1. The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in Reference No.CCL/HQ/C-4/2019/6171 dated 07th November, 2019 issued under the signature of General Manager (M&S), Central Coalfields Limited (in short ‘CCL’), Darbhanga House, Ranchi-the respondent no.3, whereby the said respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner for resumption of supply of coal and has terminated the Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) by invoking Clause 4.4 and 15.1.5 of FSA and has further forfeited the security deposit by invoking Clause 3.6 of the FSA. Further prayer has been made for commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in e-auction process and to resume supply of coal in terms of the prevalent policy. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the present writ petition is that the petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of manufacture of ‘Special Smokeless Fuel’ and a FSA was entered between the CCL, Ranchi and the petitioner under the new Coal Distribution Policy, 2007 to fulfil the regular requirement of coal for use as raw material in its unit. Pursuant to the said FSA, yearly quantity of coal was allocated to the petitioner for supply and use in its manufacturing unit. Since, the petitioner was purchasing coal for use in its manufacturing unit, deduction of “Tax Collected at Source” (in short ‘TCS’) was not required by CCL at the time of sale of coal to the petitioner as per the newly inserted provision of Section 206(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 w.e.f. 1st July, 2012 and in turn the petitioner had to furnish statutory declaration in Form-27C to the CCL. A survey under Section 133-A (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the office premises of the petitioner and during the said survey proceeding, it was alleged by the officers of the Income Tax Department that the petitioner had the capacity to process only about 0.05% of the total quantity of coal sold by CCL for its manufacturing unit. Thereafter, a communication dated 31st October, 2017 was made by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi to the CCL stating that the petitioner-company was only having capacity to process 0.05% of the raw coal purchased by it from CCL and thereafter order dated 02nd November, 2017 was passed by the CCL suspending supply of coal to the petitioner with immediate effect. The petitioner represented before the General Manager, Sales & Marketing, CCL, Ranchi for withdrawal of suspension of supply of coal stating that the facts communicated by the Income Tax Department were not correct. The petitioner also filed a detailed representation dated 13th November, 2017 before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Cental Revenue Building, Ranchi stating that due to its communication dated 31st October, 2017, the CCL had suspended supply of coal to the petitioner and a request was made to the Department to issue necessary direction to CCL for resumption of coal supply to it. Thereafter, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi vide letter dated 14th November, 2017 informed the petitioner that it should approach the CCL, Ranchi for resumption of coal delivery and the Income Tax Department would have no objection in the matter for resumption of coal supply in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said letter, the petitioner again filed a representation on 17th November, 2017 before the respondent no.3 requesting it to resume the supply of coal in its favour pursuant to the FSA. The respondent no.3 also made further communication with the office of Income Tax Department seeking clarification regarding resumption of coal of the petitioner which was replied vide letter dated 12th December, 2017 stating inter alia that it had no locus standi in the matter relating to resumption of coal supply by CCL in favour of petitioner-company. The respondent no.3 also made further communication with the office of Income Tax Department seeking clarification regarding resumption of coal of the petitioner which was replied vide letter dated 12th December, 2017 stating inter alia that it had no locus standi in the matter relating to resumption of coal supply by CCL in favour of petitioner-company. Thereafter, an independent inquiry was undertaken by CCL to ascertain the fact as to whether the petitioner was utilizing coal for its manufacturing unit or not and in that regard the respondent no.3, vide its letter dated 17th January, 2018 requested the General Manager, Directorate of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to inform about the operational and existence status of the petitioner-unit, whereupon a report was submitted by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranchi to CCL vide letter dated 07th February, 2018 stating inter alia that the machineries in the manufacturing unit of the petitioner were in running condition but the unit was found closed due to non-supply of coal with effect from November, 2017. Thereafter, a decision was taken by the respondent no.3 for resumption of supply of coal to the petitioner and accordingly the same was resumed with effect from 23rd February, 2018. Surprisingly, the office of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi issued a direction to CCL not to take cognizance of letter dated 12th December, 2017 issued by its office and to stop supply of coal to the petitioner as was decided in the 40th meeting of Regional Economic Intelligence Committee (in short ‘REIC’) held on 24th April, 2018. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of suspension of further supply of coal, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2886 of 2018 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 05th November, 2018 directing the respondent-CCL to make an independent inquiry on the allegation levelled against the petitioner in view of specific power conferred to it under Clause 4.4 of the FSA and to take final decision expeditiously after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s representative. The respondent CCL was further directed that while passing the order, it would not be influenced by the observations of the REIC and the Income Tax Department. The respondent CCL was further directed that while passing the order, it would not be influenced by the observations of the REIC and the Income Tax Department. