IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.466 of 2009 1. M/S Saheen Enterprises, a proprietorship firm having its factory at Mushari, Muzaffarpur, through its proprietor Shivnath Prasad Yadav, son of Late Anup Rai, resident of Mushari, P.S. & District- Muzaffarpur. 2. M/s Laxmi Gul Udyog, a proprietorship firm having its factory at Sibipatti, Madhubani, through its proprietor Laxmidutt Jha, son of Mahadeo Jha, resident of At & P.O. Sibipatti, P.S.-Rajnagar, District-Madhubani. 3. M/s Yadav Briquette, a proprietorship firm having its factory at Mushari, Muzaffarpur, through its proprietor Rabindra Kumar, Son of Sri Raj Kumar, resident of Rambag, P.s.- Ramna, District-Muzaffarpur. 4. M/s Yadav Enterprises, a proprietorship firm having its factory at Mushari, Muzaffarpur, through its proprietor Rambabu Rai, son of Bishuni Rai, resident of Mushari, P.S. & District- Muzaffarpur. ………. Petitioners. VERSUS 1. The Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a Subsidiary company of Coal India Ltd., Koyala Bhawan, Dhanbad through its Chairman cum Managing Director. 2. The Coal India Ltd., Coal Bhawan, 10 Neetaji Subhash Road, Kolkata through its Chairman. 3. The General Manager(Sales and Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyala Bhawan, Dhanbad. 4. Deputy Chief Sales Manager (Legal), Bharat Coking Coal Limkited, 6 Lyons Range, 5th Floor, Kolkata. 5. Deputy Chief Sales Manager (Road Sale), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyala Bhawan, Dhanbad. …….. Respondents. ----------- 03 09.02.2009 With consent of parties this writ petition has been taken up for disposal and it is being disposed of at this stage. The petitioner had a coal linkage of supply of coal through Bharat Coking Coal Limited. The said Coal Company in order to ascertain the genuiness of the unit ultimately demanded 13 point of the documents. Petitioner submitted those documents but without disclosing the deficiency therein or without noticing the petitioner or without communicating the reasons thereof petitioners’ linkage has been stopped, consequently supply of coal to the petitioner’s brick manufacturing unit has been stopped. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners not being noticed the Coal - 2 - Company could not have passed an order adverse to him as it involves civil consequences. Further, even if his papers were found inadequate or insufficient in any aspect the Coal Company was bound to disclose the same to the petitioners and on the ground petitioners had an opportunity to rectify the deficiency but could not take an ex parte decision in the matter. We need not deliberate over the matter because similar matters from this Court have already reached and had the attention of the Apex Court. The Apex Court has given liberty to the Coal Company to communicate to the petitioners the defect or the detailed reason why coal supplies are to be snapped. The petitioners on their part have been given liberty to file corroborative evidences in case there are some deficiencies. Coal Company has further been authorized to conduct the inspection where they find appropriate. The Apex Court has given two months time to the Coal Company to redecide the issue after hearing the parties and disclosing materials and reasons in this regard. Following the same, I order the Coal Company and the petitioner to act accordingly and decide and finalize the matter within two months. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned order declaring petitioner to be a non-genuine unit is set aside with the direction to the Coal Company to reconsider the matter. The writ petition is allowed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)