1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3088/2011 ( Shree Agrawal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. .vs. W.C.L. And others. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Shri A.S. Manohar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 09, 2011 Heard respective counsel. Our attention has been invited by respondents to certain disputed facts and also Clause 11.12 of the terms and conditions of Spot e-Auction Scheme, 2007. According to respondents, there is clause for arbitration. According to Advocate Shri Manohar because of strike of transporters/truck operators at the eleventh hour i.e. on 15th and 16th June, 2011 , when petitioner’s validity period was about to expire, the petitioner could not lift the balance quantity of coal purchased by him. The learned counsel further states that the strike was because of the arbitrary decision of respondents to ban trucks more than 10 years’ old. According to Advocate Shri Mehadia, respondents have not taken any arbitrary decision and he has invited attention to chart at Annexure R-3 to 2 show that from 13.5.2011 till 4.6.2011 only three trucks were sent by the petitioner for lifting coal from Inder Mine and thus for that mine there was a backlog of more than 116 trucks. We do not find it necessary to go into all these questions. Perusal of Clause 11.12 shows that in case of any dispute , the petitioner is required to represent to General Manager (Sales & Marketing) who has to deal with it within a period of one month. Thereafter , if required the matter can be determined by the Director- in-Charge of Marketing and if thereafter any dispute survives, the same can be resolved by taking recourse to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Here petitioner has submitted three representations. The first one is 17.6.2011, second is 18.6.2011 and last one is 25.6.2011. Petition has been filed on 1.7.2011. Respondents are pointing out Clause 11.12 to object to maintainability of the petition. In this situation, we direct the General Manager (Sales & Marketing) to take appropriate decision on representations of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today . Liberty to the petitioner to proceed further in accordance with law if he is aggrieved by that determination. Advocate Shri Manohar states that looking to the nature of the controversy, petitioner be given opportunity of hearing. Advocate Shri Mehadia opposes the requests and he contends that if this Court directs any such hearing, the same should be without laying down any precedent in this respect. Looking to the 3 nature of the controversy, we direct General Manager (Sales & Marketing) to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, this direction is without laying down any precedent in this respect. With this direction and liberty, present writ petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE halwai