GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted in SLP (C) No. 13097 of 1998.

(2.) IN this group of matters, a common judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, dismissing various writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners has been brought in challenge. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants viz writ petitioners who have filed these appeals on grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, it is necessary to note a few background facts.

(3.) ALL these writ petitions were heard in common by a Division Bench of the High Court at Jabalpur. The contesting parties produced material in support of their respective cases. We are told that the hearing of these writ petitions was spread over a week or so However, at the final stage of arguments before the Division Bench of the High Court. a clear stand was taken by learned counsel for the respondents - - namely, Union of India, Coal India Ltd. - - a government company and South -Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. - - a government company, which were supplying the disputed quantity and quality of coal to the consumers like the writ petitioners and the Coal Controller who was functioning under the Colliery Control Order - - that the grievance made by the petitioners was of an academic nature as it was open to the consumers of coal concerned to lift coal from any colliery of their choice and it was not compulsory for such a consumer to indent coal for their factory only from a premium colliery which was charging 10% extra price on the quality of the coal supplied to these consumers. Of course, the High Court noted in the impugned judgment that the main grievance of the writ petitioners was that they had no choice as far as the purchase of coal was concerned. It could not be disputed that coal was a controlled commodity and it was a monopolised trade in the hands of the Government or governmental agencies during the relevant time. It was the Linkage Committee which allotted collieries to the bulk consumers. It was this Linkage Committee which allotted racks of railway wagons for supplying of coal from collieries to the bulk consumers. Because of the monitoring by the Linkage Committee, consumers of coal like the writ petitioners were compelled to purchase coal from collieries situated at long distances wherein unwillingly they had to pay 10% extra premium price for the same quality of coal which otherwise could have been supplied to them by non -premium collieries situated nearby. An attempt was also made on behalf of the respondents before the High Court to justify the charge of 10% more premium on A, 13, C and D Grades of coal supplied by these premium collieries. It was submitted that the coal being of proper quality as supplied by premium collieries, charging of 10% more by way of price of such coal was legally justified and was not arbitrary.