VIDARBHA INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since The Issues Involved In These Writ Petitions Are Similar And since by the prayers made in the petitions, the petitioner industries have sought a direction against the respondent Western Coalfields Limited, to renew the Fuel Supply Agreements in favour of the petitioners for a period of five years from 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2018, they are heard together and are decided by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners Industries had entered into Fuel Supply Agreements with the respondent WCL, in the year 2007, for supply of coal to the petitioners, for a period of five years, from 2007 to 2013. According to the petitioners, Coal India Limited had permitted the renewal of the Fuel Supply Agreements for a period of five years on 6.6.2013 and the said decision was communicated by the General Manager of Coal India Limited to the subsidiaries of Coal India Limited, that includes the respondent WCL. Coal India Limited had approved the renewal of Fuel Supply Agreements for a period of five years on certain conditions that were mentioned in the communication dated 6th June, 2013, one of them being, that the Fuel Supply Agreements could be renewed only after proper verification of the Fuel Supply Agreement holders as bona fide users of coal. It is the case of the petitioners that after the Board had granted approval for renewal of the Fuel Supply Agreements for a period of five years from 2013 to 2018, the petitioners continuously represented to the WCL seeking the renewal of the Fuel Supply Agreements for a period of five years from 1.4.2013 till 31.3.2018.

(3.) The Learned Counsel For The Petitioners Contended That It Was necessary for the respondent WCL to have renewed the Fuel Supply Agreements in the year 2013 or immediately thereafter as the petitioners were continuously making representations to the WCL for renewal of the agreements in terms of the policy of the year 2013. It is submitted that the petitioners had supplied the necessary documents to the respondent WCL from time to time and there was no hurdle in the way of the respondent WCL in not renewing the Fuel Supply Agreements till 31.3.2018. It is stated that whenever the WCL demanded the documents, as required, the petitioners had submitted the same to the respondent WCL. It is stated that the action on the part of the respondent WCL in extending the Fuel Supply Agreements in respect of some other industries while refusing to extend the agreements in the case of the petitioners is discriminatory and arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the respondent WCL, a public sector undertaking, could not have acted arbitrarily by renewing the agreements in favour of some of the industries, while refusing to renew the same in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that though some of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions had filed Writ Petition No. 1592/2013 challenging the action on the part of the respondent WCL in asking them to produce the documents mentioned in the communications that were impugned in the said Writ Petition, the respondent WCL could have renewed the agreements after the Writ Petition was dismissed on 2nd July 2015. It is stated that for the Industries that were not parties to the said Petition, the Fuel Supply Agreements could have been renewed even before the Writ Petition was decided. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment Ramana Shetty vs. International Airport Authoirty of India and others, 1979 3 SCC 489 to submit that a Public Sector Undertaking like the respondent, cannot act arbitrarily. Also, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court, (Punjab Communications ltd. vs. Union of India and others, 1999 4 SCC 727 to canvass that the principle of substantive legitimate expectation, that was applied in the said decided case, would also apply in the case of the petitioners herein, and the policy of the year 2013 could be enforced in favour of the petitioners despite the coming into force of the new policy dated 15.2.2016, by which agreements could not have been renewed as coal was required to be distributed by linkage auction. It is stated that the right that had accrued in favour of the petitioners, in view of the policy of 2013, could not have been withdrawn by the policy dated 15.2.2016. It is stated that the documents as sought by the respondent WCL, were submitted by the petitioners and, therefore, it would be necessary to direct the respondent WCL to renew the Fuel Supply Agreements in favour of the petitioners till 31.3.2018, as per the policy of the year 2013. It is stated that delay cannot be a ground for refusing the relief in favour of the petitioners, more so, when the WCL renewed the agreements in short spells by limited durations and the petitioners were therefore not in urgent need of getting the agreements renewed for five years.