BASUDHA YUDYOG Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The petitioner M/s. Basudha Yudyog, owned by Basudha Construction (India) Pvt. Limited, having its registered unit under the Small Scale Industries, which is engaged in production of special quantity of hard coke and for that purpose getting supply of S.T.L. - II coking coal from the respondent Bharat Coking Coal Limited, in short (B.C.C.L.), pursuant to the release order issued by the Coal Controller, Calcutta, has prayed for a direction to the respondent B.C.C.L. either to refund the excess amount paid against the supply of S.T.L - II coking coal by the respondents at the higher rate till March, 1996 and/or to adjust the said excess amount against future supply of the coal to the petitioner.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the case of the petitioner is that the said quality of coal was being supplied to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 895/ - per metric tonnes besides other taxes till 10th January, 1996, as it appears from the Sale Order dated 10.1.96, copy of which is made Annexure -3 to this writ application. It is alleged that from February, 1996 onwards the respondents have stopped the supply of the coal, in question, to the petitioner. The reason for non -supply of the said quality of coal to the petitioner was due to increase of the price from Rs. 895/ - to Rs. 1400/ - per metric tonnes and, accordingly, the coal was supplied to the petitioner at the increased rate of Rs. 1400/ - per metric tonnes besides other taxes till March, 1996, which is evident from the various documents as Annexure -4 series to the writ application. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the said quality of coal is being supplied to other consumer, namely, Kalinga Iron Works, at the basic rate of Rs. 895/ - per metric tonnes. It is alleged that the respondents could not have charged the increased rate from the petitioner till 31st May, 1996 when the price of the coal was increased by the competent authority, prior to that, the respondent B.C.C.L., has no authority to charge the increased price and, as such, the petitioner is entitled for refund of the excess amount paid by it and/or to be adjusted against the supply of doal in future.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent B.C.C.L. has no authority to increase the price of coal ignoring the price fixed by the Central Government in the Ministry of Coal. No separate price has .been fixed by the Central Government for coal, namely, processed prime coking coal. Such quality of coal is processed by the B.C.C.L. itself and supplied to the various consumers at the in'creased price raised by the B.C.C.L. itself without prior permission from the Central Government, which is the competent authority under the Colliery Control Order. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the coal which has been supplied to the petitioner from the month of January, 1996 and onwards was of better quality known as processed prime coking coal and the coal supplied to the petitioner, namely, Steel II ROM, is of inferior quality in comparison with the processed prime coking coal. It is submitted that once the coal is processed and benefication is done, it gives uniformity in size and reduces ash range and the said coal is commonly , known as processed prime coking coal, the price of which had been increased by the respondent B.C.C.L. at the rate of Rs. 1400/ - per metric tonnes. According to the iearned counsel the petitioner is not being discriminated in supply of coal at the increased rate, inasmuch as, the other consumers are charged the same increased rate of supply of the processed prime coking coal.