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 19th January, 2019 before the respondent no.3 along with a copy of the order dated 5th November, 2018 passed by this Court as well as all necessary documents, who vide letter as contained in Ref. No. CCL/HQ/C-4/2019/2081-87 dated 05th/6th March, 2019 called upon the petitioner to provide nine specified documents/details of last two financial years i.e., 2016-17 and 2017-18, as was mentioned in the said letter. The petitioner replied the same vide letter dated 12th March, 2019 stating that similarly situated units were being supplied coal after deposit of 1% TCS and after obtaining specified documents for ascertaining their end use of coal but the petitioner was directed to submit such documents/information which was not sought from other similar units. It was further explained by the petitioner that its coal supply was resumed only after examination of all the documents furnished in February, 2018. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 again called upon the petitioner vide letter dated 19th March, 2019 to furnish the information/documents sought through letter dated 05th/06th March, 2019. The petitioner, then submitted all relevant documents/informations and also reiterated the discrimination being done against it in the matter of coal supply. However, the respondent no.3 passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner with respect to resumption of coal supply and further terminated the FSA and forfeited the securities. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner supplied all the documents which were asked from it as per clause 4.4 of FSA and after examination of those documents, the respondent no.3 directed for resumption of coal supply in favour of the petitioner and as such there was no need to ask again for the same documents by the same authority. It is further submitted that on the basis of same information and documents, other similarly situated units were allowed the coal supply, however, in the case of the petitioner, the respondent-CCL arbitrarily stopped the supply of coal. It is also submitted that the contact numbers of consumers as demanded by the respondent-CCL could not be supplied by the petitioner since there was no such requirement to maintain the same. It is also submitted that the contact numbers of consumers as demanded by the respondent-CCL could not be supplied by the petitioner since there was no such requirement to maintain the same. Moreover, sharing of phone numbers without the consent of holder of that number invades the right of privacy and thus violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Nevertheless all other documents were supplied to the respondent-CCL. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice in a mechanical manner without applying the independent mind which was the primary requirement for passing the same. It is also submitted that this Court vide order dated 05th November, 2018 had specifically directed the respondent-CCL to take the decision without being influenced by the observation of REIC and the Income Tax Department, however, the said direction has also been violated while passing the impugned order since the respondent no.3 though passed the same considering the observation of the Income Tax Department as against the petitioner and tried to highlight only those communications of Income Tax Department which suggested negative aspects against it without any material and documentary evidence, yet purposely avoided to refer those communications of the said Department which were on the issue of resumption of coal supply giving free hand to CCL, on the basis of which, the supply was earlier resumed. It is thus evident that the respondent no.3 was quite influenced by the observation made by the Income Tax Department. This court vide order dated 05th November, 2018 had directed the respondent-CCL to conduct an inquiry and as such, in pursuance of the same, if there was any dissatisfaction with the documents and informations submitted by the petitioner, the respondent no.3 while recording those irregularities or shortcomings, ought to have served a show cause notice to explain the situation, however, the respondent no.3 straightway rejected the claim of the petitioner, terminated the FSA and forfeited the securities and thus deprived it from availing an opportunity to explain its case. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL submits that the petitioner has raised disputed question of facts which need not to be gone into by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL submits that the petitioner has raised disputed question of facts which need not to be gone into by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of approaching the civil court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of its grievance by testing the correctness or otherwise of the order of termination of FSA. The action taken by the respondent-CCL is in accordance with the provisions of the FSA which is a non-statutory agreement entered between the petitioner and the respondent-CCL, therefore, the allegation of violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India does not stand. Clause 4.4 of the FSA clearly provides for asking any document from the petitioner (an FSA consumer) by the respondent-CCL in order to satisfy itself regarding authenticity of end use of coal. It is wrong to contend that the respondent no.3 has been influenced by the observations of the REIC and the Income Tax Department. The impugned order has been passed after affording ample and fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and on due consideration of the entire materials available on record. Taking note of the observation of the REIC does not mean that the respondent was influenced by its observations. The documents asked from the petitioner were general in nature which were supposed to be maintained by any business/industrial entity. Since the petitioner failed to furnish the documents asked by the respondent no.3 to substantiate the bona fide use of coal supplied to it under the FSA, the impugned order has rightly been passed. It is further submitted that after passing of the order dated 05th November, 2018 in W.P.