Shanti Endhan Through Its Proprietor Ratish Kumar Singh Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Through Its Chairman-cum-managing Director and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - it is an admitted fact that out of the information earlier sought on 13 points, the respondents were satisfied with the compliance of 11 points. it was alleged that the petitioner failed to satisfy the respondents on point nos. 4. in view of the above discussions, i find no justification and reasonableness in issuing the impugned letters refusing the petitioner's request on the ground aforesaid, particularly, when the respondents were satisfied with the compliance on the 11 points out of 13 points as aforesaid.ordernarendra nath tiwari, j.1. in this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 31.7.2007/3.8.2007 and 16.10.2007 whereby the respondents have communicated two deficiencies and on the basis thereof have concluded that the petitioner's unit is not established and declined to allocate linkage of coal to the petitioner. it has been stated that out of the 13 point information required for evaluating the unit as established, information furnished on 11 points with the supporting documents were found to the satisfaction of the respondents. the information on remaining two points is said to be not sufficient as it is said that the audited account submitted by the petitioner has not been signed by the petitioner's authorized signatory and the sales tax a/c number of the seller of the machines installed in the petitioner's unit has not been furnished. it has been stated that in the required information on 19 points, the sales tax number of the seller was not required. the information which is said to be lacking is regarding the record of the machinery purchased and installed. the petitioner has furnished the documents of purchase of the machinery. according to the petitioner, since the sales tax number of the seller of the machinery and the information on point no. 12 were not required, the respondents' objection for not granting linkage is wholly arbitrary and unjust and the impugned letters pointing out the said defects and on that basis refusing the allocation of linkage of coal to the petitioner are vitiated and unsustainable.2. a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents contesting the petitioner's writ petition. it has been stated inter alia, that though the petitioner has furnished the documents of machinery purchased and installed, but the same were not acceptable. the sales tax a/c number of the seller of the machinery was not mentioned in the same. the audited account should have been signed by the petitioner's authorized signatory, but the same was not so signed. for non-compliance of requirements of the said two items the petitioner's unit cannot be held to be established. the petitioner is, thus, not entitled to get the supply and resumption of its linkage according to the decision of the high level committee.3. i have heard learned counsel for the parties. it is an admitted fact that out of the information earlier sought on 13 points, the respondents were satisfied with the compliance of 11 points. it was alleged that the petitioner failed to satisfy the respondents on point nos. 3 and 12. in support of point no. 3, the petitioner has submitted the audited account and balance sheet of the financial year 2001-02, but it is said that the same was not signed by the petitioner. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner requested the respondents to allow him to sign, but they have not allowed to sign the same. the deficiency pointed out against the point no. 18 is beyond the requirement of the respondents as the same is regarding the record of machinery purchased and installed. the petitioner has submitted the record of machinery purchased and installed. the details of the sales tax number of the seller and the challan number of the machine were not required in the said item. i have perused the requirements of 13 points contained in the enclosure of the writ petition-annexure-3. it is an admitted document. on perusal of the same, i find that the item no. 18 requires the 'record of machinery purchased and installed'. the detail of the 'record' has not been specified. admittedly, the petitioner has submitted the record of machinery purchased and installed. however, the same has not been accepted as valid compliance for want of sales tax a/c number of the seller. in my view, denial of resumption of linkage on that ground without giving any notice and opportunity to the petitioner to furnish the required particular is wholly arbitrary and unjust.4. in view of the above discussions, i find no justification and reasonableness in issuing the impugned letters refusing the petitioner's request on the ground aforesaid, particularly, when the respondents were satisfied with the compliance on the 11 points out of 13 points as aforesaid. for the said reasons, the impugned letters contained in annexures-7 and 9 are, hereby, quashed.5. this writ petition is allowed. the matter is remitted to the general manager, sales and marketing, bharat coking coal ltd., dhanbad (respondent no. 4) for consideration and disposal of the petitioner's application afresh in accordance with law and after giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity to meet the deficiency. he shall dispose of the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Judgment:
ORDER

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 31.7.2007/3.8.2007 and 16.10.2007 whereby the respondents have communicated two deficiencies and on the basis thereof have concluded that the petitioner's unit is not established and declined to allocate linkage of coal to the petitioner. It has been stated that out of the 13 point information required for evaluating the unit as established, information furnished on 11 points with the supporting documents were found to the satisfaction of the respondents. The information on remaining two points is said to be not sufficient as it is said that the audited account submitted by the petitioner has not been signed by the petitioner's authorized signatory and the sales tax A/C number of the seller of the machines installed in the petitioner's unit has not been furnished. It has been stated that in the required information on 19 points, the sales tax number of the seller was not required. The information which is said to be lacking is regarding the record of the machinery purchased and installed. The petitioner has furnished the documents of purchase of the machinery. According to the petitioner, since the sales tax number of the seller of the machinery and the information on point No. 12 were not required, the respondents' objection for not granting linkage is wholly arbitrary and unjust and the impugned letters pointing out the said defects and on that basis refusing the allocation of linkage of coal to the petitioner are vitiated and unsustainable.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents contesting the petitioner's writ petition. It has been stated inter alia, that though the petitioner has furnished the documents of machinery purchased and installed, but the same were not acceptable. The sales tax A/C number of the seller of the machinery was not mentioned in the same. The audited account should have been signed by the petitioner's authorized signatory, but the same was not so signed. For non-compliance of requirements of the said two items the petitioner's unit cannot be held to be established. The petitioner is, thus, not entitled to get the supply and resumption of its linkage according to the decision of the high level Committee.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that out of the information earlier sought on 13 points, the respondents were satisfied with the compliance of 11 points. It was alleged that the petitioner failed to satisfy the respondents on point Nos. 3 and 12. In support of point No. 3, the petitioner has submitted the audited account and balance sheet of the financial year 2001-02, but it is said that the same was not signed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner requested the respondents to allow him to sign, but they have not allowed to sign the same. The deficiency pointed out against the point No. 18 is beyond the requirement of the respondents as the same is regarding the record of machinery purchased and installed. The petitioner has submitted the record of machinery purchased and installed. The details of the sales tax number of the seller and the challan number of the machine were not required in the said item. I have perused the requirements of 13 points contained in the enclosure of the writ petition-Annexure-3. It is an admitted document. On perusal of the same, I find that the Item No. 18 requires the 'record of machinery purchased and installed'. The detail of the 'record' has not been specified. Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted the record of machinery purchased and installed. However, the same has not been accepted as valid compliance for want of Sales Tax A/C number of the seller. In my view, denial of resumption of linkage on that ground without giving any notice and opportunity to the petitioner to furnish the required particular is wholly arbitrary and unjust.

4. In view of the above discussions, I find no justification and reasonableness in issuing the impugned letters refusing the petitioner's request on the ground aforesaid, particularly, when the respondents were satisfied with the compliance on the 11 points out of 13 points as aforesaid. For the said reasons, the impugned letters contained in Annexures-7 and 9 are, hereby, quashed.

5. This writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the General Manager, Sales and Marketing, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad (respondent No. 4) for consideration and disposal of the petitioner's application afresh in accordance with law and after giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity to meet the deficiency. He shall dispose of the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.