Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) In this writ application, the petitioner challenged two demand notices dated 22.05.2015 and 10.8.2015 respectively, whereby the Respondent no.2, the General Manager (S &M), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, raised a demand of Rs. 17,90,541.85 paise for non-lifting of coal,as per Clause 4.5.1 of the Fuel Supply Agreement (Annexure-2).
(2.) At the outset, Sri Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present dispute arose due to invocation of Clause 4.5 of the Fuel Supply Agreement by the Respondent no.2, because the petitioner had not lifted the entire quantity of coal mentioned in the aforesaid Agreement. He further submits that the petitioner was required to lift the coal from the territory of State of Orissa. He further submits that the impugned demand notices issued from the State of Orissa. He then submits that the said demand notices served upon the petitioner at Kolkata. It is further submitted that the office of the respondent no.2 situates at Sambalpur, Orissa and the entire cause of action also arose either in Orissa or Kolkata, thus, this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ application. He further submits that since the dispute arose from Fuel Supply Agreement, therefore, as per Clause 18.4 of the Agreement, the Sambalpur Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Accordingly, it is submitted that writ application is liable to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
(3.) On the other hand, Sri Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ application, because as per the amended Fuel Supply Agreement (Annexure-15), the place of business of the petitioner situates in the district of Koderma, Jharkhand. He further submits that the respondent no.2 sent the demand notices (Annexure-16 and 17) at Kolkata, on the address of M/s Laxmi Ispat Udyog. It is submitted that M/s Laxmi Ispat Udyog sent above demand notices to the petitioner at Giridih. Thus, the petitioner received the demand notices in Giridih. Therefore, part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court. It is further submitted that though, petitioner used to lift coal from the State of Orissa but it utilised the same in the State of Jharkhand. Thus, demanding compensation for non-lifting of the coal also gives rise to cause of action at Jharkhand, because the said coal had not been utilised in the State of Jharkhand. It is submitted that the petitioner filed a writ application in this court for quashing the order issued by the Central Government, whereby it suspended its approval for change of name in the coal linkage order. It is stated that in the said writ application M/s Mahanadi Coalfields Limited was one of the party respondent and a direction issued against it for resuming the supply of coal after completing the necessary formalities. Accordingly, it is submitted that the above facts also shows that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ application. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present writ application is maintainable.;