(C) No.2886 of 2018, the respondent-CCL requested the petitioner to submit certain documents relating to its business operations which were partially submitted by it. The impugned order has been passed after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner for submitting the relevant documents in order to prove it’s bona fide. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The impugned order has been passed after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner for submitting the relevant documents in order to prove it’s bona fide. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 07th November, 2019, whereby the respondent no.3 has declined the request of the petitioner for resumption of supply of coal and has terminated the FSA as well as has forfeited the security deposit. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the term of the FSA has expired, the petitioner will not be allowed to participate in the future auction process undertaken as per New Coal Distribution Policy, 2007, till the termination of the FSA on the ground of diversion of coal exists. Thus, the issue raised in the present writ petition now survives only to the extent of legality and propriety of the termination of FSA in question. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed in contravention of the observation of this Court made in the order dated 5th November, 2018 passed in W.P(C) No.2886 of 2018, as plain reading of the impugned order would suggest that the respondent no.3 got much influenced by the comment of the REIC and the Income Tax Department. 9. On the other hand the respondent-CCL has rebutted the said contention of the petitioner and has stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner failed to produce the relevant documents in spite of the repeated request made to it and as such the impugned order of termination of FSA and forfeiture of security is completely justified. 10. To appreciate the rival contention of the parties, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant part of the order dated 05th November, 2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.2886 of 2018, which is as under:- “28. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent-CCL to make an independent inquiry on the allegation levelled against the petitioner in view of specific power conferred under Clause 4.4 of the FSA and to take a final decision after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s representative expeditiously. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent-CCL to make an independent inquiry on the allegation levelled against the petitioner in view of specific power conferred under Clause 4.4 of the FSA and to take a final decision after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s representative expeditiously. It is, however, made clear that while taking the said decision, the respondent-CCL will not be influenced by the observations of the REIC and the Income Tax Department.” 11. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that in pursuance of the order of this Court, the respondent no.3 called for the following documents relating to last two financial years i.e., 2016-2017 and 2017-18:- “1. Audited Books of Accounts 2. Month-wise detail regarding the quantity of SSF & Coal Tar sold to different consumers along with their complete postal address and contact numbers. 3. Registration Number and Type of vehicles through which SSF & Coal Tar has been sold to different consumers 4. Copy of Bills/challans through which SSF & Coal Tar has been sold to different consumers 5. Copy of Registers maintained in the unit recording date wise inward movement of raw coal purchased under FSA 6. Copy of Registers maintained in the unit recording datewise outward movement of end product i.e SSF & Coal Tar 7. Copy of date-wise attendance register of workers employed in the unit along with valid identity proof viz. copy of Aadhar Card/Voter ID of each worker 8. Copy of Electricity Bills and Diesel Purchase Bills along with detail of consumption 9. Notarized Affidavit mentioning therein the list/detail of documents being submitted to the effect that the documents/details as submitted therewith are true and correct.” 12. It has been recorded in the impugned order that in spite of repeated letters issued to the petitioner, it neither produced the details/documents asked by the CCL nor submitted any explanation for non-submission of the same. Finally, the respondent no.3 has held as under:- “Thus, in the backgrounds of the facts stated hereinabove, as you have failed to submit all the required documents, the bonafide of the end use of coal by your firm could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. Finally, the respondent no.3 has held as under:- “Thus, in the backgrounds of the facts stated hereinabove, as you have failed to submit all the required documents, the bonafide of the end use of coal by your firm could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, your request for resumption of supply of coal by CCL against FSA dtd.30.04.2008 & its extension dated 30.07.2013 (valid till 30.04.2018) cannot be acceded and as such, the same is being rejected and the FSA executed with your firm stands terminated in accordance with clauses 4.4 and 15.1.5 of FSA with consequential forfeiture of Security Deposit in accordance with clause 3.6 of FSA.” 