1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMP PETITION NO. 20 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5030/2003 (M/s Anup Silico Magnets Industries Vs. Shri Arun Sinha, General Manager & anr.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 17 th APRIL, 2008. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was called for final hearing yesterday. This Court had, therefore, heard Shri Mehadia, the learned counsel for the respondents, and had, however, fixed the matter for today for orders, so as to secure the presence of the counsel for the petitioner. Today also, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, I have heard Shri Mehadia the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 5030/2003 for direction to the respondents to take action on the applications of the petitioner dated 19/2/2002 and 22/4/2003, within a period of 15 days from the date of the order of this Court. The writ petition came up for hearing before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 7th December, 2004 disposed of the petition in 2 the following terms: “Rule, returnable forthwith by consent of parties. By consensus between both the parties respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the prevailing Scheme, more particularly the Scheme which is said to have been framed on 1st January 2004. With the aforesaid direction, petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner for taking action against the respondent for committing willful contempt of the directions of the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 7/12/2004. It is averred in the petition that the Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the prevailing Scheme framed on 1/1/2004 in view of the consensus between the parties. It is further averred by the petitioner that the respondents are refusing to consider the case of the petitioner under the Scheme of 1/1/2004 and, therefore, it is a clear case of willful breach of direction of the order passed by the Division Bench. It is pleaded by the petitioner that the respondents refused to consider the case of the petitioner on the pretext that the Coal Linkage was not given to the petitioner, but Coal Clearance was given to the petitioner and, therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered under the 3 Scheme/guidelines dated 1/1/2004 which are followed by the respondents. Shri Mehadia, the learned counsel for the respondents, relied on the reply filed on behalf of the respondents to point out that the respondents have always respected the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court and they have not committed any contempt of the order passed by the High Court on 7/12/2004. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the application of the petitioner was duly considered by the respondent no.1 in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme as well as guidelines dated 1/1/2004. It is further pointed out on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was not having any linkage and was only granted provisional clearance which was subject to certain conditions. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that in view of the failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the conditions, the provisional clearance stood automatically cancelled and at no point of time, any linkage was granted to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, according to the counsel for the respondents, case of the petitioner did not fall within the Scheme/letter dated 1/1/2004 issued by the Ministry of Coal. It is lastly submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Coal Linkage and Coal Clearance are two different things and merely because Coal Clearance 4 is provisionally granted subject to certain conditions, it does not mean that the Coal Linkage is granted to the petitioner. I have thoughtfully considered the averments made in the petition, the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 7/12/2004 in Writ Petition No. 5030/2003 and the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. On perusal of the prayer clause (i) of Writ Petition No. 5030/2003, it is clear that the petitioner had sought a direction against the respondents to issue Coal Clearance/Linkage Advise Letter in accordance with the requirement of the petitioner to run its industrial unit. In view of the consensus between both the parties to the petition, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the prevailing scheme, more particularly, the scheme which was framed on 1/1/2004. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner could not be considered under the Scheme dated 1/1/2004 as the petitioner did not have Coal Linkage which was a condition precedent for application of the Scheme. I have also perused the communication issued by the Chief General Manager (M), Coal India Ltd. on 16/1/1998 to the petitioner, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the respondents. It appears from the above mentioned 5 communication at page 16, on which the petitioner relies to show that there was a Linkage Advise in favour of the petitioner, that it was said in the communication that the supplies of coal would be effected only on issuance of Linkage Advise Letter subject to condition. In view of the aforesaid position, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed contempt of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 7/12/2004, by not granting the benefits of the Scheme dated 1/1/2004. The respondents were merely directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the prevalent scheme and the respondents have considered the case and found that the scheme could not apply to the case of the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, it is clear that there is no cause to continue with the contempt proceedings filed against the respondents. Contempt proceedings are, therefore, dropped. Contempt petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP