- (1.) Originally the above appeal was filed against the judgement and order dated 25th April, 2006 passed by a Learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder prayer for interim relief for restoration of supply of coal was refused. In this appeal there has been an application for interim relief pending disposal of the appeal as it was prayed for before the Learned Single Judge. After exchange of affidavits in the interim application. in the appeal it was by agreement of the parties decided by the Court on 10th January, 2007 that instead of deciding this appeal the writ petition which had been kept pending, should be heard and decided by the Appeal Court itself. Thus, interim application in the pending appeal was disposed of by the aforesaid order. Thereafter the writ petition was heard by the Appeal Court.
(2.) Shorn of all unnecessary details the short, and substance of the, fact made out in the writ petition is as follows :
(3.) The first petitioner is the registered partnership firm and second one is a partner of the first one. The first petitioner is a small scale industry and has set up a soft coke manufacturing unit at Industrial Area, Mihijum at Jharkhand. First petitioner obtained necessary certificates from all concerns for setting up the said factory. In order to carry on business of manufacturing and sale of the soft coke viably the petitioner needed steam coal input on linkage basis they applied to the General Manager (Marketing) Coal India Limited for allotment of monthly quota of steam coal. Thereafter necessary inspection was carried out jointly by the Coal India Limited and the Coal Company and CMP DIL. Then it was decided by the Coal India Limited that the petitioner was required to submit the returns of production on monthly basis by affidavit by 15th of each month relating to consumption of coal. The petitioner also applied for permanent coal linkage for getting regular allotment. On or about 8th September, 1999 the Sales Manager of Coal India Limited informed the General Manager (S & M), Eastern Coalfields Limited (the respondent No. 4) that in terms of the decision taken in the 98th meeting of NCLC held on 19th February, 1999 the first petitioner was given coal clearance for C/D Rom from ECL Ranigunj sources. On the basis of the recommendations the petitioners were allocated coal and. Chief General Manager was requested to release coal at the rate of 2152 MT per month of Rom C/D from ECL Ranigunj source on ad hoc basis. In spite of the said direction supply of the coal was not regular and linkage facility of the petitioner was not available smoothly, however, with intervention of the Court ultimately the first petitioner got the linkage for supply of steam coal and the petitioner, started getting such supply almost regularly and furnishing returns for consumption of coal on monthly basis to the Eastern Coalfields Limited as directed by Coal India Limited. On 20th December, 2004 the petitioners were served with a notice by registered post to furnish various documents and to file an affidavit relating to business of the petitioners for the purpose of reverification and for checking of (a) existence (b) status/ current operation and (c) actual coal consumption. Accordingly, the petitioners duly furnished certain documents as directed as far as practicable and possible. On 3rd January, 2006 one of the representatives of the petitioner No. 1 went to the office of Eastern Coalfields Limited to see the hooking notice of coal and for the first time he was surprised to see that the unit of the first petitioner had been suspended by an order dated 23rd December, 2005 and 27th December, 2005 on the ground that the said unit of the petitioners has not submitted or made representation towards the submission of documents as asked for by an alleged notice dated 1st December, 2005. According to the petitioner, the said notice dated 1st December, 2005 was not served at all upon the petitioner. In quick response to the said notice dated 18th January, 2006 the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to withdraw the suspension order without further delay contending that the same is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and without giving opportunity to serve any notice or chance of hearing. An affidavit on behalf of the Eastern Coalfields Limited the respondent No. 4 has been filed to contest the said writ petition. It is alleged that the disputed question of fact in the writ petition is involved. This Court has been called upon to decide factual aspect as to whether the writ petitioners have received coal under linkage or not; whether coal received by the writ petitioners have been actually consumed for roaming; whether there was a proper utilisation of coal or not. The first writ petitioner cannot claim supply of coal through the Writ Court when they have failed to satisfy the conditions of supply under linkage and not entitled to receive further supply. It is stated further that the writ petitioner has been a unit enjoined linkage of coal for its own unit and received coal under such linkage. The system of linkage was introduced by Coal India Limited for non-core sector in the year, 1978. This consumption of linkage of coal is based on assessment of their respective coal usage, technology which have been introduced shortly after nationalisation of coal industry and has been followed for the last 25 years. Requirement of linkage remained the basis of coal distribution and is granted by Coal India Limited to consumers having regard to the fact that coal had been national resource and should not be misused or wasted and be distributed judiciously and equitably to the Coal India Industries after scrutinising their needs of coal, coal usage treatment and other technical aspects and assessment of quantity, quality of coal to supply it was made by granting linkage. The idea behind is that the coal is supplied to genuine consumer in the non-core sector having followed linkage and positive status report issued by the appropriate authorities which includes State authorities and internal vigilance. The term 'linkage' means clearance from the linked coal company to supply coal to the unit subject to availability of coal in accordance with directives, issued if any, from time to time by the appropriate competent authorities regulating the disposal of stock of coal. But linkage does not establish for statutory right for the linked unit to claim supply of coal from any coal company. Coalfields after deregulation with effect from January 1, 2000 in view of Colliery Control Order, 2000. The writ petitioner has enjoyed the linkage facility subject to the settled condition for getting supply of linked coal which amongst others are as follows : (a) Coal allotted against linkage is only for the actual consumption by the linked unit and cannot be delivered to sell without prior notice or recommendation of the Coal India Limited : (b) In case the unit is closed for any reason whatsoever or in case does not consume the coal already supplied to it from time to time the same tact should be brought to the notice by the linked units to the Contract Officers concerned and/or Coal India Limited; (c) Coal issued against the linkage is for actual consumption for the linked units and such coal cannot be delivered or sold to others without prior written consent; (d) Linked is subject to cancellation. In order to assess the correct position regarding utilisation and/or consumption of coal, Eastern Coalfields Limited started to gather from the linked units and examine as to how coal is consumed and utilised. For the purpose of reverification of existence current operational status, actual consumption of coal supplied was sought to be made. The linked parties are advised to submit papers and documents by notice of 20th December, 2004. By the said notice dated 20th December, 2004 the records relating to attendance of Employees, Labour Department Registration, EPF Registration, Central Excise records of the units were asked for the records relating to coal stock, receipt consumption for the coal stock/ receipts for the year 2002- 2003 and 2003-2004. The petitioner approached once the writ jurisdiction for appropriate order. This Hon'ble Court by order dated 11th February, 2005 directed the petitioner to submit the documents and to swear affidavits in terms of the notice dated 21st December, 2004. The petitioner did not furnish such documents as per direction of the said Court by a notice dated 1st December, 2005 but supplied incomplete and insufficient documents. By notice dated 1st December, 2005 the respondent No. 4 informed the linked companies to submit the documents as required failing which it would be presumed the concern did not possess the required documents and for that non-supply of documents further coal supply may be suspended and/or cancelled in terms of their linked conditions without any further reference initially. Thereafter on 2nd December, 2005. 9th December, 2005, 26th December, 2005, 27th and 29th December, 2005 notices were issued granting extension to submit the documents as asked for. In spite of the said notices being issued it was found that 142 linked unit. did not possess the document and for this reason on 2nd March, 2006 by notice those defaulter units were suspended from getting facilities of supply of coal. The writ petitioners could submit only a few documents and the same were not sufficient and adequate to revive the status, existence and consumption pattern. In spite of notices and chances being given the writ petitioners did not care to submit the required documents, on the contrary the documents submitted show that they have misutilised the coal meant for their own consumption. Since the writ petitioners failed to comply with the requirements in spite of the notices being given it was rightly suspended.;