IAG COMPANY LIMITED Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, mainly for continuation of the supply of coal, which was suspended from 5th November, 2004 at the request of the petitioner, as per Annexure 16 to the memo of petition and, thereafter, the petitioner has already started its manufacturing process of glass etc. by new investment in this industry of approximately, 3000 lacs and the petitioner is also exporting the goods and it is paying a sizable amount of tax of approximately Rs. 50,00,000/- and approximately 900 workers are working with the petitioner and the petitioner is in search of continuation of supply of coal from respondent No. 1, which as per the order at Annexure 19 dated 21st February, 2008 has been discontinued and the respondents have refused to supply the coal, on the basis of their earlier policy.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that initially the petitioner was a working unit and thereafter, because of some lockout etc., the manufacturing process was stopped for some intervening period and, therefore, a letter was written to the respondents that the supply of coal may be suspended, which has been accepted by the respondents, as per Annexure 16 to the memo of petition dated 5th November, 2004. The letter of the respondents clearly reveals that the supply of coal has been suspended. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, thus, the linkage has not been lapsed, at all, but, the same was under suspension. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that thereafter, a sizable amount of approximately rupees three thousand laks has been invested and now the unit has been revived and is working in its full swing. It is manufacturing glasses and the products are also being exported. The total amount of tax, which the petitioner-unit is paying, is at Rs. 50,00,000/- approximately and, thus, now the respondents may be directed to supply coal at the rate of 5000 M.T. Per month, which the respondents were supplying earlier. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 26th May, 2009 it was directed by this Court that the respondents may check the petitioner-unit whether it is working or not.

(3.) It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is even ready to bear the cost of physical verification of the petitioner-unit whether the petitioner-unit is working or not. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that supply of coal is a monopoly of the respondents. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is even read and willing to enter into an agreement for supply of coal, like other similarly situated units.