Order Challenging order dated 30.04.2013, whereby the Coal Supply Agreement (FSA) has been terminated and the Security Deposit by way of bank guarantee has been forfeited, the petitioner-M/s. Rajhans Coke Industries has filed the present writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, a Coal Supply Agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Central Coalfields Limited on 30.04.2008. In terms of Clause 3.1 of the Agreement, the petitioner deposited Security Deposit of Rs.7,99,000/- by way of three bank guarantees. Subsequently, the ownership of M/s. Rajhans Coke Industries was transferred to M/s. Weldon Vyapar (P) Ltd. and the same was intimated to the respondents vide letter dated 04.12.2008. On an allegation that 9211.62 MT of coal lifted from CCL during the financial years 200910 and 201011 has been diverted, a First Information Report was lodged by the CBI on 19.04.2011 vide RC/06(A)2011R. Vide communication dated 09.05.2011, the coal supply to the petitioner was suspended by the respondent-CCL and a show-cause notice dated 11.07.2011 was issued. The petitioner duly replied the show-cause notice and it moved the High Court for quashing the First Information Report by filing Cr.M.P. No.671 of 2011 and the proceeding in the criminal case has been stayed by this Court. A second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 07.09.2011, which was also replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 21.09.2011. However, vide order dated 30.04.2013, the Coal Supply Agreement dated 30.04.2008 was terminated and the Security Deposit has been forfeited and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that merely on the ground that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner, the Coal Supply Agreement dated 30.04.2008 has been terminated though, the proceeding in the criminal case has been stayed by this Court. It is further submitted that there is no evidence that the petitioner diverted the coal supplied to it for the purposes other than the purpose for which it was supplied by CCL. Nonetheless, the respondents arbitrarily concluded that the coal has been diverted by the petitioner for some other purpose. 5. In reply, Mr. It is further submitted that there is no evidence that the petitioner diverted the coal supplied to it for the purposes other than the purpose for which it was supplied by CCL. Nonetheless, the respondents arbitrarily concluded that the coal has been diverted by the petitioner for some other purpose. 5. In reply, Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL submitted the petitioner has not only diverted the coal supplied to it, fictitious name of the persons were given as the owner of the petitioner-M/s. Rajhans Coke Industries with whom, the Coal Supply Agreement was executed. This was done by the petitioner with an intention that ultimately the actual culprit would not be identified and thus, the petitioner would go scotfree. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. Clause 15 of the Agreement dated 30.04.2008 deals with “Termination of Agreement”. Clause 15.1.5 is extracted below: “15.1.5 In the event that the Purchaser resells or diverts the Coal purchased pursuant to this Agreement, the Seller shall have the right to terminate this Agreement forthwith”. 8. From the aforesaid provisions in the Coal Supply Agreement, it is apparent that the respondent-CCL has power to terminate the Agreement and to forfeit the Security Deposit. The show-cause notice dated 07.09.2011 discloses that the documents for the year, 2008 were not submitted by the petitioner when the Coal Supply Agreement dated 30.04.2008 was executed. The documents of the year, 2007 disclose that Md. Izhar Ansari was the operating partner of M/s. Rajhans Coke Industries and the Coal supply Agreement was executed by one Shri Kishore Kumar, who was allegedly duly authorized by Md. Izhar Ansari. It has been found that the said Md. Izhar Ansari was not a partner or authorized representative of M/s. Rajhans Coke Industries on or after 19.10.2007 and thus, he could not have authorized Shri Kishore Kumar to sign the Coal Supply Agreement with CCL. The documents produced by the petitioner were not satisfactory and the petitioner failed to provide evidence that it used the coal supplied by CCL for valid purposes. At the time of inspection, the petitioner-M/s. Rajhans Coke Industries was found closed and on enquiry, it was found that it was not working. The documents produced by the petitioner were not satisfactory and the petitioner failed to provide evidence that it used the coal supplied by CCL for valid purposes. At the time of inspection, the petitioner-M/s. Rajhans Coke Industries was found closed and on enquiry, it was found that it was not working. It is also not in dispute that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner for diverting the coal supply. In view of the facts disclosed in the present proceeding, I am of the opinion that the respondent-CCL has rightly exercised its power terminating the Coal Supply Agreement and forfeited the Security Deposit. 9. I find no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.