TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to apply principle of MPQ (Maximum Permissible Quantity) in respect of supply of coal to the petitioner unit by virtue of linkage order allowed by Coal India Ltd., and sponsorship issued by Director of Industries U.P. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give effect of the order passed by Competent/Sponsoring Authority of State of U.P. and the linkage allowed by Coal India Ltd., in respect of supply of full linked/sponsored quantity of 3500 MT coal per month as has been held by Patna High Court passed in civil writ jurisdiction case No. 2750 of 1997(R) (contained in Annexure -7 to the writ petition) and modified and affirmed by Apex Court's order passed in civil appeal No. 6317 of 1998 (contained in annexure -8 to the writ petition). (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.
(2.) THE controversy involved in the present writ petition is that the petitioner is carrying on a Small Scale Industrial Unit and requires special smokeless coal for the manufacture, of its products. Coal India Limited by an order dated 16 -12 -1999 had provided a linkage order for the supply of coal through its subsidiary Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad. By this linkage order the petitioner was entitled to 3500 metric tons of coal. The linkage order further stipulated that the coal would be supplied by a linked coal Company on the basis of an annual sponsorship given by sponsoring authority. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner had contended that the Director of Industries U.P. was the competent sponsoring authority and that in the year 2002, the Director of Industries had sponsored 703 box wagons of slack coal and that in the year 2003 the Director of Industries had sponsored 546 box wagons of slack coal on the basis of the linkage order issued by Coal India Ltd. The contention of the petitioner is that in spite of the order of Coal India Ltd. permitting lifting of 3500 MT of coal, the entire quantity was not being supplied by Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad and only a meager quantity was being supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that a mandamus should be issued to the respondents to supply 3500 MT of coal per month after following the judgment of the Patna High Court in Civil. Writ Case No. 2750 of 1997 as modified by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6317of 1998. We have heard Sri Govind Krishna, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Mohan holding the brief of Sri V.K. Burman, the learned senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised with regard to maintainability of the writ petition, namely, whether this Hon'ble Court has any territorial jurisdiction to hear the writ petition inasmuch as no cause of action arose in the State of U.P., and therefore, no writ could be issued. It was contended that the linkage order clearly provided that the coal would be supplied by a linked coal Company, on the basis of the annual sponsorship or recommendation from the concerned sponsoring authority. In the present case there is no sponsorship given by the sponsoring authority, i.e., the Director of Industries, U.P. sponsoring coal in favour of the petitioner for the year 2004 -05 and in the absence of any sponsorship, no direction could be issued to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as the said respondents are outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Even otherwise, no cause of action or part of cause of action had arisen in the State of U.P. at this stage and therefore, no writ could be issued to the respondents.;