- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly against the order passed by concerned respondent authorities dated 6th October, 2007 (Annexure -4 to the memo of the present petition), whereby the supply of coal has been stopped by the concerned respondent authorities mainly on the ground that there are basic proof with the respondents that the petitioner -unit is not a working unit.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It appears from the facts of the case that scarcity of coal or limited means or unlimited want is the basic background of the present petition. (ii) It appears that several units working as well as nonworking are demanding coal from the respondent authorities. To separate the grain and chaff, a committee has been constituted upon the direction of Union of India. A committee was constituted to separate non working/closed units, so that unnecessarily coal may not be taken away by them and later on misused by them and if this supply is stopped, a consistent supply can be given to those units, which are working. The committee has verified the facts of several units and petitioner is one of them. As per committee, petitioner is non -working unit. (iii) It also appears that committee has prepared a detailed check list of thirteen points and out of these thirteen points, most important details could not be supplied by present petitioner -unit and, therefore, it is doubtful whether petitioner -unit is working or not and, therefore, a long, detailed and speaking order has been passed at Annexure -4 by the concerned respondent authorities dated 06th October, 2007, which is the impugned order in the present petition. (iv) Looking to this order, it appears that the present petitioner -unit could not supply the details against serial nos. 3, 4, 5, 10 and 12 of the said check list, prepared by the said committee, which is appointed to wid out the working and non working units. Looking to the reasons given by the respondent authorities in the impugned order, the following are the details which have not been properly supplied by the petitioner -unit and, therefore, an order for stoppage of supply of the coal has been passed. Said deficiencies are as under: - (iv) Thus, it appears from the aforesaid table that the details at serial nos. 10 and 12 are the important details about the working of the unit. Petitioner -unit could not present any document in the name of the present petitioner about purchase of power/diesel bills and the payment thereof. Very shakey evidence in form of five bills were presented and that too without the name of unit. Likewise purchase of machinery bills and installation thereof could also not be supplied by the present petitioner properly before the said committee. Few receipts without any bills and challans were submitted. Thus, it appears that the petitioner -unit is not at all working. No error has been committed by the said committee in arriving at the conclusion regarding stoppage of the coal to the petitioner -unit unless and until the unit is working, no coal can be supplied by the respondent authorities, otherwise the commodity which is in scarcity and needed at large will be misused by the units like the present petitioner. (v) It appears that the present petitioner is unable to point out even on today before this Court that from where it has purchased machinery and where are the bills in its own name. Nothing has been annexed with the memo of the present petition, which reveals that the petitioner -unit has power in its own name. Thus prima facie, it appears that petitioner -unit has not purchased and installed machinery and has no power. Thus, it is non -working unit. (vi) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order of this Court in the case of M/s Shanti Endhan, Lucknow, through its proprietor, Ratish Kumar Singh Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., through its Chairman -cum -Managing Director, Dhanbad and Others in W.P. (C) No. 1136 of 2008. The facts of the present case, as stated hereinabove, given in tabular format, makes the case of petitioner, absolutely different, from facts of case which is cited hereinabove and, hence, the said judgment is not helpful to the petitioner. When there is lack of basic facts, with the present petitioner i.e. when petitioner is unable to establish that it has purchased machinery and there is installation of machinery and when petitioner fails to establish that it has purchased power/diesel in its own name, prima facie, this is no working unit at all. These gross facts against the petitioner -unit, makes present case different, from what is cited hereinabove in a judgment, upon Audited Accounts and B/S for FIN. Year 200102 Comments Unaudited Account of 01 -02 without schedule submitted Coal Stock Receipt/ Consumption Register/ Ledger. i). Fin. Year 2002 -03 ii). Fin. Year 2003 -04 Comments Submitted but no datewise. Stock/consumption of some months are also missing. Stock/Production/Sales register of finished goods. i). Fin. Year 2002 -03 ii). Fin. Year 2003 -04 Comments -do Power/Diesel bills and payment. Comments Original bills total 05 in numbers of 02 -03 without name of the unit submitted. Record of Machinery purchased and installed Comments Few many receipts without any Bills and Challans submitted. 4. which the reliance has been placed by the petitioner and hence, also the aforesaid judgment is not helpful to the petitioner. (vii) It is also submitted by the counsel for respondents that as and when petitioner -unit starts working, it can apply for supply of coal, afresh, with all adequate and necessary proof. As and when such application will be preferred, it will be decided by respondents, as expeditiously as possible and practicable and in accordance with law, rules, regulations and policy applicable to the petitioner. As a cumulative effects of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this petition and hence, the same is dismissed.;