IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9163 of 2008 M/S AMBER FUEL INDUSTRIES Versus THE BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.& ANOTHERS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate Mr. Tej Bhadur Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. R. B. Mahto, Sr. Advocate Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Advocate 05 08.09.2008 The petitioner was required to submit certain documents for verification of its establishment. Petitioner had a linkage granted to it for supply of coal by the Central Government through Bharat Coking Coal Limited. The coal were to be received from B.C.C.L., a subsidiary of Coal India Limited and for the purposes of verifying directions were issued in the year 2004, to submit papers with regard to 19 points of query. The papers were to be covered by an affidavit in that regard. Petitioner submitted his papers, thereafter, by letter dated 6/8th of June 2007, petitioner was informed that he had to submit the papers duly attested, authenticated or notarized, which he had failed to do. He was required to submit all the papers, accordingly, again, so as to reach the Company by 30th of June 2007. Petitioner, accordingly, by speed post sent all the letters on 26th of June 2007, but, they were returned, as having being received late i.e. on 2nd of July 2007 and consequently petitioner supplies have been suspended for want of verification. Petitioner’s plea to accept the documents have not ended any return. On behalf of the respondents Sri R.B. Mahto, learned senior counsel appears and submits that as the documents were received beyond the time indicated i.e. on 2nd of July 2007, in stead of 30th of - 2 - June 2007, they were rightly rejected and such steps cannot be objected. I have considered the matter and heard the parties and in my view, the stand is completely arbitrary and out of order. It must be remembered that Bharat Coking Coal Limited is a subsidiary to Coal India Limited. Both of which enjoys monopolistic power in relation to supply of one of the most industrial raw material i.e. coal. It being a State instrumentality required to act in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution i.e. in conformity with principles of fairness and reasonableness. Regrettably, the facts noted above demonstrate total lack of fairness or reasonableness rather smacks of arbitrariness. The processes of submission of papers were started in 2004. It did not contain any requirement to submit authenticated or self-attested or notarized documents. All that was required was that the documents being covered by an affidavit in the format prescribed that was done. Now, after three years, when the points for consideration were reduced from 19 to 13, suddenly. It is pointed out as if the petitioner’s application were deficient by not complying with any requirement earlier stated, this was wrong on the face of it. As there was no earlier communication to submit documents with self-attestation, authentication or notarization. Secondly, the documents were to be submitted by 30th of June. They were sent well within the time by speed post i.e. 4 days prior, but were delivered by the postal authorities on 2nd of July. It was not a matter of judicial hearing or an examination, where they could not be accepted after the date. The respondents appeared to have forgotten that they have overriding the rights of a parties and - 3 - stoppage of coal to mean a death blow to the industry. Yet, they took technical view in the matter and returned the documents and affected the industry, as own verification and stop supply. As a matter of fact, 30th of June was a Saturday, 1st of July was Sunday, when no postal delivery should have been affected nor any meeting conducted. Deliveries were affected on Monday the 2nd of July by the postal authorities and were rejected, as noted above. This, in my view, establishes gross unfairness and arbitrariness on part of the respondents in delaying with such serious matter. The repercussions were far to reach for such a casual manner in the matter by the respondents. I have no option, but, to direct the respondents that on submission of the documents again along with a copy of the order of this Court the respondents would be obliged to reconsider the matter within a period of two months from that day and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and if found necessary for establishing existence of the unit they may be visit the unit itself. With these observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)