M/S. GYAN ENTERPRISES Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law and hence have been heard together; this common judgment and order shall govern both the writ petitions.

(2.) THE facts in W.P. 1008 of 2010 may be noticed. The first petitioner, a proprietorship firm (hereafter the firm), is engaged in the manufacture of smokeless fuel. Soft coke is the primary raw material therefor. Raw material was being received by the firm through a linkage policy devised by the coal companies, all of whom are government companies. Such policy envisaged equitable distribution of coal based on need of individual consumers or traders at a reasonable price. A new system was sought to be introduced by the coal companies in 2006 for distribution of coal through electronic auction using the medium of internet. The system was primarily geared towards making available coal to the highest bidders. The policy was challenged before different High Courts of the country. The dispute eventually reached the Apex Court and in its decision reported in (2007) 2 SCC 640 [Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. and ors. v. Union of India and ors.], the system was found to be unreasonable, arbitrary and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. Thereafter, coal was taken out from the list of essential commodities within the meaning of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, by an amending Act with effect from February 12, 2007. A new policy for distribution of coal was evolved by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal on October 18, 2007. In terms of such policy, consumers like the firm were sought to be covered by a distribution and supply regime, providing that 75% of the coal requirements were to be supplied through an independent agreement, viz. Fuel Supply Agreement and for the rest 25% of the requirement, the consumer has to participate in an e -auction. The said new policy was challenged before this Court by the firm by presenting a writ petition. It was admitted and affidavits were invited. Interim protection was also granted. The operative part of the order dated April 30, 2008 reads as follows:

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the manufacturing unit of the firm is also situated in Jharkhand and the supplies were being made by CCL to the firm in Jharkhand, pursuant to the supply agreement.