Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. - (1.) The learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner did not ask for any direction to file affidavits to the stay petition and chose to rely on the averments in the writ petition in support of the contentions urged by him. This appeal from an interim order is treated on the day's list by consent of the parties, and both the appeal and the stay application are disposed of by the following judgment.
(2.) On 6th April, 2005 a writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner M/s. Chandrama Hard Coke Manufacturing Company, a proprietary concern and its proprietor before this Hon'ble Court, inter alia, challenging the scheme for sale of coal in non core sector by way of e-auction.
(3.) On 6th April itself, the learned Judge of the Writ Court, without calling for any affidavit, was, inter alia, pleased to pass an interim order to the following effect: "Let there also be an interim order until further order to the effect that during the pendency of this writ petition petitioners herein will be entitled to purchase coal required by them subject to their eligibility according to the prevailing linkage system on payment of basic price as determined by the respondents to be effective from January 1, 2005 and also subject to filing indemnity bond securing the differences between the e-auction price and the basic price".;