P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, C.J. - (1.) THE appellant, herein was the Petitioner in WP (C) No. 1125 of 2002. The appellant is said to be a small scale industrial unit. The Appellant approached this Court with the writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to release the full quota of coal as per the linkage order. According to the Appellant, the unit of the Appellant was granted linkage to the extent of 5000 MTs of coal. There was some controversy in respect of the distribution of coal and the Special Smokeless Fuel Manufacture Association approached, the High Court with a writ petition, CWJC No. 2750/97. Therein a learned Single Judge of this Court issued a direction to the respondents to issue release order and dispatch the fixed quantity of monthly quota of coal as per the linkage and to supply it within a time framed and other consequential directions including a direction to supply coal from collieries other than Parej East and Kharibanda. This judgment waschallenged by M/s. Central Coal Fields Ltd. to which directions were issued, in LPA No 618/97. On 17.8.98, the Division Bench dismissed that appeal. The Central Coal Fields Ltd. filed an appeal before the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No. 6317/98. By the order passed in March, 1999, the Supreme Court substantially affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge subject to the vacating of the direction to supply coal from specific collieries and directing that subject to availability, the supply of coal shall as far as possible be from a nearby colliery. It may be noted here that the Appellant herein, claims to be not a member of that Association, though according to it, is also eligible to be a member of that Association and to the relief granted to that Association.
(2.) MEANWHILE , the extraction of coal seems to have suffered a set beck. As a result the collieries had to readjust their supplies to those units with which it had established linkage. The colliery looked at the normal intake of coal by a particular industrial unit and adopted the maximum monthly quantity of coal that had been drawn by the particular industry in the proceeding three years as the Maximum Permissible Quantity (MPQ for short). The Appellant, whose MPQ was 5000 M.Ts. per month, was found entitled to an MPQ of 3250 MTs per month. This exercise was undertaken by the collieries in January, 2001 and thereafter, apparently, that quantity was being offered to the appellant. The Appellant approached this Court by filing Writ Petition, WP (C) No. 1125/2002 on 12.2.2002 and claimed the reliefs as aforesaid. According to the Appellant, it was entitled to the quantity of coal originally fixed as per the linkage and there was no reason to reduce the quantity or to deny the quantum originally it was found entitled to. The decision of this Court, as modified by the Supreme Court, was also relied on, in support of that plea. The Respondent, the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., resisted the Writ petition by contending that the MPQ was introduced taking note of the shortage in supply of coal and to ensure equitable dis - tribulion amongst those with whom the Respondents had linkage, that what was fixed as MPQ was the maximum quantity that had been drawn by a particular unit in the three preceding years, that the Appellant had never demanded any thing more than 3250 MTs during the previous three years and that there was nothing irrational or unjust in the fixation of MPQ or in its reduction from the original linkage quantum and that there was no justification for interfering with the MPQ fixed or for issuing any direction, as sought for by the Appellant. The present case was heard along with a number of other similar Writ Petitions. 2002 (3) JLJR 394 held that linkage quantity and MPQ are not different but are the same, that it can be revised on the request of a linked consumer on good ground and the Coal Company can also revise the linkage quantity or MPQ, in cases of less availability of coal than the demand requiring of lesser quantity than the linkage quantity for years together by the linked consumer and so on, that the assessment of linkage quantity MPQ can be made by a subsidiary Coal Company with whom the consumer is linked, that the assessment based on the best booking of the consumer during any of the three calender years is reasonable and not arbitrary, having nexus with the consumption of a consumer and availability of coal and in case of wrong assessment of linkage quantity for re -assessment of the linkage quota MPQ. It appears that there was no appeal against this judgment. 5. The Writ Petition from out of which this Appeal arises and the connected Writ Petitions came up before the same learned Judge who had decided M/s. Maya Fuel. The learned Judge, in the judgment under Appeal, adopted Maya Fuel and after quoting the operative portion of that judgment which contained the relevant directions, held that as the Petitioners before him, including the Appellant herein, are entitled to coal as per the coal linkage/MPQ recently fixed or in cases where no recent fixation of MPQ is made, they will lift coal as they are lifting at present and no further order was required to be passed in the cases before him. In other words, the learned Judge held that the Appellant was entitled to supply of coal as per the coal linkage/MPQ fixed in January, 2001. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge thus, rendered is challenged in this Appeal. 