Judgment:
ORDER
R.R. Prasad, J.
1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the order as contained in letter No. BCCL/S&M;/PS/F-19 points/2409 dated 31.7.2007 as contained in Annexure 10 whereby Bharat Coking Coal Limited has refused to allocate the coal to the petitioner's firm namely, M/s. Basic Fuels Pvt. Ltd. Further prayer is to direct the respondents to allocate the coal to the petitioner's unit on the terms and conditions of the linkage.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that under the consultation of CMPDI. Special Smokeless Fuel (SSF) plant was established at Badgunda. District-Giridih. Thereafter, the officials of CMPDI as well as Bharat Coking Coal Limited made inspection of the plant and when everything was found in order for commissioning of the said plant, Coal India Limited started supplying coal to the tune of 5000 M.T. under the scheme of coal linkage. While everything was going on smoothly, Bharat Coking Coal Limited issued a notice dated 30.11.2004, whereby detailed informations pertaining to 19 points indicated therein were sought from the consumers including the petitioner's unit which was complied with. Moreover, when certain deficiencies were pointed out, those deficiencies were removed by submitting rest of the documents. In spite of that, petitioner was surprised to find that supply of coal has been discontinued to 140 units including to petitioner's unit. Subsequently, when Bharat Coking Coal Limited did find that coal supply has wrongly been stopped to the petitioner's firm, it started supplying coal to the petitioner's unit. But again in the year 2007, Bharat Coking Coal Limited stopped supplying the coal to the petitioner's unit. Thereupon, it was intimated to the officials of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited that all the documents relating to petitioner's firm which were sought to be produced, have already been submitted still supply of coal has been stopped. Meanwhile, it was informed by the officials of the Central Coalfield Limited to the Bharat Coking Coal Limited that on verification, petitioner's unit was found to be established. Thereupon, Bharat Coking Coal Limited again resumed supply of coal to the petitioner's unit.
3. Further case is that other day notice was published in the newspaper whereby consumers were asked to submit documents relating to 19 points/13 points In order to ascertain the working condition of the units. Pursuant to the said notice, all the documents relating to petitioner's unit were submitted before the officials of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Thereupon, General Manager (S&M;), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, vide its letter No. 2409 dated 3.8.2007 (Annexure 10) intimated that the committee constituted by Bharat Coking Coal Limited has found certain deficiencies in the documents pertaining to two items and as such, status of unit has been declared as not established' and therefore, Bharat Coking Coal Limited would not be allocating coal to the petitioner's unit.
4. Being aggrieved with that, this writ application has been filed.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that by merely finding deficiencies in some of the documents, the firm cannot be said to be non-functional or not established and hence, action of the respondents can certainly be said to be arbitrary.
6. It was further submitted that almost in similar nature of case, certain direction has been given to the respondents and, therefore this writ application be disposed of in terms of the direction given by this Court in W.P. (C) 5522 of 2006, WP (C) No. 3055 of 2007, WP (C) No. 1228 of 2008 and several other cases.
7. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the Bharat Coking Coal Limited though submitted that when certain deficiencies were found, supply of coal has been suspended. But agreed to the suggestion given by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the writ application be disposed of in the terms of the cases disposed of earlier.
8. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim by affording him reasonable opportunity to bring on record all the documents in support of his claim which will be considered by the authorities along with reply already given on each points by recording findings with reason.
9. For that purpose, the respondents shall fix the date and communicate the same to the petitioner in writing. In case of doubt about the existence of the units, the respondents shall make spot verification by fixing a date with prior notice to the petitioner and after taking into consideration the entire matter including the explanations submitted, documents filed and the report of verification/inspection, if any, the respondent shall take final decision on each points by recording reasons. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.