Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order / judgment dated 18.06.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2589 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has quashed the order dated 23.05.2016 issued by the General Manager (Sales and Marketing), Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi - Respondent No.2 whereby the Fuel Supply Agreement dated 30.04.2008 of the writ petitioner has been terminated forfeiting the Bank Guarantee deposited by the writ petitioner with a liberty granted to the writ petitioner to participate in the auction process of relevant category under the new coal distribution policy, if any. The Bank Guarantee submitted by the writ petitioner shall also be released by the respondent -CCL forthwith, if there is no other legal impediment.
(2.) The brief facts which require to be enumerated herein for better appreciation of the lis read hereunder as :- The writ petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent - Central Coalfields Limited on 30.04.2008 under the New Coal Distribution Policy, 2007 for supply of coal which was to be remained in force for a period of five years from the date of agreement. The said agreement was renewed again on 25/29.04.2013 on the same terms and conditions. A raid was conducted by the district administration in the plant of the writ petitioner on 15.02.2016 and in consequence thereto, the entire documents lying in the said plant were seized and the said plant was also seized. The district administration instituted an F.I.R. being Barun P.S. Case No.27/2016 against the writ petitioner for commission of alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 161 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code based upon the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad dated 15.02.2016 wherein it was reported that at the time of inspection the Accountant of the company namely, Rajani Kant Verma, Purchase Clerk Prashant Kumar Sinha, Sales Clerk Saryu Singh and Production Manager Moti Lal Pal were found present. In course of such inspection conducted in their presence, it was found that the coal tar plant was not functional by which it became clear that the coal tar were not produced though every month its production and sale was shown and maintained in the register. It was further alleged that in the register of purchase it was entered that on 15.02.2016, 94.650 MT coal loaded on five trucks were shown as arrival, out of which, two trucks of coal had gone to Dehri, however, the coal from three trucks were found to be unloaded to the tune of 59.15 MT. It was further found on verification of stock register that the opening stock as on 15.02.2016 was 265.54 MT and 94.65 MT coal was the arrival of the day on 15.02.2016, meaning thereby, the total stock ought to have been 360.174 MT in the premises of the unit of the writ petitioner but it transpired that out of the aforesaid 360.174 MT, only 70 MT coal was available in the premises. It was indicative of some scam. One labour present there informed that the trucks were sent for weighment to Dehri and thereafter it was not known. It also transpired that the unit was getting coal every month and for the said purpose it was getting certificate on verification with regard to SSF and coal tar from the General Manager, District Industry Centre on the basis of such letter and was being sold illegally in the market. The fact about registration of the said F.I.R. was communicated by the district administration to the appellants-respondentsCentral Coalfields Limited and in pursuance thereto, the authorities of the appellants-respondents had suspended the agreement dated 30.04.2008 of the writ petitioner firm. A show cause notice was issued on 03.03.2016 to the writ petitioner as to why the Fuel Supply Agreement dated 30.04.2008 be not terminated in exercise of power conferred under Clause 15.1.5 of the said agreement and has further been show caused as to why the security deposit and other amounts furnished by the writ petitioner by way of Bank Guarantee should not be forfeited and as to why not the firm of the writ petitioner should not be blacklisted. The writ petitioner filed reply on 11.03.2016 before the respondent authorities showing his inability to file effective reply in as much as the entire documents which were lying in the plant of the writ petitioner's firm were seized by the police authority. It is the case of the writ petitioner that investigation in connection with Barun P.S. Case No. 27/2016 is still pending but the appellants-respondents, without there being any cogent evidence and without making any separate preliminary enquiry and only on the basis of the F.I.R., has issued show cause notice dated 03.03.2016, which according to the writ petitioner, is absolutely illegal. The further case of the writ petitioner before the writ court was that against the sealing of the writ petitioner's unit, the writ petition was filed before Hon'ble Patna High Court being C.W.J.C. No. 10250 of 2016 for resumption of supply of coal and the Hon'ble Patna High Court vide order dated 24.05.2016 had passed an order for unsealing of the petitioners' unit and in pursuance thereto, the district administration recalled its own order of sealing vide order dated 29.07.2016.
(3.) Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner assisted by Mr. Raunak Sahay, has submitted by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge that as per the terms and conditions of the Fuel Supply Agreement, before taking any adverse decision about closure of the premises and even before issuance of show cause notice, a preliminary enquiry was required to be made by the authority of the Central Coalfields Limited but here, no such preliminary enquiry was ever conducted of the premises of the writ petitioner's unit, rather only on the basis of the allegation leveled in the F.I.R., the show cause notice was issued, basis upon which and without considering the reply furnished by the writ petitioner, the Fuel Supply Agreement has been cancelled which cannot be said to be a justified action of the authority. It has been contended that it is not in dispute that the authority of the appellants is having no power to rescind or cancel or recall the Fuel Supply Agreement if any of the terms and conditions of the Fuel Supply Agreement is being flouted but before proceeding to take such action it was the duty of the appellants to conduct a preliminary enquiry for reaching to their subjective satisfaction but herein, without conducting any preliminary enquiry, basing upon the F.I.R., which is still under investigation stage, adverse action has been taken and considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge has quashed the adverse decision taken against the writ petitioner which cannot be said to be an unjustified decision. Further, it has been contended that the very order of sealing of the writ petitioner's plant has been said to be illegal by the order passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10250 of 2016, basis upon which the district administration has also recalled the order of sealing, therefore, the very basis of cancellation of the Fuel Supply Agreement which was on the basis of the order of sealing of the writ petitioner's premises at the behest of district administration, since is not in existence after the order having been passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10250 of 2016, hence the very cancellation of Fuel Supply Agreement in absence of any subjective satisfaction having not been reached by conducting a preliminary enquiry by the appellantsrespondents, cannot be said to be justified. ;