D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order, passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21st September, 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 2376 of 2011. The said writ petition was preferred by the respondent (original petitioner), challenging the order of suspension of coal linkage, which is dated 9th May, 2011 (Annexure 7 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. The respondent (original petitioner) had also challenged the show cause notice, issued by the petitioner dated 1st June, 2011 (Annexure 8 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal).
(2.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is an allegation by this respondent (original petitioner) that it is misusing the grant of coal, issued by this appellant. A Coal Linkage Agreement was entered into between the parties on 16th March, 2010. As per the said agreement, the coal is supplied by this appellant to the respondent (original petitioner) at a much concessional rate than the market value, which is much higher. The coal is supplied for usage of the same in manufacturing process, carried out by the respondent (original petitioner) and not for black-marketing.
(3.) It appears that this respondent (original petitioner) misused the coal, supplied by this appellant, including black-marketing. It appears that there were several complaints against the respondent (original petitioner) regarding misuse of coal and hence, notice was given to the respondent (original petitioner) on 1 s t June, 2011 as to why the Coal Linkage Agreement should not be terminated. It further appears that the Central Bureau of Investigation has also lodged First Information Report against the respondent (original petitioner) on 19th April, 2011. The said notice dated 1st June, 2011, which is Annexure 8 to this memo of Letters Patent Appeal, was challenged in the writ petition, preferred by the respondent (original petitioner). At length, in the show cause notice the reasons have been mentioned as to how the respondent (original petitioner) was misusing the coal, given to it on a concessional rate by this appellant. Neither the respondent (original petitioner) has maintained the Stock Register of coal nor has it maintained the production register, after a particular date, as stated in the show cause notice.;