ASHUTOSH INDUSTRIES Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) REFERENCE in this case may be made to the order dated 11.12.2002. The intention of the order was not to be told the technicalities or the jargon of the term "MPQ". The intention was that the BCCL should indicate as to how much coal is in a position to supply considering the fact that the petitioner had just taken its birth in the year 2000, It is nobodys case that this petitioner is fake or not a genuine entrepreneur. So many factors will have to be taken into consideration and one cannot lose sight of the economy of the new State of the Jharkhand. If an entrepreneur is forced to wind up within the archives of the definition of the word "MPQ" or such other definition which are consigned or framed by the coal company, then the very purpose for which the coal companies have been formed and the very purposes for which an entrepreneur takes linkage will be totally and completely frustrated.

(3.) AT paragraph 5 it has further been stated that against the aforementioned order a Civil Review No. 63 of 2002 was filed and by order dated 4.12.2002 while refusing to review the order, the learned single Judge has observed that the petitioner may bring the matter to the notice of the authorities or challenge it by filing a separate writ petition and in fact, if such representation is filed the respondents will look into the matter and if it is found that the Industry is a recent one, and has not lifted coal in the last three calendar years and that there was laches on the part of the authorities in supply of coal i.e. there was no fault on the part of the petitioner to lift coal, they will pass appropriate order within 15 days from the date of receipt of representation allowing the petitioner to lift coal on the basis of original linkage quantity and till the final decision is taken, the respondents will allow the petitioner to lift coal to the extent they allowed to lift coal upto May, 2002. Drawing the some analogy from the aforementioned order referred to and quoted by the respondents, this disposes off the writ application : - -