also relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court dated 03.03.2011 by which Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.72707 of 2010 filed by M/s Ashutosh Industries and Another was allowed and the impugned order dated 09.11.2010 was quashed and the respondent M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited was given liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law for which the petitioners were directed to submit their reply before the Chief General Manager (S&M). Reliance on these orders by the said opposite parties was absolutely irrelevant as the order of this court dated 12.07.2011 passed in the aforesaid three writ petitions was completely independent order and the authorities were duty bound to comply the same. 12. Reliance on these orders by the said opposite parties was absolutely irrelevant as the order of this court dated 12.07.2011 passed in the aforesaid three writ petitions was completely independent order and the authorities were duty bound to comply the same. 12. However, this court vide order dated 12.07.2011 passed in CWJC No.4460 of 2011, CWJC No.6754 of 2011 and CWJC No.7436 of 2011 did not quash the order of the authorities dated 09.11.2010 on merits, rather it was dismissed only because no opportunity was given to the petitioners to present their case, hence the authority concerned was quite justified in passing its fresh order dated 01.10.2011 when even after giving opportunity to the petitioners to present their case and after considering the materials it was found that the earlier order of the authority dated 09.11.2010 was quite legal and justified. Hence the said order dated 12.07.2011 had been complied in its true letter and spirit. 13. From a bare perusal of the said order dated 01.10.2011 passed by the authority it is quite apparent that it was passed not on the basis of order dated 09.11.2010, rather it was based on the report of August 2010, which was submitted by a High Powered Committee constituted by BCCL which examined the documents and representations threadbare and the said report or its findings were never touched by the High Court. Hence the said opposite parties did not commit any disobedience of order of this court. 14. The opposite parties have also produced an order of a bench of this court dated 24.04.2012, by which CWJC No.20039 of 2011 filed by M/s Bihar Fuel Industries challenging order dated 01.10.2011 upholding the earlier termination order dated 09.11.2010, was dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to pursue their remedies in duly constituted proceedings before an appropriate forum, specially when a large number of issues and facts were involved in the matter which could not be conveniently considered under writ jurisdiction. However, the opposite parties have sought for unconditional apologies in their show-cause. 15. However, the opposite parties have sought for unconditional apologies in their show-cause. 15. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that this court vide its order dated 12.07.2011 passed in CWJC No.4460 of 2011, CWJC No.6754 of 2011 and CWJC No.7436 of 2011 had quashed the impugned order of Bharat Coking Coal Limited dated 09.11.2010 on the only ground that no notice or information or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before passing the said order. 16. It is not in dispute that after passing of the said order of this court dated 12.07.2011 opportunity was given to the petitioners, who filed their applications/replies on 26.07.2011 and the representations/documents filed by the petitioners were examined threadbare. Those documents and claims had already been considered by the duly constituted Committee, which had submitted its report with a firm opinion that such materials were absolutely unreliable with respect to the end use of coal. Hence the authority concerned relying upon the said report of the Committee had passed order dated 01.10.2011 and held that in the said circumstances the termination order dated 09.11.2010 shall stand unaltered. 17. The wordings used by the authority concerned may not be proper and the said authority may not be knowing the exact words, which should have been used in such a situation, but the fact remains that the lacuna of absence of any opportunity to the petitioners having been removed by allowing the petitioners to file their respective claims, the authority concerned was independent to come to independent findings on the basis of materials on record and the authority came to the conclusion that considering the representations/documents of the petitioners and also considering the report of the Committee it came to the same conclusion on 01.10.2011, which he had arrived earlier vide order dated 09.11.2010. In such circumstances, there is legally no contempt of the orders of this court by the opposite parties. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts and situation, no case of contempt is made out against the aforesaid opposite parties. In such circumstances, there is legally no contempt of the orders of this court by the opposite parties. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts and situation, no case of contempt is made out against the aforesaid opposite parties. Accordingly, all these three M.J.C. cases are hereby disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to challenge order dated 01.10.2011 passed by the Chief General Manager (S&M), Bharat Coking Coal Limited before the appropriate authority as prescribed by a Bench of this court vide order dated 24.04.2012 passed in CWJC No.20039 of 2011.