- (1.) Tata Sponge Iron Ltd., ("the writ petitioner") is engaged in the business of manufacture sponge iron. It has a manufacturing unit at Joda. For this manufacturing process they need a steady supply of coal. At the material point of time, in or around 1997 they used to obtain a particular quantity of coal from Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (ECL), a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, the respondent no. 1. This was referred to as their 'linkage'. This word 'linkage' refers to the source from where the coal is obtained. It is identified by the mine or mines of a particular organisation which supply this coal. In early 1997 the writ petitioner wanted to change this source of coal. For this purpose they wrote to the respondent no.1 the holding company on 23rd February, 1997. On 5th March, 1997 Coal India replied.
(2.) It said that according to the "previous linkage", the writ petitioner was to obtain a quantity of 1.70 lakh tonnes of a particular grade of coal from the source, ECL. They would now receive the same quantity from three sources, ECL, HCL/Talcher, CCL/Raibachra @ 14,000 tonnes per month. This letter constituted a contract between the parties and was acted upon by them. On and from 1st April, 2001 CCL decided to charge a premium on 10% from the writ petitioner on this contracted quantity of coal. A document, described as an "undertaking", given by the petitioner to Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL) and dated 10th April, 2001 is most interesting.
(3.) The petitioner stated that they would enter into a fuel supply agreement or a Memorandum of Understanding with CCL. They would pay the additional amount as premium over and above the basic coal price from 1st April, 2001 which would be adjustable in the final decision taken in the Memorandum of Understanding. This undertaking was signed on behalf of the writ petitioner by their General Manager. On 22nd September, 2001 there was a meeting between various sponge iron units and CCL. The minutes were signed on behalf of the writ petitioner. In the list of participants annexed to these minutes another officer was said to be also present, as a participant. It was recorded that 30% source specific charges would be made for Churi and Raibachra mines of CCL with effect from 1st September, 2001. On 10th October, 2001 the writ petitioner wrote to CCL, adding a condition to their earlier decision to pay 30% premium on coal from the above mines. They said that they were paying this amount under protest. In case, in future, any one was getting coal from this source at a lower rate they should also be supplied coal at the same rate. On 10th October, 2001 they signed another undertaking similar to the 10th April, 2001 undertaking. The letter of the writ petitioner dated 23rd October, 2001 to CCL is very poignant. It refers to a discussion between the parties and that as a result of it they agreed to pay 30% premium for 8700 mt. of coal per month from Churi coal mine and 3300 mt. per month from Raibachra coal mine. Charging of this premium would only be stopped when a contrary decision was taken by the concerned Ministry or CCL. If they decided that the premium was not payable then the money collected should be refunded to the petitioner. In fact, I find a letter dated 26th November, 2001 of Naresh Kumar and Co. the agent of the writ petitioner to CCL enclosing another "undertaking" by the petitioner to pay this 30% premium. Examination of the words of this undertaking reveals that this premium was decided to be paid by the writ petitioner subject to the conditions in the Memorandum of Understanding or fuel supply agreement to be entered into between the parties.;