BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED Vs. MITHILA COAL SUPPLIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTEDLY , respondents no.1 to 8 were appointed coal handling agents by the State Government. Soft coal was allotted to them by the appellant. They deposited full price of the soft coal as per allotment order through bank draft which was received by the appellant. The entire quantity of price paid soft coal was not released to the respondents and as such the respondents filed C.W.J.C. No. 3555 of 1996(R) for issue of a direction to the appellant to release the soft coal for which price of the coal has already been deposited and received by the appellant. A single Bench of this court, after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to release the soft coal to the respondents for which price has already been deposited by judgment and order dated 18.9.1997 which has been impugned in this letter patent appeal.

(2.) IT appears from the judgment and order that the court has taken into consideration that the respondents were appointed coal handling agents by the State Government. They were allotted soft coal by the appellant and they deposited the full price of the coal allotted to them. In similar situation, different writ petitions were filed and were disposed of directing to release value paid soft coal to the coal handling agents. The court has also taken into consideration that in similar situation C.W.J.C. No. 2976 of 1996(R) was filed which was allowed on 29.11.1996 directing to release soft coal to the extent the price has already been paid as per the allotment order. The Coal India Limited on consideration of the judgment passed in the above mentioned writ petition directed the coal company to release the value paid coal to the coal handling agents vide order dated 4.8.1997. The court, on consideration of the case of the parties and as discussed above, allowed the writ petition and directed to release the soft coal to the respondents.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, however, pointed out that the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board has issued prohibitory order of production/manufacture of soft coal, annexure 5, and as such the appellant is not in a position to release value paid soft coal. The court considered the question raised by the counsel for the appellant and negatived the submission. Annexure 5 to the present appeal was annexure ˜E in the writ petition. From perusal of annexure 5 it appears that the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board informed the Chairman -cum -Managing Director' of the appellant that some of the coal manufacturing units names of which have been mentioned in the said letter are not following the technology supplied by the C.F.R.I. for production of soft coal and as such the appellant was requested to suspend the supply of the coal to all those units whose names are mentioned in the said letter, annexure 5 till they submit bank guarantee and comply strictly with the conditions imposed by the Pollution Control Board for the purpose of manufacturing soft coal. The name of the appellant was not in the said list and as such contention of the appellant has no substance at all and also we do riot find anything wrong in the finding recorded by a 'Bench of this court.'