- (1.) THESE two writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law and hence have been heard together; this common judgment and order shall govern both the writ petitions.
(2.) THE facts in W.P. 1008 of 2010 may be noticed. The first petitioner, a proprietorship firm (hereafter the firm), is engaged in the manufacture of smokeless fuel. Soft coke is the primary raw material therefor. Raw material was being received by the firm through a linkage policy devised by the coal companies, all of whom are government companies. Such policy envisaged equitable distribution of coal based on need of individual consumers or traders at a reasonable price. A new system was sought to be introduced by the coal companies in 2006 for distribution of coal through electronic auction using the medium of internet. The system was primarily geared towards making available coal to the highest bidders. The policy was challenged before different High Courts of the country. The dispute eventually reached the Apex Court and in its decision reported in (2007) 2 SCC 640 [Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. and ors. v. Union of India and ors.], the system was found to be unreasonable, arbitrary and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. Thereafter, coal was taken out from the list of essential commodities within the meaning of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, by an amending Act with effect from February 12, 2007. A new policy for distribution of coal was evolved by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal on October 18, 2007. In terms of such policy, consumers like the firm were sought to be covered by a distribution and supply regime, providing that 75% of the coal requirements were to be supplied through an independent agreement, viz. Fuel Supply Agreement and for the rest 25% of the requirement, the consumer has to participate in an e -auction. The said new policy was challenged before this Court by the firm by presenting a writ petition. It was admitted and affidavits were invited. Interim protection was also granted. The operative part of the order dated April 30, 2008 reads as follows: ''***** Having heard rival submissions, I am of the view at this stage, petitioners may enter into the Fuel Supply Agreement without prejudice to their rights and contentions and for this purpose since today appears to be the last date prescribed for executing such agreement, having regard to the special circumstances the respondents shall extend the time for entering into this agreement till Monday i.e. 5th May, 2008. During the pendency of this writ petition, the termination clause or the provision for gradual reduction of supply contained in clause 2.3 shall not be implemented in the case of the petitioners without the leave of the Court. Mr. Pal has also pressed for implementation of the new coal distribution policy and in particular clause 4 thereof, to which Mr. Mukherjee submitted that his clients are bound by it and would implement the same. In view of such submission, I direct that there shall be no departure from the new distribution policy, and in particular Clauses 4 and 11 thereof by any of the parties during the pendency of this writ petition. As regards the e -auction system, the petitioners shall be at liberty to participate therein without prejudice to their rights and contentions. However, in the event the petitioners succeed eventually in this writ petition, the petitioners shall get refund of the amount beyond the specified price contained in the F.S.A. Let affidavit -in -opposition be filed by 4th June, 2008. Reply thereto, if any, be filed by 13th June, 2008. Liberty to mention for early hearing of this matter. '' The firm thereafter having expressed interest, a Coal Supply Agreement (hereafter the supply agreement) was entered into by Central Coalfields Ltd. (hereafter CCL) and the firm on April 30, 2008 at Ranchi in Jharkhand. The respective office addresses of the parties as appearing therefrom reveal that the same are also at Ranchi, Jharkhand. Clause 18.4 of the agreement contained the following term: ''18.4 Governing Law: This Agreement, and the rights and obligations hereunder shall be interpreted, construed and governed by the laws of India. The court of Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters under this Agreement. ''
(3.) IT is not in dispute that the manufacturing unit of the firm is also situated in Jharkhand and the supplies were being made by CCL to the firm in Jharkhand, pursuant to the supply agreement.;