ORDER : Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that this writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in letter nos. CGM/V/SPA/15/06/208 and CGM/V/SPA/15/ 06/209 both dated 24.07.2006 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) whereby the respondents unilaterally without any notice, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner reduced the lead distance of transportation work and correspondingly made reduction in the rate transportation in most arbitrary and unconstitutional manner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that job of transportation of coal from various collieries at Sijua Area to Bansjora and Gararia Railway siding for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006 was granted and later on it was extended vide letter no. GM/V/SPA/15/06/120 dated 18.4.2006. 4. Drawing the attention of this court to annexure 1 and 2 of the writ petition the petitioner submits that following work orders were issued to the petitioner:- (a) Work order No. GM:V/SPA/15/05/385 dated 22.09.2005 for transportation of coal from one place to another as specified in the work order (Annexure-1 to the writ petition at page 20) This work order was amended vide order No. CGM:V:SPA:15;2006:106 dated 20.3.2006 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). (b) Work order No. GM:V/SPA/15/05/386 dated 22.09.2005 for transportation of coal from one place to another as specified in the work order (Annexure-1 to the writ petition at page 22). 5. The petitioner submits that interalia the lead distance for the transportation of coal from one place to another has been duly mentioned in the work orders after being calculated and measured by the respondent authority themselves. Work order No. GM:V/SPA/15/05/385 dated 22.09.2005 read with its amendment dated 20.3.2006 provided interalia as follows:- Element of Work Quantity in lac (MT) (Dist. (KM.) Rate Amount In Rs. 1. (a) Transportation of coal from SBOCO Dump No. 1 to Bansjora F/Breaker 1.10 1-2 10.69 11,75,900.00 (b) Transportation of coal from SBOCP Dump No. 2 to Bansjora F/Breaker 1.10 0-1 7.39 8,12,900.00 2. Transportation of coal from Nichitpur F/Breaker to Bansjora Railway Siding 5.00 2-3 14.54 72,70,000.00 Similarly interalia following element of work was mentioned in work order No. 586 dated 22/09/2005 :- Element of Work Quantity in lac (MT) Dist. (KM.) Rate (Rs.) Amount In Rs. 1. Transportation of coal from Nichitpur F/Breaker to Bansjora Railway Siding 5.00 2-3 14.54 72,70,000.00 Similarly interalia following element of work was mentioned in work order No. 586 dated 22/09/2005 :- Element of Work Quantity in lac (MT) Dist. (KM.) Rate (Rs.) Amount In Rs. 1. (a) Transportation of coal from SBOCP Dump No. 1 to Bansjora F/Breaker 0.95 1.2 10.69 10,15,550.00 (b) Transportation of coal from SBOCP Dump No. 2 to Bansjora F/Breaker 0.61 0-1 7.39 4,50,790.00 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid work order were unilaterally, without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner were amended vide impugned letter No. 209 dated 24.07.2006 and 208 dated 24.07.2006 respectively as follows:- Amended Work Order No. CGM/V/SPA/15/06/209 dated 24.07.2006 Element of Work Quantity in lac (MT) Dist. (KM.) Rate (Rs.) Amount In Rs. 1. (a) Transportation of coal from SBOCP Dump No. 1 & 2 to S/Bansjora F/Breaker 215034.620 0-1 7.39 15,89,105.84 2. Transportation of coal from Nichitpur F/B to S/Bansjora Railway Siding 494699.180 1-2 10.69 52,88,334.23 Amended Work Order No. CGM/V/SPA/15/06/208 dated 24.07.2006 1. Transportation of coal from SBOCP Dump No. 1 &2 to S/Bansjora F/Breaker 142525.280 0-1 7.39 10,53,261.00 7. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that lead distance should not have been altered in the work order unilaterally by the respondents as lead distance has been fixed after due inspection and identification. It is further submitted that a grievance was raised before the Chief General Manager, Sijua Area, BCCL Area V Dhanbad vide letter dated 26.07.2006 (Annexure-4) and also before the Chairman cum Managing Director, BCCL, Dhanbad vide letter dated 05.08.2006 which was taken up as is apparent from letter dated 22/08/2006 issued to the General Manager to the Chief General Manager of the respondent BCCL as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition but the grievances of the petitioner was not addressed. 8. It is submitted that the unilateral amendment of the work order has been done in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and the petitioner is highly prejudiced by such action of the respondents. 