SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED Vs. SUBHASH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st petitioner, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. which is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, releases coal to actual users/industries for consumption in their units alone. To ensure the supply of coal to the actual user, the practice adopted by it in agreement with the General Managers, District Industries Centres ('g. M. , DIG' for short) is that the G. M. , DIC would issue recommendations/sponsorship letters recommending the quantity and grade of coal for consumption of the applicants in their unit/factory etc. The petitioner, after scrutiny of the applications and the recommendation-certificate would issue what is known as the Road Release Order stipulating certain conditions. Since the controversy before us, as will be pointed out a little later, is now narrowed down to on what terms and conditions the money paid allegedly by the respondents on behalf of the applicants, should be refunded so as to give a valid discharge to the petitioner, it is not necessary to refer to the terms and conditions on which the coal is supplied to the actual users.

(2.) On 30th March/ 2/04/1991, one recommendation/sponsorship letter from G. M. , DIC, Sheopuri was brought by hand to the petitioner recommending release of coal to 25 brick-kiln units, the total quantity of the coal being 43,890 metric tonnes. It appears that although the G. M. , DIC had recommended the issue of coal in favour of 25 units, only the value of coal for 21 units was deposited with the petitioner. The petitioner issued Road Release Orders and also supplied coal to the tune of 208 metric tonnes.

(3.) On 7/9/1991, the petitioner's office received an intimation from the G. M. , DIC that none of the 25 brick-kiln units was recommended by them for the issue of coal and that the purported letters of recommendation were fake and forged and hence, supply of coal should not be made to them. To the similar effect was a subsequent letter from the G. M. , DIC on 27/9/1991. However, on 3/10/1991, a letter quite contrary to the contents of letters of 7/9/1991 and 27/9/19911 was received from the G. M. , DIC whereunder it was stated that on verification of their office record, it was found that the 25 units were genuine. This letter was again contradicted by subsequent letters from G. M. , DIC received on 18/10/1991 and 25/10/1991. Thereafter on 31/10/1991, G. M. , DIC again relented and stated that in fact the recommendations for the issue of coal had been made and they were genuine. This letter was followed by another letter of 7/11/1991 from G. M-, DIC enclosing a copy of telegram whereunder it was stated that the 25 parties were recommended by them. This ding-dong of contradictory messages from the G. M. , DIC went on, and contrary signals were sent on 14/11/1991 and 15/11/1991, and on 7/12/1991. It appears further that during this period, the matter was referred to the Vigilance Department of Coal India Limited. The report of the Senior Vigilance Officer, among other things, stated that it was found that the authenticity of the recommendations/sponsorshipletters was doubtful and that there were serious lapses on the part of certain officers of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter took up the matter with the Ministry to take further steps to refer the matter to the CBI. It also further appears that the actual users did not take any steps to get the supply of coal at any time.