M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) THE petitioners, in all these cases, have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release full quota of coal as per linkage order in the light of the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2750 of 1997 which was confirmed upto the Supreme Court.
(2.) PETITIONER 's case is that an agreement was entered into by and between the petitioners and the respondent -CCL, for establishment of the industries and the respondent -CIL, in its meeting dated 23.7.1998, cleared the case of the petitioners fixing 4810 MT coal per month. But, in terms of the linkage order the respondents are not releasing the coal within 45 days as mentioned in the sale letter and as per the guidelines issued by the respondents themselves. Petitioners' further case is that their cases are fully covered by the judgment rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 2750/97 -R. Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that there cannot be reduction in the quota of coal agreed to be supplied to the petitioners as per linkage without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that introduction of new sale -policy cannot and shall not apply in the cases of the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that the new sale policy has been kept in abeyance as per the direction of the Coal Ministry notified by the Central Coalfield Limited.
(3.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties, at the very outset, I am of the opinion that the facts of the instant cases are quite different from the facts of C.W.J.C. No. 2750/97 -R and, therefore, the decision rendered in the aforesaid case will have no application in the present cases. As a matter of fact, the points raised by the petitioners have been fully answered by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 619/2002 in which the Division Bench has observed as follows : 'It is no doubt that the appellant was not heard before the MPQ was raised or reduced to 3250 MT per month. There is no dispute before us that the supply of coal to those who had established linkage 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 among those who had established linkage with the respondents. The respondents determined the MPQ, it cannot be said that the respondents have acted irrationally or unreasonably justifying interference by this Court. Even if the contention that the principles of revision of MPQ sought to be maintained 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 in 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 principles 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. As regards the plea based on violation of natural justice, we find that the learned Single Judge has adopted a course of giving post decision hearing to the appellant and others similarly situated. The learned Judge has given any 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 foal than the 3250 MT. 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 the fixation or reduction of MPQ on the ground that the re -fixation was done without hearing the appellant. Alter 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 the Court undertaking an exercise in which investigation of facts in each cases 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.' ;