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner in course of argument has furnished a point wise chart showing the observation of the respondent no.3 and the petitioner’s stand for not furnishing the documents and the content of said chart is reproduced hereinbelow for appreciation of petitioner’s claim:- Sl. No. Observation Petitioner’s Stand 1 Detail reg. SSF & Coal Tar sold to different consumers along with their postal address have not been submitted for the months of July 2017, Aug 2017, December 2017, January 2018, February 2018 and March 2018 and contact numbers of consumers have also not been submitted. August, 2017 - sheet concerning sale was submitted but due to inadvertence raw sheet was submitted and complete sale sheet could not be submitted. July 2017, December 2017, Jan 2018, Feb 2018, March 2018 - No sale in these months so details regarding sale could not be submitted. The sale register submitted in CCL contains the details about sale, purchasers name, their postal address etc. The contact no. of customers was neither taken nor maintain since this was never the requirement. However, undertakes to maintain the same once the supply of coal is resumed. 2 Registration numbers along with correct registration number in some cases along with type of vehicles has been submitted. Although, for various entries, type of vehicle has been mentioned as ‘NOT FOUND’. Further, such details have not been submitted for July, 2017, January 2018, February 2018 and March 2018. On account of some minor typographical errors there may be some wrong entries of registration nos. of the some of the vehicles which can be cross checked and can be replaced by actual numbers. Further, such details have not been submitted for July, 2017, January 2018, February 2018 and March 2018. On account of some minor typographical errors there may be some wrong entries of registration nos. of the some of the vehicles which can be cross checked and can be replaced by actual numbers. We are trying to locate every registration number mentioned in the sale register but since few could not be found therefore we had indicated NOT FOUND. Moreover, this would not have been made a ground for rejecting the claim. 3. Details of challan like challan number, quantity, amount, Excise, VAT & Net amount have not been submitted for the months of July 2017, August 2017, December 2017, January 2018, February 2018 and March 2018. Copy of challans have not been submitted for any month. The challan upto August 2017 was submitted in CCL and rest of the months as indicated we had no sale of SSF/coal tar. So challan no., VAT, Excise etc. details could not be submitted. 4. Copy of registers maintained in respect of date-wise inward movement of raw coal purchased from CCL along with the name of collieries has not been submitted. Time to time whatever was asked we had submitted and furnished the maximum information, however, ready to submit coal stock register date wise inward movement of raw coal and regarding name of the collieries, earlier a same was never asked which can be cross checked. 5. Copy of registers maintained in respect of date-wise outward movement of end product has not been submitted. Sheets containing details of outward movement of coal was earlier submitted, however we are ready to submit again if asked to do so. 6 Copy of date-wise attendance register maintained has been submitted. However, on the register there is no “Initials/Sign” of workers marking their presence. The attendance has been marked as ‘P & A’ against the name of respective workers. Attendance and maintaining of register are done by the gate keeper/security guards who is not that qualified to look into the “initials” in attendance sheet done by the labourers/staffs. 7. The valid identity proofs of all the workers have not been submitted and also in some cases, names as mentioned in Attendance list are different from identity proofs submitted. I.D proofs of all workers have already been submitted in CCL office. 7. The valid identity proofs of all the workers have not been submitted and also in some cases, names as mentioned in Attendance list are different from identity proofs submitted. I.D proofs of all workers have already been submitted in CCL office. On account of typographical error few discrepancies may have been found in the name of the workers or their father’s name which is also an account of non-entry of complete name instead of initials by the gate keeper. However, this minor defect can be cured. 8 Detail of consumption of Diesel has not been submitted. Further, Electricity Bills for year 2016-17 has not been submitted. The diesel bills were already submitted in CCL and regarding electricity bill of the year 2016-17. The statement providing by the electricity department and already been submitted in CCL office. However, the consumption details for the year 2016-17 can again be furnished if asked to do so. Since, it is case of record maintained by the electricity department. 14. On comparative perusal of the observation of the respondent no.3 vis-à-vis the reply of the petitioner in that regard, it would emerge that as per the respondent no.3, the petitioner failed to give details regarding SSF and Coal Tar sold, whereas the petitioner claimed that the same were already furnished to the respondent-CCL, on perusal of which it had earlier resumed the supply of coal in petitioner’s favour, however, it could again furnish the same, if asked. 15. So far as the details regarding SSF and coal tar sold to different consumers along with their postal addresses for the months of July, 2017, August, 2017, December, 2017, January, 2018, February, 2018 and March 2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to inadvertence, raw sheet concerning sale in the month of August 2017 was submitted and there was no sale in the rest months. Thus, out of details of 24 months as sought from the petitioner, the detail of only one month could not be supplied and this cannot be a reason to outrightly discard the entire documents furnished by the petitioner. 16. Thus, out of details of 24 months as sought from the petitioner, the detail of only one month could not be supplied and this cannot be a reason to outrightly discard the entire documents furnished by the petitioner. 