M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.3.2000 pased by the Chief General Manager of the respondents -Bharat Coking coal Limited (Shortly BCCL) whereby he refused to supply coal to the petitioner -firm till the conclusion of the investigation/trial of the criminal case lodged against the petitioner being Govindpur PS case No. 264/90.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is a firm registered as small scale industry and is involved in the business of production of hard coke from the raw materials purchased from different collieries of B.C.C.L. According to the petitioner monthly quota of the materials was fixed by the Sales Department of Coal India Limited and the supply was to be made from various collieries of B.C.C.L.. It appears that on 25.9.99 a team of Central Industrial Security Force (shortly C1SF) officials of B.C.C.L. conducted a raid in the premises of the petitioner and recovered certain quantity of stem coal and hard coke. They alsi apprehended the owner of the coal and also seized certain amount of coal. Since the material was related to the respondent -BCCL, the supply of coal was stopped. It appears that by notice dated 21.10.99 the Chief General Manager (M&QC) called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner -Company be not debarred from doing any trade. Pursuant to that notice a show cause reply was filed by the petitioner but the same was not finally disposed off by the BCCL. The petitioner then moved this court" by filing CWJC No. 3713/99R making a prayer to direct the respon -dents -BCCL to immediately and forthwith resume supply of raw materials for the purpose of resumption of functioning of the petitioners unit. The said prayer of the petitioner was opposed by the rcspondent -BCCL on the ground, inter alia, that the matter is under investigation by the CISF and also the police on the basis of the FIR lodged against the petitioner and until the criminal matter is finally decided the supply of coal cannot be. This court disposed of the writ application by directing the Chief General Manager, BCCL to consider the show cause filed by the petitioner and take a final decision by passing a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The operative portion of the order passed in CWJC No. 3713/99R is quoted hereinbelow: - - "Be that as it may, admittedly the CISF personnels are deployed by the respondent -issued by the Chief General Manager and show cause to that effect was filed then I do not find any reason why the matter with regard to disposal of show cause shall await final decision in the criminal case. I am further of the view that the respondent -BCCL on the basis of show cause filed by the petitioner can enquire into the matter and take a final decision either to resume supply of coal or to debar the petitioner from carrying on the said business with the respondent -Company. This writ application is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent, namely. Chief General Manager (M and QC), BCCL to consider the show cause filed by the petitioner and take a final decision by passing a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." In terms of the direction of this court the Chief General Manager, BCCL gave personal hearing to the petitioner and after considering the facts of the case, disposed of the show cause in terms of the impugned order dated 9th March, 2000 by refusing to supply coal to the petitioner -firm till the conclusion of the investigation/trial in the criminal case.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent -BCCL stating, inter alia, that on the relevant date the CISF personnels found the employees of the petitioner -firm engaged in committing theft of coal from a coal mine of BCCL from one of its Area No. VI and, such coal was being carried to the premises of the firm on bicycles by their employees. The coal which were stolen and stored in the premises of the petitioner -firm along with the cycles were seized. It is stated that the petitioner -firm has not denied the fact of seizure of coal and bicycles used for carrying coal from the coal mines to the premises of the petitioner -firm. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the respondent -BCCL rightly refused the resumption of supply of coal to the petitioner -firm till the conclusion of the trial in the criminal case.;