IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 9585 of 2008 M/S SWARNREKHA COKES & COALS (P) LIMITED Versus COAL INDIA LIMITED & ORS ----------- 4 08.09.2008 The petitioner was granted linkage for receiving coal by the Central Government. As per Central Government, the same was to be supplied through Bharat Coking Coal Limited. As the numbers of units enjoying such linkage suddenly swell up, Bharat Coking Coal Limited started a process of verification. By its notice dated 30.11.2004 (Annexure-4), it directed all such consumers including petitioner to submit papers in respect of 19 items duly supported by affidavit in response to which petitioner submitted his documents. He was then informed that some of the documents were not submitted as required by communication dated 20.05.2005 (Annexure-5). Subsequently the 19 points, on which response was sought for, was curtailed to 13 points and thereafter by letter dated 06/08 June 2007, petitioner was informed that none of the documents were authenticated or attested or notarized and, as such, petitioner was directed to submit the same by 30th of June 2007. The petitioner, with his explanation, submitted all the documents by post posting it on the 28th of June 2007 by registered post from Jamshedpur. He, thereafter, visited the office of the Company on the 03rd of July 2007 where he was told that the postal authorities delivered the documents to the respondents on the second of July 2007 which was returned to the petitioner and received by him on the 12th of July 2007. He, accordingly, protested in the matter but in the meantime, the coal 2 supplies were suspended and inspite of several representations, they have not since been resumed. On behalf of respondents, Shri R B Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appears and submits that as the document reached the Coal Company late that is later on 30.06.2007, they were not taken into consideration and returned. The action could not be questioned. Having considered the matter, in my opinion, the actions are apparently quite arbitrary. It must be kept in mind that the respondent- Coal Company is a State instrumentality and dealing with rights of industry to receive coal supplies from a monopolistic body. Their actions have to be in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India that is it must satisfy the test of reasonableness and fairness. In my view, the present case was not a judicial decision or a judicial proceeding but merely a step for verification of a unit. The process was started in 2004 wherein only documents with affidavit were required to be submitted. Now suddenly in 2007, for the first time, it is being said that each document had to be attested, notarized or self-authenticated which was never a requirement originally specified. It is, in response to that, petitioner was required to resubmit the document. The Coal Company took over three years to respond in such a new manner and then if the petitioner, though dispatched the documents within time, it reached the Coal Company two days late, it had the impertinence to reject the whole and send it back which obviously smacks of arbitrariness. They forget that by this action they are depriving an industry of its sole raw material. This Court cannot countenance such 3 high handed attitude of a monopolistic State entity. It is, thus, directed, that the petitioner should resubmit the documents and the respondents would be obliged to reconsider the same and take necessary decision in accordance with law. It would be open to the respondent-Coal Company to visit the factory in case of any doubt, as the only purpose this verification is seeking to achieve, is existence of the factory. The Coal Company must conclude the enquiry and take a formal decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within two months from the date of filing of a copy of this order of this Court passed today alongwith the documents as required duly submitted. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)