16. On bare perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the respondent no.3 did not pass the impugned order on merit, rather observed inter alia that since the petitioner failed to submit all the required documents, the bona fide of the end use of coal by it could not be established. Though some of the documents as demanded by the respondent no.3 was produced by the petitioner, however, the same were totally discarded and it focused on the documents which were not supplied by the petitioner. The respondent no.3 also did not specifically ask the reason for not submitting some of the documents as demanded. The contention of the petitioner is that it was not required to maintain some of the records which were demanded by the respondent no.3 and as such non-furnishing the same should not have been the reason to outrightly reject the petitioner’s request for resumption of coal supply. 17. I am of the view that if the respondent no.3 was not convinced with the documents supplied by the petitioner, it could have afforded personal hearing to the petitioner’s representative, so as to properly appreciate reasons for non-production of such documents. 18. Clause 4.4 of the FSA entered between the Central Coalfields Limited and the petitioner provides as under:- “4.4 The total quantity of Coal supplied pursuant to this Agreement is meant for use at the S&F plant at Vill-Tape, Ormanjhi, P.O - Pattu, Ranchi as listed in Schedule-1. The Purchaser shall not sell/divert and/or transfer the Coal for any purpose whatsoever and the same shall be treated as material breach of Agreement. In the event that the Purchaser engages or plans to engage into any such resale or trade, the Seller shall terminate this Agreement forthwith without any liabilities or damages, whatsoever, payable to the Purchaser. It is expressly clarified that the Seller shall reserve the right to verify including the right to inspect/call for any document from the Purchaser and physically verify the endues of Coal and satisfy itself of its authenticity. The Purchaser shall have the obligation to comply with the Seller’s direction/extend full co-operation in carrying out such verification/inspection.” 19. It is expressly clarified that the Seller shall reserve the right to verify including the right to inspect/call for any document from the Purchaser and physically verify the endues of Coal and satisfy itself of its authenticity. The Purchaser shall have the obligation to comply with the Seller’s direction/extend full co-operation in carrying out such verification/inspection.” 19. In view of Clause 4.4, the seller has right to terminate an agreement in case the purchaser sells/diverts and/or transfers the coal for any purpose and for doing so the seller is entitled to verify including the right to inspect/call for any document from the purchaser and physically verify the end-use of coal and satisfy itself of its authenticity. It is the obligation of the purchaser to comply the seller’s direction and give full cooperation in carrying out such verification. 20. Thus, before terminating the agreement there must be satisfaction on the part of the seller about the end use of the coal on inspection of any document of the purchaser and physical verification. The use of word ‘and’ as conjunction between the “inspection/calling for any document” and “physical verification” makes it mandatory for the seller to arrive at its satisfaction through both the ways. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-CCL has contended that the factory of the petitioner had been closed since long and as such no purpose could have been served by physical inspection of the premises. However, no such reason has been assigned in the impugned order about the no inspection of the petitioner’s factory premises and, therefore, the same cannot be supplemented by any subsequent pleading or argument. The purpose behind mentioning the reason in any order is to make the order sound and to enable the higher Courts to adjudge whether the reasons so recorded by the authority, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. 21. In the present case, the respondent no.3 has observed in the impugned order that the petitioner failed to establish the bona fide of the end use of coal by its firm with all the required documents. 21. In the present case, the respondent no.3 has observed in the impugned order that the petitioner failed to establish the bona fide of the end use of coal by its firm with all the required documents. I am of the considered view that as per clause 4.4 of the FSA it is not for the purchaser (the petitioner herein) to show the bona fide of the end use of coal, rather it is for the seller (CCL) to satisfy itself regarding the end use of the coal by calling for/inspecting the documents and by physical verification. The obligation on the part of the purchaser is to give full cooperation to the seller in carrying out such verification/inspection. Thus, the respondent-CCL was required to inspect the documents submitted by the petitioner and if the same were found not sufficient, it could have afforded personal hearing to the petitioner requiring its representative to explain as to why some of the documents called for were not furnished. It was also required to make physical verification of the factory premises of the petitioner and if the same was thought not necessary, the reasons thereof should have been mentioned in the order itself. The principles of natural justice are required to be mandatorily followed in cases where an order leads to adverse civil consequences against the affected person. 22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order as contained in Reference No.CCL/HQ/C-4/2019/6171 dated 07th November, 2019 passed by the respondent no.3 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondent no.3 is, however, at liberty to issue fresh notice to the petitioner under Clause 4.4 of the FSA to verify the end use of the coal by it strictly in accordance with the parameters laid down in the said clause as well as the observation made hereinabove. 23. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 24. I.A. No.3637 of 2020 also stands disposed of.