- (1.) B. M. Lal and B. K. Sharma, JJ. M/s. Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Limited, Varanasi, the petitioner in this petition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respon dent Nos. 2 to 5 i. e. Chairman/managing Director, Northern Coalfields, Stngrauli and others to supply Grade 'e' ROM Coal to the petitioner for the month of January and February-1993 and April to August-1993 by pay loader of Jhingurdah Project of Northern Coalfields Limited. It is fur ther prayed that by issuing a writ of man damus the respondents be further com manded to ensure supply of coal month to month by 'pay Loader' to the petitioner from the said project and also to supply balance quantity of coal for the months of September and October-1993, for which money has already been accepted by the respondents.
(2.) SHORT facts leading to this petition are as under: The petitioner M/s. Jhunjhunwala Oils Limited is a registered unit and re quires coal for its manufacturing process, which is being supplied as one of the raw material to this industrial unit from Northern Coal fields Limited, one of sub sidiary company of Coal India Limited under the linkage sanctioned by the Coal India Limited. The linkage of Coal India Limited was sanctioned by the Coal India Limited in pursuance of judgment and order dated 8th March, 1989 passed in Writ Petition No. 24630 of 1988. On this basis, the aforesaid relief is claimed by the petitioner. While filing counter-affidavit, the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 emerged with the plea that the petition as framed and filed is not maintainable inasmuch as after the decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 24630of 1988 (M/s. Jhunjhunwala Oilmills Ltd. v. Coal India Limited and others), an agreement was arrived at between the par ties i. e. the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 on 25-4-1989, which is filed as An- nexure-3 to the counter-affidavit, accord ing to which coal is to be supplied to the petitioner. Thus, according to the petitioner, is there is any breach of the same agreement, in that event at the most the petitioner may sue the respondents for committing breach of the agreement and also claim damages, but certainly such relief cannot, he claimed in the writ juris diction. In shies regard, it is also submitted that any decision taken by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 either prior or subsequent to the agreement, is not enforceable command-invert. Coming to the impugned notice dated 16/18-8-93, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that in August, 1993 a decision was taken to supply coal to all road linked units of Kakri colliery by feeder breaker system. This decision was taken to avoid the complaints regarding removal of better quality of coal by road sale units drawing coal by pay loader and leaving the residue for linked power houses deteriorating the quality of the coal.
(3.) IN the last, it is submitted that there is no question of denying coal to the petitioner by the respondents. It is also submitted that the petitioner-unit did not apply for coal for the months of January and Feb. 1993 and April to Aug. 1993 as is being prayed in this petition, ft is further submitted that the petitioner un-authorisedly has got written in the delivery orders that coal should be loaded by pay loader, but the same is of no avail to the petitioner since it has been written by a person who is not competent to do so and further in view of the fact that the notice dt. 16/18-8-1993 is a part of the agreement. We have heard Sri S. P. Gupta, learned senior counsel for petitioner and Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior coun sel for respondents at length.;