PAVAN COAL COMPANY Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-394
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 15,2015

Pavan Coal Company Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THE Ministry of Coal, Government of India issued an Office Memorandum dated 18.10.2007 laying down the New Coal Distribution Policy with regard to the consumers in Small and Middle Sectors as contained in Paragraph 3 of the Coal Policy filed as Annexure -2 to the Writ Petition No. 12680 of 2015 which directed that the earmarked quantity of coal for companies/consumers would be distributed through the agencies notified by the State Governments. It also provided that these agencies could be State Government Agencies, Central Government Agencies [National Co -operative Consumer Federation (N.C.C.F.J/National Small Industries Corporation (N.S.I.C.) etc.] or industries associations as the State Government may deem appropriate. The agency so notified will continue to distribute coal until the State Government chooses to denotify it. There was further incorporation made that the agency/association so notified by the State Government would be required to enter into Fuel Supply Agreement (F.S.A.) with coal company to be designated by the Coal India Limited and such agreement would continue to remain in force till either the State Government denotifies the agency/association or Coal India Limited shifts the obligation to some other coal company. With regard to the State of U.P., the Government vide the Government order dated 1.4.2008 (Annexure -3 to the Writ Petition No. 12680 of 2015) appointed the U.P. Small Industries Corporation Limited, Kanpur (a Government of India Undertaking) (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.S.I.C.) as the nodal agency for distribution of coal in the entire State of U.P. An agreement was executed on 19.4.2011 which is the fuel supply agreement in between the Central Coalfields Limited and the U.P.S.I.C. (Annexure -4 to the Writ Petition No. 12680 of 2015). The U.P.S.I.C. in turn as per the National Coal Policy advertised for appointment of a coal coordinator/handler to take care of lifting of the coal from the site and deliver it to the consumers as per the allotment made by the U.P.S.I.C. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the U.P.S.I.C. appointed one M/s. A.K.A. Logistics Private Limited as its handler (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12680 of 2015).
(2.) THIS arrangement continued till July, 2014 when the State Government took a decision on 16.7.2014 to bifurcate the distribution of coal given to the U.P.S.I.C. by appointing another nodal agency, i.e., U.P. Pradeshik Cooperative Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.P.C.F.). 40% of the distribution remained with U.P.S.I.C. and 60% of the distribution was given to the U.P.P.C.F. (Annexure -10 to the Writ Petition No. 12680 of 2015). The newly appointed nodal agency U.P.P.C.F. thereafter advertised for appointing its' handler and accordingly notice was published on 30.8.2014 in different newspapers having State/National circulations, inviting the Expression of Interest (E.O.I.) from different firms/companies. The applications could be purchased up to 23.9.2014 and submitted on or before 27.9.2014. In all 9 applications were received by the U.P.P.C.F. A pre -bid meeting is said to have taken place on 24.9.2014 in which the Committee constituted by the U.P.P.C.F. and the applicants participated. On 27.9.2014, the technical bids were opened and as per the terms and conditions laid down by the U.P.P.C.F., marks were allotted to all the applicants under 7 different heads. The terms and conditions of the E.O.I, also provided that the highest 2 scorers would then be considered for opening of their financial bids. The financial bids are said to have been opened on 4.10.2014 in which 2 highest scorers were namely M/s. Pavan Coal Company (respondent in Writ Petition No. 58843 of 2014 and Writ Petition No. 12680 of 2015 and petitioner of Writ Petition No. 21028 of 2015) alongwith M/s. Swastik Coal Suppliers. It would be relevant to mention here that M/s. Pavan Coal Company scored 70 out of 70 marks whereas M/s. Swastik Coal Suppliers scored 58 marks. M/s. Sendoz Impex Limited (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 58843 of 2014) scored 18 marks and M/s. A.K.A. Logistics Private Limited (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12680 of 2015) secured 50 marks.
(3.) ON 4.10.2014, as the financial bid of M/s. Pavan Coal Company was better than the second highest scorer M/s. Swastik Coal Suppliers, it was appointed as the coal handler for U.P.P.C.F. An agreement pursuant to the said appointment was executed on 10.10.2014. M/s. Sendoz Impex Limited filed Writ Petition No. 58843 of 2014 before this Court on 3.11.2014 praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the appointment of the respondent No. 3 (M/s. Pavan Coal Company) as coal coordinator appointed by the U.P.P.C.F. The prayers as claimed in the aforesaid writ petition are reproduced below : "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the appointment of respondent No. 3 as coal coordinator appointed by the P.C.F. (ii) Issue any suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) To award the cost of the petition." This Court while hearing the petition on admission passed the following order on 10.11.2014 : "Having preliminarily heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on few of the submissions, upon our queries as regards the original records, Shri Ravi Kant, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, prays for a few days time to procure the original records and also to file a short counter -affidavit in the matter. Counsel for the petitioner also prays for couple of days time to complete his instructions and to procure the documents as regards the averments made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition concerning C.B.I, inquiry allegedly faced by the Managing Director/Proprietor of the respondent No. 3. The other respondents too, if so chosen, may file a short counter -affidavit on or before the next date. However, it would be expected of the respondent No. 2 to keep the entire records relating to the tender proceedings in question available before the court on the next date. Put up on 19.11.2014, as fresh, as prayed for.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.