Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 126 (JHR)

Maa Jagdambe Coal Briquette v. Union of India

2015-01-29

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : Aggrieved by decision of the State Level Committee communicated vide letter dated 02.08.2013, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 31.05.2012, a Coal Supply Agreement was executed between the petitioner-company and Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.(JSMDL) for supply of 4080 MT. of coal annually to the petitioner-company. During the year, 201213, JSMDC supplied 2793.090 MT. coal against the annual quota of 4080 MT. and for the month of May, 2013, 651.300 MT. coal was supplied to the petitioner-company. On 17.05.2013 a surprise inspection was carried out by a team of 2 official comprising Executive Magistrate, Palamau and the District Mining Officer, Palamau. A show-cause notice dated 13.06.2013 was issued to the petitioner-company which was replied by the petitioner on 16.06.2013. It is stated that ignoring the reply of the petitioner-company and the manner in which the surprise inspection was carried out, behind the back of the petitioner-company, a decision was taken by the State Level Committee to suspend the supply of coal to the petitioner-company and the said decision has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 02.08.2013. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State of Jharkhand justifying the decision taken by the State Level Committee. It is stated that during the course of inspection dated 17.05.2013, the unit of the petitioner-company was found closed and on enquiry from the local villagers, it was revealed that the petitioner-company was closed since long. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there was no complain against the petitioner-company in past, enquiry was allegedly conducted on 17.05.2013 without prior intimation to the petitioner and a report was prepared behind the back of the petitioner. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the State Level Committee has taken a decision to suspend the coal supply to the petitioner-company. It is further submitted that the decision taken against the petitioner-company is in breach of rules of natural justice and opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the petitioner-company. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand reiterates the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. 7. Mr. It is further submitted that the decision taken against the petitioner-company is in breach of rules of natural justice and opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the petitioner-company. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand reiterates the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. 7. Mr. A. K. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JSMDL raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that since, the agreement dated 31.05.2012 was for a period of 12 months only which has expired by now and therefore, no direction can be issued for resuming supply of coal to the petitioner-company. The learned counsel reiterates the stand taken by the respondent-State of Jharkhand and submits that decision taken by the State Level Committee does not suffer from any infirmity and a proper show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 8. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner-company submits that the show-cause was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted its reply on 16.06.2013 furnishing all relevant details including the quantity of coal lifted, sale of furnished products and sales-tax paid by the petitioner-company however, these documents have not been considered before taking adverse decision against the petitioner-company. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 10. From the materials brought on record, there appears to be no dispute in so far as, the show-cause notice dated 13.06.2013 is concerned. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner submitted his reply on 16.06.2013. Vide letter dated 02.08.2013, the petitioner was directed to produce the utility certificate which the petitioner duly furnished with the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.(JSMDL). Decision to suspend supply of coal has been taken by the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (JSMDL) in pursuance of decision taken by the State Level Committee in its meeting dated 18.07.2013. From the materials brought on record, I do not find any indication whether the evidences produced by the petitioner-company and the reply to show-cause notice submitted by the petitioner-company has been considered before taking adverse decision against the petitioner-company. From the materials brought on record, I do not find any indication whether the evidences produced by the petitioner-company and the reply to show-cause notice submitted by the petitioner-company has been considered before taking adverse decision against the petitioner-company. However, in view of the fact that the agreement dated 31.05.2013 for coal supply has already lapsed, I am of the opinion that no positive direction can be given for resumption of coal supply to the petitioner-company however, in view of the plea of the petitioner-company that the impugned decision has been taken in breach of rules of natural justice, liberty is reserved with the petitioner-company to approach the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.(JSMDL) for renewal of coal supply agreement. While taking decision on the application for renewal of agreement for coal supply, the respondent-Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.(JSMDL) would duly consider the evidence produced by the petitioner-company and if necessary, a fresh inspection may be conducted by the respondents. The decision taken by the State Level Committee dated 18.07.2013 would not be an absolute bar for not granting renewal to the petitioner-company. 11. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.