Om Fuels and ors. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.

.....extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - (ii) it can be revised on the request of a linked consumer for good ground and similarly the coal company can also revise the linkage quantity/mpq in cases such as..........and hold : (i) the 'linkage quantity' and 'maximum permissible quota' (mpq) are not different but same. (ii) it can be revised on the request of a linked consumer for good ground and similarly the coal company can also revise the linkage quantity/mpq in cases such as less availability of coal than the demand, lifting of lesser quantity than the linkage quantity for years together by the linked consumer etc. (iii) the assessment of linkage quantity/mpq can be made by a subsidiary coal company with whom the consumer is linked. (iv) the assessment based on the best booking of consumer during any of the three calendar year is reasonable and not arbitrary having nexus with the consumption of a consumer and availability of coal. (v) in case of wrong assessment of linkage quantity/mpq based on incorrect data etc., the linked consumer can request the coal company for reassessment of linkage quota/mpq. the issues are determined, accordingly, in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner.' as the petitioners are entitled for coal as per coal linkage/mpq recently fixed or in a case no recent fixation of mpq made, they will lift coal, as they are lifting at present, no further order is required to be passed in those cases.the writ petitions are, accordingly,dismissed.