Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) A preliminary objection is raised by the respondents that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the reliefs claimed in the instant writ petition as no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
(2.) To address the point so urged, it would be necessary to recapitulate the facts pleaded in the instant writ petition constituting the cause of action. Admittedly, the writ petitioners are the land losers as the possession of their land was taken by the Eastern Coal Field Limited in the year 1982-83 for the purpose of open cast mining to raise coal. It is not in dispute that the said land is situated in Mugma area, presently in State of Jharkhand. After acquiring the land for such mining purposes, the compensation was duly paid to the petitioners. According to the petitioner there existed a policy that one employment can be provided in lieu of one acre of land of such land losers but such policy was subsequently changed and instead thereof 1600 metric tons of Grade D steam coal shall be allotted to each of the land losers against per one acre of land. In terms of the said policy 800 metric tons per acre was delivered to the land losers which is nearly half of the quantity of coal to be provided to the land losers in terms of the said policy decision.
(3.) Two writ petitions came to be filed by the petitioners being W.P. 60 of 1999 and W.P. 63 of 1999 before this Court for direction upon the respondents to release the coal in favour of the petitioners under the said policy. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of on 6th October, 1999 directing the respondent authorities including the Eastern Coal Field Limited to consider the prayer of the petitioner for allotment of the balance quantity of coal under the said scheme. Subsequently, the respondent authority released the coal delivery order of steam coal Grade D from Mugma area to the extent of 7200 metric tons for 9.08 acres on 7th September, 2000. But the petitioner was permitted to lift only 200 metric tons of coal and was denied to lift the balance quantity without assigning any reasons. A notice was served by the petitioners through their learned advocate and were informed by the respondent authorities that because of heavy rain and that the production of coal had been completely stopped further supply could not be resumed.;