SHANTI ENDHAN THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RATISH KUMAR SINGH Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 31.7.2007/3.8.2007 and 16.10.2007 whereby the respondents have communicated two deficiencies and on the basis thereof have concluded that the petitioners unit is not established and declined to allocate linkage of coal to the petitioner. It has been stated that out of the 13 point information required for evaluating the unit as established, information furnished on 11 points with the supporting documents were found to the satisfaction of the respondents. The information on remaining two points is said to be not sufficient as it is said that the audited account submitted by the petitioner has not been signed by the petitioners authorized signatory and the sales tax A/C number of the seller of the machines installed in the petitioners unit has not been furnished. It has been stated that in the required information on 19 points, the sales tax number of the seller was not required. The information which is said to be lacking is regarding the record of the machinery purchased and installed. The petitioner has furnished the documents of purchase of the machinery. According to the petitioner, since the sales tax number of the seller of the machinery and the information on point No. 12 were not required, the respondents objection for not granting linkage is wholly arbitrary and unjust and the impugned letters pointing out the said defects and on that basis refusing the allocation of linkage of coal to the petitioner are vitiated and unsustainable.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents contesting the petitioners writ petition. It has been stated inter alia, that though the petitioner has furnished the documents of machinery purchased and installed, but the same were not acceptable. The sales tax A/C number of the seller of the machinery was not mentioned in the same. The audited account should have been signed by the petitioners authorized signatory, but the same was not so signed. For non -compliance of requirements of the said two items the petitioners unit cannot be held to be established. The petitioner is, thus, not entitled to get the supply and resumption of its linkage according to the decision of the high level Committee.

(3.) IN view of the above discussions, I find no justification and reasonableness in issuing the impugned letters refusing the petitioners request on the ground aforesaid, particularly, when the respondents were satisfied with the compliance on the 11 points out of 13 points as aforesaid. For the said reasons, the impugned letters contained in Annexures -7 and 9 are, hereby, quashed.