9. The only submission of the Counsel for the Respondents is that as per clause 17 and 23 of the memorandum of understanding as contained in annexure A to the counter affidavit the petitioner ought to have approached to CMD/DCR. 9. The only submission of the Counsel for the Respondents is that as per clause 17 and 23 of the memorandum of understanding as contained in annexure A to the counter affidavit the petitioner ought to have approached to CMD/DCR. Clause No. 17 reads as “Statement of Bills-Fortnightly bills for coal transportation/ loading shall be submitted by ESM Cos. These bills should normally be cleared in the following fortnight. In case of any problem ESM Company may approach the CMD/DGR.” Clause No. 23 reads as “Annual meeting of DGR, CIL and CMDs of Coal Subsidiaries-Annual meeting between the DGR and Chairman CIL/CMDs of Coal Subsidiaries (where ESM Cos. are operating will be held to review the performance of ESM Co. and resolve issues raised by the ex-serviceman and the Coal Subsidiaries.” 10. It is submitted by the counsel of the respondents that in view of the aforesaid two clauses this writ petition is not maintainable. 11. After hearing the counsel of the parties, this court is satisfied with the arguments advanced by the petitioner and rejects the arguments advanced by the respondents on account of following facts and reasons:- I. It appears that the petitioner had raised the grievance before the Chief General Manager, Sijua Area, BCCL Area V Dhanbad vide letter dated 26.07.2006 (Annexure-4) and also before the Chairman cum Managing Director, BCCL, Dhanbad vide letter dated 05.08.2006 which was taken up as is apparent from letter dated 22/08/2006 issued to the General Manager to the Chief General Manager of the respondent BCCL as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition but the grievances of the petitioner was not addressed. from the perusal of the writ petition that petitioner had already approached the Chief General Manager, Sijua Area, BCCL, Area-V, Dhanbad vide letter dated 26.07.2006 and 05.08.2006, but having no response to the same, they have filed the writ petition before this Court. So far as the alteration of the lead distance in the work order is concerned, there is no justification mentioned even in the counter affidavit. II. Admittedly the impugned letters of amendment of work orders have been issued unilaterally and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice which has caused great prejudice to the petitioner. III. So far as the alteration of the lead distance in the work order is concerned, there is no justification mentioned even in the counter affidavit. II. Admittedly the impugned letters of amendment of work orders have been issued unilaterally and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice which has caused great prejudice to the petitioner. III. So far as alternative remedy by way of reference to clause 17 and 23 of the memorandum of understanding as contained in annexure A to the counter affidavit is concerned, this court is inclined to exercise powers under article 226 of the constitution of India as the impugned letters and action of the respondents is apparently violative of article 14 of the constitution of India being passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. IV. It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme court in the case reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Whirlpool Corporation versus Registrar of Trade Marks) has held as follows in para 14 and 15 of the said Judgment:- “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose”. 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.” V. Moreover the respondents being state within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution of India is expected to act fairly. The respondents in this case have been unfair to the petitioner while passing the impugned letter in gross violation of the principle of natural justice. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders at Annexure-3 to the writ petition bearing letter nos. CGM/V/SP/15/06/208 and CGM/V/SP/15/06/209 both dated 24.07.2006, so far it relates to the impugned action in connection with amendment of the lead distance of transportation of coal, are hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 13. However, liberty is reserved with the respondents to the extent that in case the respondents find that the lead distance was wrongly recorded in the earlier work orders, they may take appropriate steps for their rectification, if any, in accordance with law and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner . 14. The writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observations. I.A. No. 2199 of 2007 15. I.A. has been filed for early hearing. 16. In view of the writ petition being disposed of no direction is required to be passed in this I.A. 17. I.A No. 2199 of 2007 is dismissed. Petitioner allowed.