BAJRANGBALI COAL COMPANY Vs. COAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a partnership firm and owns a Hard Coke Plant. It takes basic raw material for manufacture of hard coke in its plant from the Respondent No. 3, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited which is a subsidiary of the Coal India Limited (Respondent No. 2). The marketing and sales policy of the subsidiaries of Respondent No. 2 including that of Respondent No. 3 are controlled by Respondent No. 2 at its Calcutta Office and is guided by its policy decision taken time to time. The Colliery Control Order, 1945, conferred power to Respondent No. 1, Coal Controller, regarding controlling of gradation and fixing of sale price of coal in different collieries under Respondent No. 2. The relevant provisions of the Colliery Control Order, 1945, enumerates that the Central Government may prescribe the classes, grades, process into which coal may be categorised and the specification for each such class, grade or size of coal. It also provides that the Owner Agent or Manager of the Colliery may from time to time on the basis of analysis of wagon samples may alter the gradation fixed time to time.

(2.) In the present case, we are practically concerned regarding fixation of price of coal for despatch either from the pit heads or from the stock wherefrom the coal is to be lifted by the different purchasers. Under the Colliery Control Order, 1945, the Government fixes by notification in the official Gazette the sale price to its maximum or minimum regarding different sizes and grades for different collieries. Pursuant to the provision of 1945 Orders, the Central Government has from time to time prescribed the classes and grades into which the coal is to be categorised and also fixed the sale price at which such coal may be sold, the Hard Coke Plant of the petitioner, as already stated, is admittedly linked for supply of coal from M/s, Bharat Coking Coal Limited (Respondent No. 3) and also from the other subsidiaries of Coal India Limited (Respondent No. 2). By notification dated 16.6.1994 (Annexure -1) in supersession of the earlier notification of February. 1993, prescribed the classes and grades into which the coal and coke or coke at the colliery pit heads. Again on 23rd March, 1995, the Respondent No. 3 issued its grade Notification for the year 1995 -96 with effect from 1 4.1995 and such notification has been annexed as Annexure -2 in relation to the notification of the Central Government dated 16th June, 1994 which is contained in Annexure -1. By notification dated 29th December, 1995, the Central Government made certain amendments in the earlier June, 1994 notification which is contained in Annexure -3. In pursuance of December, 1995s notification, the Respondent No. 3 published its price list on 30.12.1995 which is contained in Annexure -4. Then suddenly the Respondent No. 3 issued a wireless message purporting to impose service/handling charge of Rs. 80/ - per metric tonnes from Hard Coke Manufacturing Units for despatch of coal by road with effect from 1st February, 1996, and, in this connection, a circular has been issued by the Industries and Commerce Association on 1st February, 1996, which is contained in Anncxure -5. Such wireless message demanding/imposing of extra handling/service charge, as mentioned above on that wireless massage, the petitioner's Association made a representation to withdraw the same and two decisions of this Court and affirmation of the Supreme Court had also been annexed with such representation. Annexure -6 is a copy of such representation dated 12.2.1996 but the Respondent No. 3 published its price list on 31.3.1996 (Annexure 7). Subsequently also, the grade and price list has been amended and published on 20.10.1996 by Respondent No. 3.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to levy of service/handling charges to the extent of Rs. 80/ - per matric tonnes as it has been urged that the same is in violation of the Colliery Control Order and, as such, without jurisdiction, ultra vires and void. For better appreciation in the subsequent discussion, the wordings of the wireless message as contained in Annexure -5 may be enumerated in verbatim: