S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) IN all these cases, as common questions of law Involved and similar decisions of suspension of supply of coal are under challenge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 20/5/2014 Page 123 Dr.Bikrama Prasad Versus Coal India Ltd.
(2.) THE common case of the petitioners is that they are linked consumer of Coal Companies, such as, Bharat Coking Coal Limited (for short BCCL) and Central Coalfields Limited (for short CCL). They have been granted linkage by Coal India Limited (for short CIL) and used to lift coal from their linked Coal Companies. Their grievances is that the respondents by different orders, which are under challenge herein, have either suspended supply of coal in their favour or rejected their request to supply coal and submitted adverse report against them.
(3.) THE petitioner M/s. Western U.P. Coal and Fuel System of WP (CJ No. 530 of 2003 has challenged the Wireless Message No. BCCL : S&M ; F -41 : 676 dated 26th October, 2002, whereby the Deputy Chief Sales Manager (R&S) of BCCL, Dhanbad suspended booking/ supply of coal to petitioner and some others in pursuance of verification report of internal BCCL Team, vide No. VIG/F/62/VOL -III/1476 dated 10th October, 2002. Petitioner Ganpati Fuel and others of WP (C) No. 529 of 2003 have challenged letter Nos. 1665; 1666 and 1667, all dated 30th December, 2002 (Annexure -8 series), whereby and whereunder, the General Manager (S&M) of CCL, Ranchi rejected the petitioners ' claim for resumption/or re -determination of Coal Linkage Quantity/ Maximum Permissible Quantity (for short MPQ) on the ground that the inspecting team after inspection of their units found the units in -operative. In WP (C) No. 536 of 2003, the petitioner M/s. Babul Smokeless Fuel. Industries (P) Ltd. has challenged the Wireless Message No. : CCL : HO : C -I : RDS Policy : 320, dated 30th July, 2002 issued by the General Manager (S&M) of CCL, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the supply of coal to petitioner and others was suspended. The petitioner M/s. F.G. Engeecom & Industries and another of WP (C) No. 757 of 2003 and M/s. P.S. Glass Industries and others of WP (C) No. 1607 of 2003 have challenged a Wireless Message circulated vide No. CCL : HQ/C -4/VIG/SUSPN/6364, dated 7th September, 2002 issued by the General Manager (S&M) of CCL, Ranchi. By the aforesaid Wireless Message, giving reference to a report of Internal Vigilance Team of CCL, Communicated vide No. CMD/CCL/1806 -C, dated 7th September, 2002, it has been ordered to keep in abeyance the coal booking and supply to those petitioners ' units and 70 (seventy) other units. So far as petitioner M/s. Shivam Sodium Silicate Industries of WP (C) No. 854 of 2003 and M/s. Shivam Lime Works of WP (C) No. 853 of 2003 are concerned, supply of coal in their favour was suspended by the Wireless Message dated 30th July, 2002 issued by the Chief General Manager (S & M) of CCL, Dhanbad. They earlier moved before this Court in WP (C) Nos. 5251 of 2002 and 5252 of 2002. Both the cases were heard together and disposed of by common order dated 30th September, 2002, (see also Shivam Lime Works v. CCL 2003 (1) JCR 484) whereby their cases were remitted to the competent authority of M/s. CCL for re -determination of issue relating to supply of coal in their favour. Liberty was also given to the competent authority of CCL to re -determine/revise the coal linkage quantity/MPQ of one or other petitioner for good ground such as non -functioning of unit, requirement of lesser coal etc. The authorities thereafter having rejected their claim for resumption of supply of coal or to re -determine the Coal Linkage Quantity/MPQ, they have challenged their respective rejection orders, contained in letter No. CCL/HQ/C -4/Status Report/ 1669 dated 30th December, 2002 and letter No. CCL/HQ/C -4/Status Report/1670 dated 28th December, 2002.;