ABANLKANTA SAHOO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH notices of the Writ Petition issued to the Opp. parties lave been duly served, except Opp. party No. 1 Union of India, lone of the other Opp. parties has entered appearance in this Case. Mr. Ramesh Agarwal, Learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India is also absent when the matter is taken up. We, therefore, proceed to hear this Case on merit.

(2.) THE Petitioner in the present Writ Petition has challenged the order under Annexure -6 passed by the Opposite party No. 3 banning all Tippers/trucks controlled/owned by the Petitioners/relatives and associates from transporting coal in all the Collieries/areas of M.C.L. till the disposal of the Criminal Cases said to be pending against the Petitioners and subject to the out -come of the said Cases.

(3.) IT has averred in the Writ Petition that consequent upon passing of the above order, the Petitioners, on 9.2.2006 approached the Opposite party No.3 and requested him to allow the Petitioners to transport coal from the areas of the M.C.L. but they were not allowed to do so in spite of the fact that the previous order banning such transportation was struck down by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5212 of 2004. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that since the previous ban order was struck down by this Court, the Opposite party No.3 should have allowed them to carry on transport of coal in different Collieries/areas of M.C.L. It further appears that the Opposite party No. 4 issued a notice dated 8.3.2006 to the Petitioners calling upon them to submit their explanation as to why their business with M.C.L. shall not be suspended by blacklisting them and their family members/ relatives/associates from any type of business like civil contracts, road sales and transportation of coal etc. and required the Petitioners to file such explanation by 25.3.2006.