6. The Learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that the Appellant was entitled to the same relief as granted by the Supreme Court in the case of the Association, since the Appellant was similarly situated as the members of that Association, though not a member of the Association and the learned Judge was not justified in directing the coal to be supplied as per the linkage/MPQ re -determined in January, 2001. Counsel submitted that even though the principle of MPQ was sought to be introduced by the Respondents, the concerned Ministry had stayed its implementation and hence, the substratum of the principle of MPQ had disappeared and the learned Single Judge relied on something that had not come into existence. The Advocate General further submits that in any event, the fixation in January, 2001 or the reduction of the linkage quantity, was done without notice to the Appellant and without giving an opportunity, to the Appellant to establish its claim for more or its defence against reduction and that in that situation, the learned Judge ought not to have relied on the revised MPQ for denying relief to the Appellant Learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the shortage of coal the reduction had to be made so as to ensure an even distribution of coal to all those industries that needed it, that there was nothing irrational in fixing the maximum quantity that had been drawn by the concerned industry during the previous three years as the yardstick for determining the revised MPQ and that in any event, the learned Judge has given opportunity to the Appellant to move the Respondents for enhancement of the quantity of coal to be supplied and in that situation, there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge, Counsel further submitted that the argument based on violation of natural justice, was not of serious import in this case since what was adopted was the maximum quantity the Appellant had derived during the previous three years and the Appellant had no case that the figure adopted was not the maximum it had drawn. He further submitted that in any event, now that an opportunity has been given to the Appellant to show that it requires more than what has been determined as MPQ, the argument based on violation of natural justice does not deserve to be accepted. 7. It is no doubt true that the Appellant was not heard before the MPQ was revised or reduced to 3250 MTs per month. There is no dispute before us that the supply of coal to those who had established linkages had necessarily to depend upon the quantity of coal that was being mined by the Mining Company and the quantum to be supplied had nexus to the total quantity derived by the Respondents. In that situation, taking note of the reduction in extraction of coal and the need for maintaining equitable distribution amongst those who had established linkage with the Respondents, the Respondents determined the MPQ, it cannot be said that the Respondent have acted irrationally or unreasonably justifying interference by this Court. Even if the contention that the principle of revision of MPQ sought to be introduced by the Respondents was stayed by the concerned Ministry, the fact remains, as has been observed by the learned Single Judge, that a rational approach had been made for fixing the reduced quantum to which an industry with linkage was entitled to. We are, therefore, not satisfied that any interference is called for with the principle adopted by the Respondents in the matter of assessing the quantum to be supplied to the Appellant or in revising the quantum to be supplied to the Appellant. Whatever might have been the force in the argument based on the earlier fixation, the fact remains that for the three years 1998, 1999 and 2000, the Appellant had not at any time derived or asked for anything more than 3250 MTs in any given month. 8. As regards the plea based on violation of natural justice, we find that the learned Single Judge has adopted a course of giving a post -decision hearing to the Appellant and others similarly situated. The Learned Judge has given an opportunity to the Appellant to establish factually that it was entitled to supply more coal than that has been fixed as MPQ in the year 2001. In other words, the Appellant by establishing the relevant facts can ask the Respondents to supply more coal than the 3250 MTs per month now fixed as the quantity to be supplied. When the Appellant has such an opportunity to establish a claim for enhancing the quantum to be supplied, we do not think that it is necessary or proper to interfere with fixation or reduction MPQ on the ground that the re - fixation was done without hearing the Appellant. After all, what is the exact quantum that the Appellant would be entitled to, in proportionate to the total production of coal and the demand for coal by the various industries including the Appellant, would depend upon the facts to be set out and established and initially, that question can be left for decision to the Respondents, the supplier of coal rather than this Court undertaking an exercise in which investigation of facts in each case relating to linkage and supply of coal based on linkage would be needed. We are, therefore, of the view that the argument raised by the learned Advocate General does not deserve to be accepted. 9. As we have noticed already, the Appellant has an opportunity of raising a claim for additional supply of coal by the Respondents, by establishing the relevant facts in support of that claim. There is no case that the quantity of coal as per the revised MPQ is not being supplied to the Appellant. In such a situation, without prejudice to the rights of the Appellant to move the Respondents for enhancing the MPQ or restoring the MPQ to the quantum originally fixed, this appeal is dismissed.;