AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for quashing of the First Information Report and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Topchanchi P.S. Case No. 183/2003, which was registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In the aforesaid first information report, it was alleged that on 29/08/2003, the informant along with other police officials got a secret information that from Muraidih Colliery, coal was being loaded in the name of non -existent factory for being sold in the black market. On this information the Truck bearing No. BR 17 A - 5321 was intercepted and was stopped by the informant; On being asked, the Driver of the truck disclosed that the Coal on the truck was loaded from Muraidih Colliery and was being taken to Dehri Mandi. On being asked to produce the papers, the driver produced the papers before the informant from which it appeared to him that the Chalan of Muraidih Colliery of BCCL was issued in the name of M/S Shilpee Coal Briquette, Kasap of Bhojpur. The truck was brought to the police station for further enquiry and then on verification of the documents it was found that on 29/08/2003 on the strength of Chalan issued in the name of M/S Shilpee Coal Briquette, the coal in question was loaded on the aforesaid truck No. BR 17 A - 5321 by the authorized agent. From the relevant register it was found that the proprietor of M/S Shilpee Coal Briquette, i.e. B. Kumar in whose name the D.O. of the coal was issued, the coal was lifted for the said factory. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that on 04/09/2003 it was found on physical verification at Bhojpur that the unit was found to be closed. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the F.I.R. under the aforesaid sections was registered by the Topchanchi police station.
(3.) THE case of the petitioner in brief is that he is the proprietor of M/S Shilpee Coal Briquette Plant which is situated at Kasap in the district of Bhojpur, Bihar. The said unit is engaged in manufacture of coal briquettes. On an application filed by the petitioner before the Coal India Limited for grant of coal linkage, the Chief General Manager (Marketing) after inspection of the unit, granted linkage of coal to the petitioner on 15/12/1997 and pursuant to the said linkage the petitioner was regularly lifting the coal from different collieries of B.C.C.L. on valid sale orders/challans. According to the petitioner, in November, 2001 the unit of the petitioner was inspected by the Industry Department of the Government of Bihar and it was found that the petitioner's unit was operational and functional. However, the supply of coal to the petitioner was suspended vide wireless message of the Industries Department dated 30/07/2002 but against the stoppage of supply of the coal, the petitioner moved this Court in its writ jurisdiction in W.P. (C) No. 4888/2002 and this Court after hearing the parties passed an order on 05/09/2002, as contained in Annexure -6 to the writ petition, on the basis of the decision in the case of Maya Fuel Private Limited v. B.C.C.L. reported in 2002 (3) J.L.J.R. 394. The relevant extract of the order is quoted herein below: The question of supply of coal to a linked consumer of non -core sector fell for consideration before a Bench or this Court in the case of Maya Fuel Pvt. Ltd. v. B.C.C.L. Ltd. in W.P. (C) No. 4790 of 2001. This Court vide us judgment dated 14th August 2002, held that the Stale authorities have no more jurisdiction to determine the question of supply of coal or its suspension. The assessment of determination of linkage quantity, i.e. Maximum Permissible Quantity (M.P.Q.) cannot be made by the State authorities, such as District Industries Centre, S.LS.I. and to be made by the Coal Companies as the supply of coal is depended on various factors such as requirement of coal of a linked consumer, availability of coal with the Coal Companies etc. The Court further held that the Coal Companies can revise the linkage quantity/MPQ in cases, such as less availability of coal than the demand, lifting of lesser quantity of coal by linked consumer etc. In the circumstances as the district Industries Centre, Bihar has no jurisdiction to determine the question of supply of coal in favour of one or other consumer, the Wireless message dated 30th July, 2002 issued on such direction is set aside.;