S. B. Majmudar, J. - (1.) Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 13097 of 1998.
(2.) In this group of matters, a common judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, dismissing various writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners has been brought in challenge. In order to appreciate the grienance 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. BACKGROUND FACTS:
(3.) The appellant-writ petitioners are manufacturers of cement. Their manufacturing plants are located in different parts of the country. For manufacturing cement, essential raw material is coal. During the relevant period with which this group of matters is concerned, namely, from 1-1-1989 to 31-3-1996 coal was controlled commodity being treated as an 'essential commodity' under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Prior to the independence of the country, there was in force Colliery Control Order, 1945, wherein as per clause 4 thereof, price for supply of coal to the consumers was controlled. The said scheme was continued in force by Section 16 of the Act. As during the relevant time, coal was a controlled commodity, its price was being monitored and fixed under the aforesaid Colliery Control Order by the appropriate authority functioning thereunder. Till December, 1988, the price of coal supplied from collieries to different consumers, like the appellants, concerning different grades of coal had not posed any difficulty to the consumers of coal. However, according to the appellants, the problem started after the letter dated 1st January, 1989 issued under the provisions of the Colliery Control Order as promulgated under Section 16 of the Act. By Item No. 20 of the notification dated 1st January, 1989, the premium of 10% of the price given in Table II of the notification was to be charged by the collieries supplying coal to the consumers in the country in connection with A,B,C and D grades of coal sold to them. The clauses 3 and 4 of the Colliery Control Order as operative during the relevant period read as under: "3. The Central Government may for the purposes of this order prescribe the classes, grades or sizes into which coal may be categorised and the specifications for each such class, grade or size of coal. 4. The Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, fix (the sale price at which, or the maximum sale price, or both) subject to which coal may be sold by colliery owners and any such notification may fix different prices - (i) for different classes, grades and sizes of coal; and (ii) for different collieries." Item No. 20 of the notification dated 1-1-1989, which is impugned in the present proceedings, read as under: "A premium of 10% over and above the prices given in Table II of this notification will be charged by coal companies on coal of Grades A,B, C and D supplied from the collieries listed in the Annexure to this notification." The grievance of the present appellant-writ petitioners before the High Court was that though same quality of coal as comprised in grades A,B, C and D was being supplied by different collieries, 10% premium over price was being charged only by some of the collieries as per Item No. 20. According to the writ petitioners, there was no choice of colliery from which they had to purchase coal at the relevant time as their choice was fettered by the decision of the linkage committee compelling the writ petitioners to purchase coal from a particular colliery. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2245 of 1996, which is treated as the leading appeal, vehemently contended that the cement manufacturing plants in the western region of the country had not been given linkage by the linkage committee to lift coal from collieries situated nearby which were within reasonable distance, but they were forced to take coal from collieries situated in Madhya Pradesh wherein the respondent authorities were requiring the collieries, treating them as premium collieries, to charge 10% extra on the price of every grade of coal supplied to consumers like the writ petitioners. It was the contention of the writ petitioners before the High Court in these writ petitions that A,B,C and D grades of coal produced from any colliery were of similar quality and, therefore, their prices had to be similar. Charging of higher price in respect of coal purchased from certain collieries like the premium collieries was discriminatory and violative of the right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was also contended that premium was not a price and Union of India had no legal right to impose premium. It was submitted that in fact charging anything over and above the price fixed was an offence punishable under the Act. It was also contended that while fixing the price and imposing 10% premium on all these grades of coal manufactured and supplied by the premium collieries, relevant material had not been taken into consideration and in an arbitrary manner and relying on an irrelevant consideration, 10% premium was fixed for being charged to the consumers of coal supplied by these premium collieries. It was, therefore, contended that Item No. 20 of the impugned notification ultra vires the Constitution. It was also additionally contended that clause 4 of the Colliery Control Order did not provide for nor did it lay down any guidelines, more or less, for the fixation of coal price. It was, therefore, ultra vires.;