The Iag Company Limited Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]d.n. patel, j.1. the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, mainly for continuation of the supply of coal, which was suspended from 5th november, 2004 at the request of the petitioner, as per annexure 16 to the memo of petition and, thereafter, the petitioner has already started its manufacturing process of glass etc. by new investment in this industry of approximately, 3000 lacs and the petitioner is also exporting the goods and it is paying a sizable amount of tax of approximately rs. 50,00,000/- and approximately 900 workers are working with the petitioner and the petitioner is in search of continuation of supply of coal from respondent no. 1, which as per the order at annexure 19 dated 21st february, 2008 has been discontinued and the respondents have refused to supply the coal, on the basis of their earlier policy.2. learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that initially the petitioner was a working unit and thereafter, because of some lockout etc., the manufacturing process was stopped for some intervening period and, therefore, a letter was written to the respondents that the supply of coal may be suspended, which has been accepted by the respondents, as per annexure 16 to the memo of petition dated 5th november, 2004. the letter of the respondents clearly reveals that the supply of coal has been suspended. it is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, thus, the linkage has not been lapsed, at all, but, the same was under suspension. learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that thereafter, a sizable amount of approximately rupees three thousand laks has been invested and now the unit has been revived and is working in its full swing. it is manufacturing glasses and the products are also being exported. the total amount of tax, which the petitioner-unit is paying, is at rs. 50,00,000/- approximately and, thus, now the respondents may be directed to supply coal at the rate of 5000 m.t. per month, which the respondents were supplying earlier. it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 26th may, 2009 it was directed by this court that the respondents may check the petitioner-unit whether it is working or not.3. it is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is even ready to bear the cost of physical verification of the petitioner-unit whether the petitioner-unit is working or not. it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that supply of coal is a monopoly of the respondents. it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is even read and willing to enter into an agreement for supply of coal, like other similarly situated units.4. i have heard learned counsel for the respondent authorities, who has vehemently submitted that the petitioner has failed to lift the coal since last three years i.e. from october, 2004 onwards and as per clause (1) of the terms and condition of c.i.l. linkage letter, the linkage has been lapsed and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to supply of coal and a fresh linkage is bound to be established after proper application, to be preferred by the petitioner and the respondents will supply the coal to the petitioner- unit, in accordance with the new policy. it is also submitted vehemently by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order, passed by respondent no. 1 at annexure 19 to the memo of petition dated 21st february, 2008 is absolutely in consonence with the facts and law and hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.5. having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case:(i) it appears that the present petitioner was initially getting smooth supply of coal from the respondents, but, because of the labour unrest, there was some lockout at the factory premises of the petitioner and, therefore, a letter was written by the petitioner to the respondents for suspension of supply of coal.(ii) it further appears from the facts of the case that the request of the petitioner for suspension of the supply of coal was accepted by the respondents and an order was passed by respondent no. 1 dated 5th november, 2004, which is at annexure 16 to the memo of petition, as under:vide letter no. g/13/518 dt. 28/10/04 a/c m/s iag company limited (regd. no. 95014003) has informed that there both furnases have been cooled off (.) in view of the same the coal supplies to the unit may please be immediately suspended (.)(emphasis supplied)(iii) it appears that the supply of coal was suspended and it was understood by both the parties that suspended supply of the coal can be revived at any time, no sooner did the labour unrest comes to an end and when the financial position of the petitioner improves. suspension always keeps the linkage alive and it never brings to an end the linkage and, therefore, it can never be said that the linkage has been lapsed.(iv) it further appears that the petitioner-unit after getting proper financial assistance, again started manufacturing process after bringing new investment to the tune of rs. 3000 lacs and it is manufacturing glasses and part of the manufacturing products is being exported also, as per the submission, made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. the petitioner- unit is paying total tax of rs. 50,00,000/- approximately to the state as well as the central government. employment generated by the petitioner, even during this time, is of approximately 900 workers and, therefore, the petitioner is in need of coal at the rate of 5000 m.t. per month, which was initially being supplied by the respondents. the linkage, which was suspended, is to be revived, because of better financial position of the petitioner and the settlement of unrest of the labour problem.(v) thus, it appears that the linkage between the petitioner and the respondents, so far as supply of coal is concerned, was never lapsed, at all, but, as stated hereinabove, suspended and now it is to be revived. there is a vast difference between 'lapse of linkage' and 'suspension of linkage'. in former case, linkage is to be re-established, whereas in later case, there will be awakening only, of dormant linkage. even as per the respondents, looking to annexure 16 to the memo of petition, supply of coal was suspended from 5th november, 2004 onwards.(vi) as the linkage was suspended and now it is to be revived only, no question whatsoever arises to apply afresh for the linkage as per the existing policy. if there is no lifting of coal/coke, deliberately, and for no justifiable reasons for three years, then only the linkage will be lapsed. in the facts of the present case, there was request for suspension of supply of the coal by the petitioner for bonafide reasons and, therefore, it cannot be said that the coal/coke was never lifted deliberately by the petitioner. non-lifting of coal may be due to vis major (an act of god) or may be, due to industry's genuine disability or difficulty. these type of circumstances, ought to be treated at different pedestal than that of deliberate and willful non-lifting of coal. though the industry is able to lift the coal for its use in manufacturing, and then also, if industry is not lifting coal for a certain period then, the case may fall within a term 'lapse of linkage'. here, in the facts of the present case, looking to annexure 16 to the petition request of petitioner-industry for suspension of supply of coal was accepted by the respondents. during suspension of supply of coal, linkage will be put in dormant condition, but, it never lapses. on the contrary, it remains alive. it requires mere awakening of linkage. thus, the condition, which is referred in the impugned order i.e. clause no. (1) of the terms and conditions of c.i.l. linkage letter, is not at all violated by the present petitioner and, therefore, the linkage cannot be treated as a cancelled or lapsed.6. in view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, i hereby quash and set aside the order, passed by the respondents dated 21st february, 2008, which is at annexure 19 to the memo of petition, because the only reason given in the said impugned order is that the linkage is treated as a cancelled and a fresh application for the linkage will be needed. this reason is not in consonence with the facts of the present case and the law applicable to it. unit is already working as on today, sizable amount the petitioner is paying towards the tax, meaning thereby the manufacturing activity is going on, approximately 900 workers are also employed. i, therefore, direct the respondents to supply the coal to the extent of 4007 m.t. per month to the petitioner-unit, which was being supplied till september, 2004, as per paragraph no. 21 of the writ petition. the respondents are at liberty to verify, physically, the factory premises whether the coal is being misused by the petitioner or not, after supply of the coal and it is submitted fairly by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has never misused the coal, which was supplied by the respondents and the petitioner has no objection for even physical verification by a responsible high ranking officer of respondent no. 1. the aforesaid supply of the coal will be started within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this court.7. as a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, this writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order at annexure 19 to the memo of petition dated 21st february, 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside.