JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents Coal India Ltd. and others. 2. The petitioner company is involved in coal business. They participated in the spot e-auction scheme 2007 to purchase coal from the North Eastern Coalfields (respondent No.2) and the bid of the petitioner was confirmed for one rake of coal on 21.4.2007 (Annexure-II). Accordingly the requisite amount was immediately deposited by the successful bidder but the coal rake was never dispatched to the purchaser by the respondents. 3. The action of the respondents was triggered by blacklisting of several coal traders including the petitioner, by the South Eastern Coalfields through their order dated 3.10.2007 (Annexure-VII). Here it was alleged that the listed coal dealers had made unscrupulous bidding efforts during the e-booking process and accordingly they were blacklisted and allotment of coal made to those bidders were cancelled. 4. However when the affected parties challenged the blacklisting order, the Chattisgarh High Court quashed the order but allowed the authority to proceed de novo, after affording opportunity to the affected parties. Because of this development, the office order dated 13.1.2008 (Annexure-XIII) was issued whereby the blacklisting order was withdrawn and decision was taken for refunding the e-booking amount for the undelivered coal, without forfeiture of the earnest money. 5. Since the non-delivery of coal was on account of the blacklisting order passed by the South Eastern Coalfields, the petitioner contend that as the entire consideration amount was deposited by them on 21.4.2007 itself, they be delivered one rake of coal by the North Eastern Coalfields. 6.1 The respondents however contend that the consideration amount was refunded and received by the petitioner on 16.9.2008 and accordingly it is argued that delivery of coal arising out of the auction made in the year 2007, can’t now be permitted. 6.2 Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that the transaction under each e-auction is individual, independent and unique and a previous e-auction can’t be carried forward to a future date, to deliver coal for an incomplete transaction. 7. 6.2 Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that the transaction under each e-auction is individual, independent and unique and a previous e-auction can’t be carried forward to a future date, to deliver coal for an incomplete transaction. 7. While the blacklisting of the petitioner by the subsidiary concern was the reason for withholding of the coal rake by the respondent No.2, the issue to be considered is whether after the blacklisting order was withdrawn, a direction should now be issued for delivery of the coal purchased in the year 2007. 8. Following the successful bid made by the petitioner in the e-auction held on 21.4.2007, they had deposited the consideration amount but the same was subsequently refunded on 16.9.2008 as because the transacted coal wasn’t delivered. Under Clause 11.11 of the spot e-auction scheme, the sale under each e-auction is stipulated to be a compete transaction and the terms and conditions do not permit a transaction to be carried forward to a future date. For instance when coal production is impacted, delivery of coal may not be possible and the only remedy available in such eventuality is refund of the consideration amount to the successful bidder. Thus delivery of coal extracted subsequently is not envisaged for an incomplete transaction, under the spot e-auction scheme. 9. That apart, the price and sale of coal is regulated by the Government and considering that 8 years have gone by from the date of the e-auction, it will not be justified now in my view, to direct delivery of the coal. In this context, it is noteworthy that the North Eastern Coalfields had stopped production of the concerned Grade-A (UHV-6200-6299 K. cal/Kg) variety of coal, which was what was offered for sale, in the spot e-auction held in the year 2007. 10. In view of the above discussion in the preceding paragraphs and taking in to account the terms and conditions of the spot e-auction scheme 2007 and the fact that the petitioners were refunded the consideration amount, I feel that direction for delivery of the coal as prayed for in this case can’t be granted and it is declared accordingly. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed without any order on cost.