ORDER
Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Reference in this case may be made to the order dated 11.12.2002. The intention of the order was not to be told the technicalities or the jargon of the term 'MPQ'. The intention was that the BCCL should indicate as to how much coal is in a position to supply considering the fact that the petitioner had just taken its birth in the year 2000, It is nobody's case that this petitioner is fake or not a genuine entrepreneur. So many factors will have to be taken into consideration and one cannot lose sight of the economy of the new State of the Jharkhand. If an entrepreneur is forced to wind up within the archives of the definition of the word 'MPQ' or such other definition which are consigned or framed by the coal company, then the very purpose for which the coal companies have been formed and the very purposes for which an entrepreneur takes linkage will be totally and completely frustrated.
3. This Court, therefore, does not appreciate the affidavit that has been filed by one Gurusharan Singh, Deputy Chief Sales Manager (L), who has not at all touched the issue in relation to the aforementioned order but has merely brought on record the order passed on 4.12.2002 (Annexure-B to the affidavit). Surprisingly at paragraph 5, the Deputy Chief Sales Manager (L) has referred to an order dated 16.8.2002 passed in WPC No, 3749 of 2001 and has stated that the last line of that order reads thus : 'In case any consumer has not lifted coal for a year, such unit may ask for reassessment of linkage quantity/MPQ for any good and. In the meantime, can lift coal as it may be lifting for the present, subject to its availability.'
4. At paragraph 5 it has further been stated that against the aforementioned order a Civil Review No. 63 of 2002 was filed and by order dated 4.12.2002 while refusing to review the order, the learned single Judge has observed that the petitioner may bring the matter to the notice of the authorities or challenge it by filing a separate writ petition and in fact, if such representation is filed the respondents will look into the matter and if it is found that the Industry is a recent one, and has not lifted coal in the last three calendar years and that there was laches on the part of the authorities in supply of coal i.e. there was no fault on the part of the petitioner to lift coal, they will pass appropriate order within 15 days from the date of receipt of representation allowing the petitioner to lift coal on the basis of original linkage quantity and till the final decision is taken, the respondents will allow the petitioner to lift coal to the extent they allowed to lift coal upto May, 2002. Drawing the some analogy from the aforementioned order referred to and quoted by the respondents, this disposes off the writ application :--
A-the petitioner will immediately approach the authorities once again and make a prayer for releasing of coal;
B-such approach by the petitioner shall be in the shape of a representation Indicating the date when it started, the date when it was granted the linkage along with other particulars etc;
C-the representation shall be filed before respondent No. 6 (Chief General Manager (Sales), who will look into the matter;
D-if the respondent No. 6 finds that the petitioner could not lift coal due to no fault on its part then he will pass necessary orders within 15 days from the receipt of such representation allowing the petitioner to lift coal subject to availability and on the basis of linkage granted to it. Till final decision is taken, the respondents will allow the petitioner to lift coal to the extent that they allowed it till stoppage, subject to availability of coal.