D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) Prayer in this writ application has been made by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 16.10.2007 vide Memo No. 2859 (Annexure -3), issued under the signature of Respondent No. 3, whereby supply of coal to the petitioner has been refused to be resumed. Further prayer has also been made for an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to forthwith resume supply of coal to the petitioner.
(2.) THE facts of the petitioner's case in brief are as follows: The petitioner is a Registered Private Ltd. Company. The Coal India Ltd. after examining all the relevant papers and project report of the petitioner had granted the coal linkage vide its letter/order dated 13.12.1999 to the petitioner's Company, established at Daltonganj in the district of Medininagar. The maximum permissible coal, which the petitioner was allowed to lift was 2500 M.T. per month. Since after the grant of coal linkage, the petitioner's Factory was running satisfactorily. However, on 30.11.2004, the Respondents issued Notice (Annexure -2) to all coal consumers to furnish information on the basis of 19 documents, in order to decide whether the units of the coal Consumers is running or not. Though the petitioner was not served with any such Notice, yet on being informed, the petitioner submitted all the required documents referred to in the aforesaid Notice, which were reduced to 13 from the originally required 19 documents. In spite of submission of the documents and the related information, the Respondents stopped supply of coal to the petitioner with effect from July, 2007 without any prior notice. By the impugned order dated 16.10.2007, the Respondents had rejected the claim of the petitioner for resumption of the coal supply. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without proper consideration of the documents and the informations given by the petitioner and without making proper verification as to the existence of the petitioner's unit.
(3.) MR . A.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would explain that the refusal of the Respondents to resume coal supply to the petitioner was made on flimsy and arbitrary grounds. Similar orders of refusal was passed by the Respondents in respect of several coal consumers and earlier, when a similar issue was raised, the Patna High Court had quashed the order, whereby the Respondents had rejected the claim of the petitioners therein for resumption of coal supply. Learned Counsel has referred to and filed a copy of the order of the Patna High Court, passed in the case of Sushila Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 10653 of 2007 (Annexure -4) and a copy of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the L.P.A. filed by the B.C.C.L. against the judgment in Sushila Chemicals case (Annexure -N).;